One of several housing bills approved by the state Legislature Earlier this month. This bill, sponsored by senators , mandates many elements in the planning process and forces by right approval for many projects. It has been amended many times. I have given up on trying to read it, and understand it. Your work here looks like, you know, planning for dummies, so clear, so understandable when compared to the state legislature and the bills. It is unbelievable. I am asking you to help us understand what this means for the city of San Francisco . Ive had to appeal on planning of projects, that have been proposed. I have worked with other neighbors who have wanted to help shape a project where there is elements that are impacting them personally. I know you see these every week, and i appreciate the time you take to listen to these, and resolve them. If we are subject to very mandatory deadlines and no slippage, we will not be able to, i think, achieve the compromises and changes that are so desperately needed when these projects come forward. There is a lot of other things that i believe impact San Francisco that are going to be higher value impacts, and have more systemic changes in our city. Im not going to go into them. This bill is beyond me, and that scares me. I would ask you to have planning update what they have done. They do excellent work and we would love to see, and i will eagerly await reading this impact of sb330. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I have handouts. I am here ask the officers to please set the hearing date at november 21. If you have the advanced calendar, which i had, it shows planning november 7. A lot of cases on it already. Staff has told me they are going to put it on the seventh. But, we have never had an honest hearing on the academy of art. We have had academy of art hearings, particularly at the Planning Commission level. They never filed a master plan. They were required to do so. Now that hillis is off the commission, we have two Planning Commissioners who sat through the e. I. R. On the academy of art. Commissioners moore and commissioner richards. The rest of you came on to have a bunch of other hearings. We have five new hearings, five new commissioners. The planning director the Planning Commission should respect to the public enough. There has been no hearings, no outreach at all, for the impaired length of this project coming through. Here is my own list of when the academy of arts starts. They have 43 sites right now. The overhead is really screwed up, it doesnt show the entire page. But, they have been required to file the institutional master plan in 1991 every Single Housing building has been acquired after they were required to file. The Planning Department staff has not had the hearings that you had. You conducted hearings for central soma, 3333 california. You conducted them for all of the sites [inaudible] you have another case coming up today. I am asking for a couple of things. One, set the date at november 21. Two, require every report to be available in month in advance. There is thousands of pages of documents, and even commissioners have not seen them. Three, staff reports, three weeks in advance. It is respectful of the public, what is happening above the academy of arts, dealing with. [inaudible] we need a hearing that basically allows the public. [bell ringing] to speak. I have written comments for the record that ask that they be submitted to the mayor. I wish i was more coherent. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. I just want to followup on actually this state bills issue. Because i am not aware of precisely what the charge that commissioner richards submitted. I do want to say that we have had prior conversations, but we are very concerned about what impact bills 330 are going to have it in our Community Stabilization programs. We know 330 disrupts two of our Mission Action plans 2020 stabilization programs, in the way we currently conduct business, often working with meetings, or for example we know it disrupts the way, that quatro build out their Design Guidelines coming through. For the new cultural expansion, is now disrupted and needs to have an entirely different framework. But we would ask of the commission is can we please have a charge forward to make sure we are iodine things that are also specifically, and immediately, disruptive. The department is putting in a plan. That is only the mission, right . I dont know how many things are disrupted in other neighborhoods. Can we put a charge in place that we are assessing quickly, and put equitable discretion back in place in different areas. We know you are going to have less say some of these bills start to roll through. Is there still a mechanism that puts back in place, the equitable discretion. Maybe starting with our Community Stabilization programs a quick action plan so we dont lose ground while we shift gears. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. I echo carolyn kennedys concerns about sb330 which is on the governors desk. Especially in concerning the impacts to tenants. What i read is that tenants will be asked to leave six months prior to the developer beginning a project. They will have very little relocation benefits. They will be allowed to return, whenever that will be at a socalled affordable rate. I would like to know more about the impacts. This seems like a recipe for tenant displacement. Thank you. Next speaker, please. With that, Public Comment is next now close. Commissioner richards . Two things. An issue just came up again, and yet again another house. We still do not have a definition on demolition. Going on Public Record to request supervisor mandleman to do controls to stop [inaudible] we need to have everyone of those come here. I am so sick of seeing this. Two, sb330 passed by one vote. Its at the governors desk. Why am concerned about how it affects tenants, as we have become the backup rent board here. When landlords want to use constructions to update tenants. We actually stop them. These are the kinds of things that i need in terms of the actual impact of what this bill does. Not skipping five hearings, we dont have any discretion anymore, Planning Commission, to do the right thing. Thank you, commissioner moore i have a question for the city attorney. You dont have to answer, if its too provocative. We see a lot of actions from the federal government, towards the state of california, and towards states in the united states. My question is, is any city entertaining or discussing with each other, including sacramento kate stacy from the city attorneys office. Commissioner moore, you are aware that our office has worked independently, and with many other cities and counties in the country to sue the federal government on various programs that have been initiated. I cant comment on whether we are considering suing the state, but the city has certainly done that, in the distant past. The reason why i am asking, if some of the consequences of sb330 are indeed coming down in a way that the public fears, that may be an interpretation and i think the city cares. For that reason it is a self protective measure that some cities may have to consider that kind of step. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners, briefly on the point of sb330, commissioner richard you mentioned earlier in the hearing, that there was a report on that and what it would mean for San Francisco sometime time ago. There havent been complex amendments to that. We are in the process of updating that memo with something that will hopefully provide greater clarity for all of us on what sb330 will mean and how it will Impact Review for the city. Thank you, mr. Snyder. If theres nothing further, we can move on to your regular calendar for item nine 2019003627pca, for the south of market Planning Community advisory committee. These are planning code and administrate of code amendments. [please stand by] the south of market Planning Community advising community and amend provisions for the citizens advisory committee. We have engaged both the Soma Stabilization Fund as well as the eastern neighborhood in several meetings and received their input to make sure their voices were heard throughout the entire process. We work closely with planning as well to consider the amendments before you today. Since the current sitting members were closest to the issues within their respective grants we will incorporate their feedback as we move forward. We honor those amendments and believe the version before you incorporates that feedback. Some proposed modifications raised by planning in the composition of the membership regarding residency status and seat requirements were addressed and will be incorporated with the Planning Department. Thank you so much. Thank you. I have a couple slides to guide us through the legislation. The first is looking at the map of the existing jurisdiction of the eastern neighborhoods cac. This is five area plans comprised of these neighborhoods 2200acres, and, of course, is the location of a very significant portion of the new development in the city. I should also mention separate from that, we have a soma stabilization cac and to remind you that cac is charged with helping to Program Funds from the Soma Stabilization Fund. This was created as part of the hill plan to specifically address or mitigate impacts of that High Residential density on the neighboring soma neighborhood. The cacs would be divided in two. The new cac has jurisdiction over soma with the three area plans in that. The eastern neighborhoods jurisdiction would be reduced geographically to the mission showplace and the Central Waterfront plans. I have the next couple charts i wont go into every single cell in these charts. I will provide overview and highlight the aspects of these different cacs. South of market it would be 11 members, of which seven would be appointed by supervisor and nominated by the district 6 supervisor. The legislation requires some more specificity as into areas of expertise. There are seven areas required. Planning has suggestions on amending the ordinance before you. I will go over that at the end of my presentation. The Supervisors Office is in support of those changes. The revenue for the new cac they would prioritize projects from revenue from the eastern neighborhood fee for that portion from south of market, but also they would have a couple new sources available to them for project identification, specifically the new central soma infrastructure fee and the Community Finance district taxes also created from the central soma plan. As such, some of the types of Infrastructure Projects to prioritize would include those always coming to you and reporting on the other area plans do, but would also have additional types of projects in which they could identify projects for in the areas including cultural and Historic Preservation and environmental stability and resilience. The duty would be similar to eastern neighborhoods. This does enumerate some of the duty to provide input on proposals private and city owned. They could provide input on open space. They would also, of course, have a hand in helping coordinate with the soma stabilization cac since they have similar geographic boundaries. The eastern neighborhood cac would remain as it is. The membership would beeryduced from reduced from 19 to 11 members. It would have the same duties to help Program Projects for impact fee spending. This legislation does include text amendments proposed by the cac members just regarding sort of the how their recommendations are provided to the city and to epic and how they would be reflected back, also a little bit more expanded jurisdiction over in kind monitoring as well. The soma stabilization cac would similarly remain as it is. It would include seven members, expertise would be expanded to include a member with expertise in youth organizations. Because funds from the central Soma Community facility fee, which is a new fee created along with the cfd revenue would be provided for input on how to spend and per the central soma Public Benefits program. Some duties would be expanded to provide input on possible Infrastructure Projects around the Community Facilities they would have a more formal relationship with those agencies and coordination with the newly created soma cac. This concludes my presentation along with myself and abbey, josh is here to answer any questions about central soma along with claudine, the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development staff and staffs the soma stabilization cac. Thank you very much. I see supervisor haney here. Did you want to say a few words . Okay. We will open up this item for Public Comment. I dont have any speaker cards, but please come on up. Afternoon, we have been waiting down the hall. I am john. Funny wrapping up the central soma plan. It is a year after you voted to send it out. We are now getting through the important details, and the cac is one of them. You may be aware we are wrapping up the legal matters right now this week actually. I think, you know, we are in the final phase of getting this altogether, and this the cac is an Important Community public process component we always wanted supervisor kim introduced it and they have been supportive and worked hard to get it to here. In case you are wondering how the two different cacs work. Stabilization fund is a grantmaking body working with mocd with the Stabilization Fund that came from the hill. Based on that rezoning over 10 years ago. That grant making and monitoring responsibility takes work and is very important. They largely focus on Human Services in the neighborhood. The new cac will be the classic planning focused type body planning and development issues. It is monitored. I had experience with the redevelopment project area committees which had a comparable role. South of market provided constructive engagement with the then Redevelopment Agency for the south of Market Redevelopment area. I think that the two are definitely will be closely related but have very distinctive roles, and each one will be a fulltime job. I certainly hope the amendments proposed are good. They are practical amendments to make things work better. We definitely urge you to proceed to support this today, and the board will finish the job next month. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners and future supervisors. I am allen simpson, the current chair of the Soma Stabilization Fund cac, and i have had the honor to serve for a little over eight or nine years now. I want to talk about the accomplishments of the cac. I am proud of our community and community process. We have gotten a lot done in the 13 years since the Stabilization Fund was created. As you know it was created to represent the voices of our south of market families, residents, nonprofit organizations, Cultural Workers in making decisions how we spend the funds to make sure that we do remain in this community that we are deeply rooted in. Highlights of our work include seed funding for bishop Housing Project which to this date placed more than 400 households in homes. We piloted the first small size acquisition project and save would a couple of families there that were living in a house that was about to get evicted. We funded development of a new Child Care Center at transbay terminal. We had funding to create and to administer the Soma Community action grants, which are these amazing mini grants that our neighborhoods can actually apply for to really create and nurture our cohesiveness in our community through different events. We also had seed planting money for the cultural district. Then also, the acquisition of the building for united players clubhouse. We are so happy to help them find a home and own their place and their stake in the neighborhood. We introduced and funded a trauma system over at Betsy Carmichael schools. I urge you all to have this go through. Our process has been working. Our Community Voices have been heard so i urge you to do the right thing and push it forward. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners, i am Heather Phillips on the eastern neighborhood cac. I am part of Soma Community for the last 16 years, and i am just so excited to see the work between the community, Supervisors Office and planning staff to come together to look at what it takes to really direct these funds well to make sure there is Community Voice and appropriate accountability, and i really think the plan in front of you really looks at all of those factors and pushes forward a cac that is going to be representative of the community, going to make sure there is Community Voice in the Infrastructure Improvements in our district. We hope that you will move in forward today. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, Planning Commissioners. I am with you nighted player united players. I am in support. I am excited to continue the work of the fund. It was unprecedented the developer fees would stay in the community they were impacting. We are excited to see this work continue. Soma has unfairly borne the brunt of the development and the results doesnt always come back to the neighborhood. We are excited to move forward. We were able to purchase our youth center and so not only what that does for our young people and families is huge but just for us as an organization to help us grow and meet the needs our families have. We are stable. We dont have to worry about displacement and the things in the young peoples lives that are in crisis. The last thing they need are the nonprofits to be in crisis. We are looking for the fees to support the neighborhood as it continues to change. We look forward to it. We urge you to support this. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. Connie ford. I served on this cac stabilization since the beginning of time, not quite that long but since 2005. We came together as a community with our different sectors and represented the five best to represent the soma people as we could. I am really proud of this committee. I have serve would on a lot of nonfunctioning committees in my life, and this is inunctionsing committee. We work together, listen to the community. We are from the community and we have done great things for the community. My granddaughter goes to Betsy Carmichael. I was part of the movement to put a stop sign right there to help us cross the street and all of the children. Those are the tangible things, aside from, you know, being able to serve the culture and move it forward. I am really proud. I am still on that cac and probably will be for a little bit longer. Please help us continue our work. We are glad we have almost spent most of the hill money and we are going to get some other money to continue to move forward to support the community in an area that needs support because of so much displacement. Thank you. Any other Public Comment be on this item . Public comment is closed. Commissioner koppel. Vice president joel koppel . You had your bases covered. Thank you, supervisor and planning. The voices of the community have spoken to create this cac. Thank you to everybody. I move to approve. Second. Seeing nothing further, commissioners there is a motion to approve these amendments. roll call . I want to clarify the motion also included the staff modifications. Yes. I am sorry with staff modifications. The resolution does include modifications referred to in the presentation. Thank you. Commissioners that places us on item 10. The jobs housing linking fee planning code amendment. 201901197 5 00 p. M. Ca. Good afternoon. I am joined by the Department Staff as well as ted conrad. Before i provide the staff recommendation on this i would like to provide the legislative sponsor supervisor haney with time to present to you. Welcome, supervisor haney. Supervisor haney thank you, president melgar and commissioners. I thank you all folks here. There are many residents of district 6. This is a very important issues specially for the community i represent. It has been said that it goes without saying that San Francisco is in a housing crisis. We are struggling to meet the growing demand for housing that is affordable to the vast majority of the growing work force. We have failed to meet the goals for very low, low and moderate Income Housing. Over the last decade the city produced 657 net new affordability units per year compared to the goal of over producing 2000 new units annually. What i hear is similar to what you hear on a regular basis. The demand for Affordable Housing is huge. Teachers around workers are moving further out of the city. They cant afford to live here. People are dying on streets. We cannot house them. Families in one or two bedrooms waiting for years. Seniors at risk of becoming homeless. The demand is through the roof. For are renew Office Development a third of the new employees are making under 100,000 a year. For each tech sector job created, five jobs are created. Our job base has grown 32 , much faster than the rate of Housing Production of 17 . The city has the highest jobs to housing airio in the bay area. Instead of onetoone balance for every new job we build half a unit of housing. This is a dangerous trend that is completely thrown off the jobs housing balance. We cannot continue in this direction because the results are clear. We have been ignoring this jobs housing inbalance. If we are not proactive this will continue to grow. As recent stories made clear we have one of the strongest Office Growth markets in the region. We have less than 5 office vacancy. Only manhattan has Higher Office rents than San Francisco. The city has agreed to the plans that are critical to housing and transportation. We must work toward lower city wide job housing ratio. I am here today to ask your help in meeting that goal and fix this desscrip see between jobs and housing impacting so many in the city. This legislation has the support of supervisors yee, fewer, ronen, peskin and maras well as workers such as jobs of justice and the most impacted communities. The city has long recognized the important nexus between jobs and housing. There is an undeniable relationship between new employees and Affordable Housing demand. During the San Francisco first phase of High Rise Office expansion from 1970 to 1990, the city recognized the need to fees to offset the impact to the development. In the mid90s there was a child care impact fee and job housing fee. These are an important source of funding to mitigates the impact caused by the nonresidential development. It has generated 70 million over five years. The premise is simple. Every large scale commercial development has employees that need housing. Commercial Developers Must plan not only for investment in office space but for employees. The city determined the most equitable way to do that was having developers dedicate land to Affordable Housing or give money towards Affordable Housing. Fees are meant to be updated. They all have been except for jobs housing. The last time the fee was updated was in 1997. They are paying 28. 57 per square foot set years ago. Legislators and Community Members asked to update the jhl fee for years. Had the study been released years ago the fee would have been updated and the update is anticipated for a long time. Had the city been proactive in releasing the study this increase could have happened more incrementally over 20 years. Now we make up for years of the outdated fee and catching up is critical to address the housing affordable crisis. The nexus study that sets the fee is the only Legal Mechanism to update the fee. It determines the total per unit demand. Looking at the density of the employees in the new office space, worker incomes and what it costs the city to build the Affordable Housing. The nexxus study does not address the housing problems of existing population. The study focuses on documenting the Housing Needs of new low and middle income workers, not all workers. It looks at a portion of the development on housing. The nexus recommends an updated fee. It shows total demand is. 8. For every 100,000 square foot of development we need 81 new Affordable Housing units. By multpying and divide multi playing. For new Office Development to meet demands on Affordable Housing the maximum numb fee is 193. 33. If we were to mitigate the impact on Affordable Housing for new workers and achieve the balance that would be 193. 33. Here is what our legislation does. It changes the fee amounts for office to 69. 60 and laboratory to 46. 43 aligns indexing with other fees. Changes how fees are allocated. 10 go to acquisition of Affordable Housing. We specify Current Practice that 30 of new construction will go to permanent Supportive Housing to create the first dedicated stream of funding for this use. It will specify 60 is attributed to the Affordable Housing fund. It doesnt change the way the fee is assessed. The rates before you take into consideration the recommendation from the nexus study as well as Feasibility Study. The nexus study justifies a much higher rate. Neither study are perfect ways to set fees. On average area plan impact fees are set at 36 of the maximum allowable fee. The proposed office fee that we put forward follows that trend. With this new fee the city would generate at least 500 million over 10 years to produce 2000 new units over the next decade. I am sure you will hear about the Feasibility Study. I want to say a brief thing before i close. The Feasibility Study is not required. It is providing a perspective to consider when setting policy. While the study identifies Office Development feasibility as an objective. It states the city is interested in making sure new development pays its own way. It did not take into account the need for office. It assumes Office Development is the priority when the real issue as i started to describe is how we actually house these workers. How do we ensure a balance of jobs and housing for a healthy and affordable city . With due respect to the planning, the suggested fee in the study is well with in the limits of the 1997 study. If the base were adjuncted adjusted it would be what the study is suggesting. If you look at the fee in 1997 we could charge more than 42. This fails to take into accounted the greater cost of building housing and the strength of the office market. It suggests setting a fee beyond the recommended feasibility will halt construction. This is simply not true and pits profitability of Office Developments against housing workers who want to live in cities in which they work. None of the pro to types are feasible. There are over 10 million square feet of office space in the pipeline currently. Business times reported that the new Office Buildings on the market is helping to push up office rents. Rents estimated to increase over the next 12 months and vacancy to decrease. San francisco has the lowest return requirements for Office Investment in the nation. This fee is long anticipated. Supervisor kim told me when i came into office that she intended to update the fee, and while i dont expect that we may have an exact consensus on the fee amount today, i hope we all agree we are long overdue for an update to the fee that reflects current reality. Commercial uses benefit for the availability of housing close to employees. This is a way to ensure we can do that. We must invest at a rate that keeps rate with job growth. If we need the demand to have a healthy city. I know this Commission Said it again and again we need a better job housing fit. This reasonable targeted fee increase is a critical step. I will be here to answer questions as well as my staff is here as well. Thank you very much. Commissioners the department supports the aims of the ordinance updating the fee and procedures is crucial to funding the infrastructure including Affordable Housing. The department believes any new fee rate should reflect the latest assessment vase national. Reasonable. 38. 57 is feasible given the office pro to types and correct market conditions. It is possible certain sites or locations can support a higher fee now or in the near future because of falling Construction Costs, escalating commercial rents or Site Specific factors. The department is unaware of similar assessment for lab uses. Before any fee rate increases a Feasibility Study for lab uses should be done and analysis should be completed. For office uses Construction Costs are necessary to support higher fees. That could be concludes our comments. We are here for questions. We will now take Public Comment on this item. I have tons of speaker cards. David woo, felicia smith. Laura, curtis bradford. If you would like to speak, please line up on the left. Hello, commissioners, i am david woo. I am a district five resident. I am in support of this legislation. And for this longawaited update for the jobs housing fee the charge is led by Community Members themselves. The fact this fee has not been updated since 1997 speaks to the amount of additional benefit commercial developers have been getting by not paying the correct amount for the impact fee. This is not a new fee. It has been outofdate for two decades. The city knows developments have impacts. Those in existing neighborhoods are aware of that. This is a partial, not full mitigation. As the Planning Department and Commission Talk of complete communities when discusses new development or land use, thinking of open space, transportation and child care, mitigation measures such as jobs housing linkage provide part of that funding. By chronically under fundings those aspects by keeping fees low it gives a signal to the public and communities that city hall and the bodies responsible for planning are not interested in building complete and healthy communities. It signals Luxury Development is more priority than Affordable Housing. The needs of the private are more important than the needs of the working class families in San Francisco. This is not a new step. It is a long overdue corrective. The trends have been dictated by the private market. When it is hot, a killing is made off private development and the profits are enormous. Impact speed fees provide the health that is concentrated in the hands of a few. As someone in district 5, i have seen the impacts of two tech booms that have affected every neighborhood in San Francisco. This has city wide impacts. Catering to tech has city wide impacts. At least update the existing fee, and i ask this commission to please support this legislation as written and proposed. Next speaker, please. Commissioners, lauren. I am a long time resident of district 5 and member of senior and disability action. I urge you to support supervisor haneys proposal for the jobs housing linkage fee update. This will relieve the enormous pressure to displace current residents, largely seniors and people with disabilities and others of low to moderate incomes in order to make way for new office workers. Matching new jobs with new Affordable Housing, not luxury housing, is way overdue. For decades the city forced seniors to bear the burden of the housing crisis through displacement. Office developers were given free reign to build and profit. The bill came due to the residents of San Francisco. We paid and continue to pay in suffering, anxiety, insecurity and, yes, even death. We have been vilified for wanting to hold onto our homes. That includes politically created wedge that has come betweengererations. Generations. City policies have not provided the jobs Affordable Housing balance. This is long overdue, fair, moderate, the right thing to do and the smart thing to do, and it must be implimented immediately. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Calvin welch, San Francisco. I would like to speak in support of supervisor haneys version of this ordinance, specifically the fee. Staffs report seems to be in error in two ways. One it is totally confused on the meaning of the nexus study and a Feasibility Study. Nexus studdry is required to demstate relationship between private Action Development and public costs. In order to ensure the cities and local governments are covered by private development, by the costs of private development. This nexus study shows, as all three nexus studies have shown on Office Development that Office Developments do not help the citys balance, it worens the housing impact. The development of offices is only been fish if there are fees, special fees beyond taxes, beyond the normal building fees but special fees designed to exact benefits that would be negative impacts on the city. A Feasibility Study, therefore, nexus study is about minimizing costs to the city and its residents of development. A Feasibility Study is about maximizing profits to private developers. That is the subject. To equate the two is extremely bizarre. Option feasibility is required by no one but this department and room 200. It always results in a 10 per square foot fee. I have been in the city long enough to see the eastern neighborhoods Feasibility Study was 10 per square foot and that was 15 years ago. Whawhat is the magic of 10 per square foot . It is minmus. The confuse over the mex us study which says to save local government cause you have to do this as opposed to a Feasibility Study to preserve private profit. The city staff analysis and the Feasibility Analysis is absurd on its face. It does not even mention the biggest tax cut to commercial Office Developers in the history of this country that happened in december 2017. That is the trump tax cut. Particularly aimed at commercial offers building. Reduces the tax rate to about half of what it was. The Feasibility Study needs to address that. Your time is up. Next speaker, please. Thank you, commissioners. I i want to thank you calvin welsh explaining the defense between nexus and Feasibility Study. I support the jobs housing linkage fee proposed by supervisor haney. It is a common sense update to generate 50 million over the next decade for Affordable Housing construction and acquisition. This legislation ensures that new office space in nonresidential developments pay their fair share. I hope that my supervisor mandelman supports this. I will implore that he does and i hope you fully support this ledge lay, too, thank you. I am cheryl. I am a Second GenerationSan Francisco native. You grew up in the avenues with working class people who worked hard to save money to buy homes who no longer cannot buy a home. They have worked for 50 years and have not enough money to buy a home. They are scared they are displaced. I have been displaced. I am now living in the tenderloin, and i feel stuck there because i cannot live in better conditions. I am urging you to please support supervisor matt haney on this legislation. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. I am here in support of supervisor haneys linkage fee. I am a prime example what can happen. After 22 years of marriage, about eight years ago, i went through a very, very bad divorce and ended up homeless. Sleeping on the park bench at 50 years old, i was the assistant to the chief of surgery at u. C. S. F. I had a good job, owned my own home and in a couple months because of being homeless and not able to come up with enough money for security to move into a place, i made money but didnt have the money to move in. It was too much. At 50 years old i ended up sleeping on a park bench. This will help prevent that happening. It was a domino effect. I have no job. I had a nervous breakdown. I wondered the streets for three years. I dont remember most of it because of the psychmedicine i was on. This is why we need this. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. I am organizer in the tenderloin south of market with the tenderloin development corporation. Of course, thanks to supervisor matt haney for matt haney for introducing this fee. I am here in support of this legislation. This is important for low income san franciscans. It hasnt been updated since 1980. Second, we are in an Affordable Housing crisis, as we know. The proof is that every Affordable Housing building opening in San Francisco, thousands of people apply. In my building at 1400 mission. There were over 3,000 of us who applied and luckily i was able to get in. Third, as we know there are how thousands of Homeless People on our streets. That is so sad to see in one of the well threest cities in the word. The city produced 23. 5 of the housing between 2008 and 2018 compared to to the goal which is drastically short of this goal. I believe this proposed new housing fee makes sense. It ensures that new housing is funded to keep up with the demands created by. Worker and population growth. This fee could generate 50 on 500 million to afford good housing. I urge you to support this. It is about time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Commissioners, i am laura. Tenderloin peoples congress. We have a housing crisis. We need to generate 500 million over the next 10 years to help build low and Affordable Housing. On you workers cannot afford to live here, people of color cant afford to live here, seniors cant live here, families cant live here. Build housing. Development should pay the fair share to build affordable and low Income Housing for workers. We should all have a place to live. Rectify housing inequality in San Francisco. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I am mary jane. It is about the housing linkage fee. I live in soma. I am here to support the legislation and updating the jobs housing linkage fee. [speaking foreign language]. We have been waiting for a long time to update the linkage fee. Sadly the update was 1997. For low and middle income earners we can no longer afford the live where