Praying always that there should be an implementation for this. Thank you. And congratulations to all of us. Thank you for your testimony. Next speaker, please. Mr. Peterson. Thank you. Good evening supervisors. My name is christopher peterson. I strongly support finding new sources of revenue to fund Affordable Housing. Sounds like a substantial increase and this fee is appropriate. Im agnostic about what the exact amount should be. But i do think theres one factor that i havent heard discussed in this process. That its important for this and should be just a routine component of the analysis of other similar significant measures, which is Climate Change. This proposed fee increase potentially could play a beneficial role in the citys response for example by increasing supply of Affordable Housing in the city. It could potentially have negative consequences if its driving Office Developments to more automobileoriented areas areas that have more extreme climates that have Greater Energy demands. So, it can play out in different ways. And i think for this proposed ordinance and other similar kinds of actions the city really should be explicitly engaging in analysis of the complicated ways in which these kinds of measures can affect the citys Climate Change response. Thank you. Thank you sir. Next speaker please. Thank you supervisors. John calvin here. We represent a number of Office Project sponsors throughout the city. Just wanted to make a couple points. The committee got into this earlier the fact that the feasibility document really is a legal document, not a policy document. Again the supervisors, you are aware of this already. You mean the nexus document is the legal document the feasibility document is not. Thank you supervisor peskin. I appreciate that. In that it makes an assumption that all of the workers that are going to fill these new jobs in Office Development live in the of San Francisco. Now, this is based on a 1987 law, the mitigation fee act, as well as Court Decisions since then. It is a legal limit as to what a city is legally allowed to increase. Because of course it wouldnt make any sense to mitigate beyond what the actual impact within the citys borders are. So it checks the legal box but it doesnt speak to the issue of feasibility. Its not a practical reality. We know all these people are not going to be living in San Francisco. And its not something we want to achieve. This is a regional economy. This is a regional you are focused on regional transit. We dont want everyone working and living necessarily in the same city. And because we are sitting on the highest density transit probably in the country, it makes sense that we are depending on the entire region. And because of a lot thats going on with the state, we have more tools to make that more equitable from city to city. So really the key is here and supervisor haney to your credit, the reason we are talking about a 40 fee and not 200 fee is feasibility is the key. And there are trade offs in terms of increasing this fee and resulting in any feasibility, which is that there is an Office Crisis right now too. We have nonprofits that cant find space in the city Small Businesses professional services moving out of the city so there are consequences both ways. And thats why we appreciate the amendments. We appreciate some additional time to consider this to make sure we get the numbers right. So thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is maya and i work at the counsel of Community Housing organizations. I shared this story earlier at the rally before the hearings. I wanted to share it again. So before i started working at the the counsel i was offered a job after college at a Public Relations firm on Market Street downtown. It was a good first job. But i couldnt find an affordable place to live. I was so desperate that i ended up moving into a place in chinatown where i was paying more than half of my income per month in rent. I lived with seven other people in a 10 by 10 closet with no windows but a shaft. And i was eating unhealthy because i was buying microwaved food to save money. And i was really barely hanging on. The reason i stayed is because i didnt want to leave the city. And i really wanted to make a place for myself here. And i know i was fortunate and the reality is that so many people cant even afford any place to live. But its important to recognize that this Affordable Housing shortage affects people of all walks of life, even everyday workers in the downtown like i was, and so many others. And people are choosing to live in unhealthy situations because thats all they can find. So i choose San Francisco. And i want others to get the chance to choose San Francisco too and find work here and be part of this Community Without having to sacrifice their health or their stability because of a lack of Affordable Housing. So please support supervisor haneys legislation. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, supervisors. With the counsel of Community Housing organizations. The report that is part of this discussion that supervisor mar had done had a list of new jobs created in San Francisco between 2010 and 2017. I want you to picture some of those workers. Ill name a few. Software developers. You picture software developer. How about a personal and Domestic Worker . How about a Food Service Worker . Since 2010, the city brought in 16,000 new or 13,000 new Software Developers, 26,000 new personal and Domestic Workers. 7,000 new federal Service WorkersFood Service Workers. The previous speaker said workers dont have to all live in the city. And the previous speaker said we dont want all workers to live in the city. But the report showed that we, the economy of San Francisco want Software Developers to live in the city, because they can afford it. And we, the economy of San Francisco does not want Domestic Workers to live in the city and does not want Food Service Workers to live in the city and doesnt want our uber and lyft drivers to live in the city and doesnt want our social Service Workers to live in the city and doesnt want our repair and maintenance workers to live in the city, doesnt want our construction workers to live in the city where they work. That is why we need this legislation. That is why we need this fee. And thats why we need to have it passed as quickly as possible so we can start housing our workers. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who would like to speak to item 6 and or 7 . Seeing none, well close Public Comment. I want to thank all the individuals who came out for Public Comment and thank the budget analyst and supervisor mar for the earlier presentation as well as supervisor haney. And before i turn it over to supervisor haney, i would like to make a few highlevel observations. One of them is that this reminds me a little bit of the inclusionary housing conversation that we had a few years ago. So at the dawn of the 20th century, then supervisor leto created the first inclusionary housing law at 10 percent for onsite below market rate units on the condo side and the apartment side at 10 percent. And that was meant to be a dynamic law. And it changed over time as Market Conditions changed. And as i said like a broken record, the city and its leaders, i would like to blame myself because i made many mistakes, but i was not on the board at that time. And the mayor at that time went and the number and charter and gave it a 20 percent haircut which may have been the right thing to do because it was in the middle of the great recession. But it stayed at that rate in the charter and could not be changed by the board of supervisors. And when i first got elected in 2015, we went to the voters and took it out and we now have the dynamic not static inclusionary law that we have today. And supervisor safai and then supervisor breed and supervisor kim and i with expert advice, like the kind of advice that comes from ted eagan whether he had depicted his slides in language we like or not, all came together and did something that allowed new Housing Starts with what we believe is the maximum feasible amount of inclusionary housing. But there was a huge fight around that. And the fight was that between 2012 when that got in the charter and 2016 when we finally changed the law, there were a bunch of developers who got a huge, huge gift. And the same thing is true here. Now, not all those developers are still in town. But the reality is between 1997, at the height of the office boom through today and by the way, i have sat down with a bunch of developers Office Developers, and none of them are screaming bloody murder at the rates that supervisor haney has proposed. They may scream bloody murder if our Economic Cycle cycles down, and it will inevitably cycle down. But none of them are screaming bloody murder about it. And a lot of them got away with murder. They made huge profits huge profits, because we should have actually indexed that fee in 1997 and done subsequent nexus studies along the way. And we would have a lot more Affordable Housing to show for it in the same way that an inclusionary, we missed the boat on thousands of units of more Affordable Housing. And so as i wrestle with this, because i actually am worried about not raising it to a point where new office starts become infeasible. So for the sweet spot i think its very important and giving the market some predictability and stability is also important. Because when the market can plan for it, which is exactly what we did in inclusionary. In inclusionary we actually said, hey everybody, we are not going to mess with this every year. We are going to actually give you something that you and the market as market rate Housing Developers are going to be able to predict over time. And by the way if theres a huge economic downturn, we can adjust accordingly and appropriately. I think that is the model that is right for all fees where you are trying to mitigate an impact and where people have to pay their fair share. But it should be understood that a huge amount of money has been made. I was given my friend carl shannon a long time but let me tell you, tissueman is still in this market because tishman has done well at infinity and other buildings. And theyre going to do well in the market as are the other big five market developers. Oz of today it has been crickets. I defy supervisor safai and supervisor haney and supervisor mar. Im a pretty accessible supervisor. I have heard virtually nothing until today about requests for continuance. And lets be real, this was introduced in may. I dont think many Office Developers with a straight face can say that this is too high. And i do want to say relative to what supervisor haney has introduced in terms of phasing things in and giving that level of stability and predictability that he has met folks halfway. So and let me just say if it turns out that nobody is building new office, we can adjust accordingly. But as mr. Eagan said instead of building 500,000 square feet, you are going to build 350,000 square feet a year. That somehow is not the end of the world for me. So with that ill turn it over to supervisor haney. Supervisor safai. You want to go last, right . Okay. So i want to just add on a little bit to what supervisor peskin has said. And first i want to start by saying i really appreciate supervisor haney bringing this conversation forward and the amendments and focuses that hes made in terms of how this money would be spent, focusing on acquisition of rental housing, focusing on small sites and raising the cap on that. Focusing on Supportive Housing for the first time. These are all really really important things. I dont think theres disagreement at all with anybody in this room or even the full board that the fee should be increased. I think the conversation now is really about, and i appreciate supervisor peskin referencing the inclusionary housing. Because i think it is a great parallel. We had not updated that, supervisor, i think in 15 years. Is that correct . Yeah. So the inclusionary housing. So about 15 years. And there had been conversations and gone to the ballot. And they had made some adjustments on that. But we had not essentially made significant updates to that for about 15 years. And we spent about almost a year, theres some members in the room that worked on that with us. We had multiple conversations. We had the controller and ted eagans group in there and Community Organizations and representatives from lay bore and members of the board. There was a diverse Cross Section of people. And i think it took us almost a year to get that done. And there was a significant amount of continuances and amendments made. And i think in the end we got it right to the point where that number goes up and we have the ability to readjust. I think that what i still feel a little uncomfortable with here is the level of analysis thats done in terms of what actually is feasible. And as supervisor peskin said, a little bit worried about a number that goes up that does not necessarily correlate into new Office Development then and hence does not correlate into new jobs housing and linkage fees that then go into Affordable Housing. So im a little concerned about that. I do appreciate what supervisor haney has done where theres a tiered system. But when i hear from some of the larger groups in the room but also the Planning Department the Planning Department had made a recommendation at just under 39 in terms of where they thought the number should go to. So i still think theres and i think supervisor haney i understand kateed indicated the only group we did hear from in advance was the building trades. There was concerns from organized labor. But youre right in terms of significant outreach, it was not a significant amount done prior to today. But there was a good chorus of people that asked for a small continuance. I also want to say positively those groups have said on the record that they are open to the fee the number going up. And they believe it should go up. And i think thats a positive sign. So im a little bit concerned about the final number. But i am 100 percent in support of raising that number. And im 100 percent in support of raising the number to create more Affordable Housing. Thank you supervisor safai. Before i hand it over to supervisor haney is there anything you want to say . You are sitting there like you want to Say Something. Youve been here all evening. We know that your Commission Recommended this to us unanimously. That has been mentioned repeatedly, which is actually interesting because you have a commission that you are leading that has members who are pointed by different members and different board president s and they support supervisor haneys legislation on i think it was a 6 to 0 vote. But the floor is yours. Sorry for the pained face. Its been a couple hours sitting in wooden chairs. I wanted to clarify the commission did hear this and recommend to vote approval. The departments position is for approval even though staff originally recommended for the 39. So our official position is from. Can you talk about that . We havent gotten that on the record . No, its all in the record. It is right here until the. And staffs recommendation is clear. And the commissions recommendation to this body is clear. But for supervisor safai who may have not read the fine print. He just said it. He said staff recommended 39 but they readjusted their position and now support the commission. I just want to make that clear. But what was the basis for your original 39 . We based it on the feasibility study, make sure i get the term right which had that as the number, and thats part of our. This is a perfect segue. Do you have anything else you want to say . I dont want to cut you off. Thank you for putting that on the record, mr. Star. I want to Say Something about the eps report. And i know eps and i respect them, i respect kaiser who did the nexus report. But i have to say is you read these reports and look at the different models, i would say this to Department Heads who come here, and they show us their performance metrics during the budget season. And it turns out that the metric is we are going to answer all of our 911 calls within x seconds, y percent of the time. And they tell you that they perfectly hit it at 90 percent. Not 91 percent, not 93 percent. And you know that the number is made up. Okay . So when eps says the sweet spot, after all this analysis and all these pages of all these