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 i'll 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 he's 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 don't think there's 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 paral

. >> thank you mr. eagan. and just to my colleague supervisor safai, i mean san francisco and many -- most, all municipalities in the state of california because of changes to the state constitution are fee-driven. and because of the nolan decision and other decisions and the mitigation fee act a nexus study is required. so the nexus study clearly established a much higher nexus than what is being proposed by supervisor haney. that is satisfying a legal nexus requirement pursuant to the law which has nothing to do with eps's study and findings of what is fiscally feasible. >> that was kind of my point. i just wanted to get it on the record. because the economist looks at pure numbers. the nexus study looks at kind of variables that can make an argument. but they are not necessarily backed up by economics. and so just trying to get to a happy medium. i know that supervisor haney is not proposes what the nexus study did. >> if it keeps ongoing i might. >> before we go to public comment supervisor haney said earl

eagan. thank you so much and mr. chairman, i yield back my time. >> thank you. mr. bolerson for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. elwell, and i will direct my question to you and the workforce development is something that's very important, but what is thes f faa -- i kno there's extreme shortage for the pilot projecting there will be 790,000 pilots short by 2037. so what are you all doing for that pipeline? >> thank you for that question. as i referenced, the workforce summit. i think in the day-long summit we had maybe five different. panels that covered the gamut. we do anticipate a pilot shortage in the coming decade. it's not just pilots and it's all of the technical field. if a sector and it's not the mandate of the faa to ensure a large population, a shrinking pilot is not good for the system and not -- we are enforcing's workforce task group in the faa and women in of a yag, for instance, the owner and the alphabet groups that represent interests in our sector. the air force junior rotc, they came to the faa and said we're trying to do a program where we take