tv Government Access Programming SFGTV September 22, 2019 2:00am-3:01am PDT
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 doesn't 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 don't have to worry about displacement and the things in the young people's 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. 2019-01197 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 can't 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 one-to-one 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 mid-90s 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 doesn't 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 don't 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 long-awaited 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 out-of-date 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 haney's 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 haney's version of this ordinance, specifically the fee. staff's 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 city's 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 generation san 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 haney's 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 didn't 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 don't 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 hasn't 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 people's 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 can't afford to live here, seniors can't live here, families can't 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 we work. [speaking foreign language]. >> tenants are forced out of homes due to competition for affordable housing,s especially in soma. developers need to wake up soma is not exclusive. soma needs the housing. let's support the jobs housing linkage fee. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am amanda representing the
coalition on homelessness. we would like to voice support for updating the jobs housing lynx age fee -- linkage fee. it will ensure accountability to ending the housing crisis. we have the opportunity to generate $500 million over the next 10 years to allocate to constructing more affordable housing, preserving already affordable housing and building additional supportive housing. we urge you to stand up for housing justice in san francisco. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i am susan. i am a 20 year resident of san francisco and former nurse at san francisco general. i have been running a small business for 15 years. i work with the coalition.
i am here in support of this legislation. i think it is a step in the right direction. i think it is an extremely modest fee. my only criticism, i think it should be three times what it is. yes, i definitely support it. what is happening in our city is heart breaking. i live in d5, and i see luxury automobiles driving past people sleeping on the street every day. i walk past people sleeping on the street. it is heartbreaking. it is taxing the office developers seems like a logical thing to do with no question whether or not to support this legislation. it is incredibly heart breaking and cruel that we have so many wealth and so many people on the
street. i hope that you will support this. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i am curtis bradford. i am the co-chair of tenderloin people's congress and organizer for the development corporation. we are here in support of this legislation the way it is written. i mean, honestly, we are thinking about the situation as we see it now, the crisis in the city, housing, homeless crisis. a lot of problems are severely amplified by the massive development of office and commercial space without subsequent development of housing. that is devastating to the mission and soma and impacted the tenderloin. the truth is that unchecked development is bad for the city.
it is bad for the communities and it is our residents paying the price for the development. they continue to pay the price both physically and financially. it is time to put responsibility back on the developer. the fee increase is not over the top. if i had my way, i would think bolder. the crisis seems worth bold decisions. ththe modest change is the chaos we have seen on the streets. i ask you to pass this and support it. we need the money for apaffordable housing. it is the right thing to do. thank you. >> business next speaker. >> good afternoon, jordan davis,
district 6 resident. i support supervisor haney's jobs linkage fee update. i will tell you one thing. it did not go far enough. we are are to need affordable housing the city' city's nexus e should charge $193. supervisor haney has a modest proposal, but let's face it, people in the whatever are claiming it is only feasible if we jack it up by 10 bucks. that is not going to cut it, and that is bad public policy. to give you a daunting statistic. a baby born in the year this jobs housing linkage fee was last updated would have already completed college and would be looking for work. if that baby was born in san
francisco, they would have a hard time finding housing no matter what. i am glad we are going to basically like with new development and with great power to affect development comes great responsibility. we need the housing. i am also glad that 30% of the funds will be going to new supportive housing. i live in an rfo. i it is on the task force. i don't want people with low income tenants competing with less low-income people for sro housing. we shouldn't be fighting for scraps. i am just like sickened by the idea. if we max out the fee, it is going to stop all office development. well, that is bogus.
believe me, if the worst was to come to past, all office development stopped, it wouldn't be any worse than what we have now. if we continue to have this very insignificant nominal fee it will keep getting worse. please make the right decision. let's jack up this fee, build in actually affordable housing and not luxury housing. let's do the right thing and also reconsider then maxing it out. let's face it i am a socialist and i like to push the envelope. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i am catherine. i have lived in san francisco
since 1975. i came here as a student and raised two children. i ai representing the south of market group. i am a single parent. i have worked until 20 years ago. i have experienced homelessness. my daughter was raised in sro. she is 25. if this job linkage fee would have been increased every year there would be housing built for people of low income or people who could afford it, i don't think our homeless crisis would be as great as it is. it is really important to pass this and even though matt haney has suggested $60 to start with. i honestly think we should think boulder. for so long having affordable
housing at the low income for teachers has been neglected in the city. it is very stressing to realize maybe i wouldn't have been homeless, maybe my daughter could have had a better life. there are so many people leaving the city because they can't afford to be here. their jobs are here so they commute. the cost of the commute is great. why can't we have enough housing here to keep it so people at the lowest -- who may not make that great of an income may be able to live in a better condition and to avoid having a lot of stress because when you have to commute back and forth to the city on low income, it is stressful on you and your family. people have been here for so long have to move somewhere else to afford to live. we really need to pass this. i would really appreciate it very much, like i said, if we
could push it higher, i would say go for it. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello. i am theresa. i am a long time resident of the soma philippine cultural heritage district. i am one of those tenants, and our families and fellow tenants in the building that went through four eviction cases, three different landlords. three different lan landlords, t we won all of those four. because community support, our families worked hard for this. it is heartbreaking for me when i walk on the streets of san francisco, all of these tall buildings, high buildings,
actually sprouting up especially in district 6. it is inside soma philippine. i want to share that i don't have a good experience with the planning committee. this planning commission. before it seemed like we were led to believe, go ahead and speak, but behind the scenes something was already in the works. i don't appreciate that. i don't appreciate developers who come inside the neighborhood, they don't have any care, no sensitivity, no mindfulness, no awareness. [please stand by]
.-dot housing linkage, which was introduced by district six supervisor, haney. the proposed amendment before you, address the growing demand for affordable housing. the veteran's center has been a service writer for 20 years, and serves the very low income, older adults and others within submit -- disabilities in the city.
affordable housing, for our consumers, when they become available from the city, they are extremely difficult to navigate. preservation or acquisition of assisting -- existing housing. dedication at the potential with the fees for all project which is only allowed for central soma project with additional resources and opportunity, the proposed amendment, to the existing job house edge -- housing linkage fee will eliminate the crisis and give relief to those in dire need of a formal housing. we commend the san francisco planning commission to approve the proposed amendment to the current job housing linkage fee. thank you.
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am gina, i am here to support the legislation and update on the job housing linkage fee. this linkage fee has not been updated since 1997. which has led to lackluster development on a portal housing. with rising rents we have seen families pushed out because of a lack of affordable unit while most developers prioritize commercial development and luxury market rate units. in order to find find affordable housing in soma, the city, the city must increase the jobs housing linkage fee. when the jobs housing linkage fee is increased and updating, there should be more affordable housing so families on the respectable applicant on the affordable housing waitlist will be placed in these units. increasing the jobs housing
linkage fee for affordable housing will reduce rampant displacement identification among families and communities of color. please update and increase the jobs housing linkage fee, because it is overdue. we are in 2019, going into 20,, not 1997. thank you. thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. we are in full support of this legislation. an upset -- update to an existing jobs housing linkage fee should have been done years ago. since 2018, we have been demanding the release of the updated nexus study on the jobs housing linkage fee from the office of economic and workforce development, during the central soma hearing. we do not know how long is set on the desk of oewd staff. what is clear, this report should have been released during the hearing of central soma
hearing plan. the study was nonpublicly released until june of this year. this kind of report is really important to be part of public discussion since we see the impact of of new commercial developments in our community. commercial development, especially office develop and has impacts to the existing communities and neighborhood and san francisco. we have seen rapid gentrification and displacement as a result of the first, and second technology boom that comes with speculation and high-rises office development. we want to thank supervisor haney's office and continuing this work, and working with us, and our partners in getting the legislation in front of you today. the jobs housing linkage fee is not new for the city. when it was increased in the late '90s, the same issue we are bringing up today which was office development create massive impact to existing neighborhoods in san francisco. the city acknowledge that this development had an impact in
these fees are necessary to mitigate those impacts what we are talking about our existing these. they are not new. this legislation is simply an update to this existing fees. one that has been kept artificially low, which has been an additional profit benefit to developers. it is way past time for this we need to prioritize the development of affordable housing. we need to preserve the existing housing, the impacts of this luxury development must be mitigated, in the highest standard. not what gives more benefit to the developers area thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am alyssa dao, i am a student intern from san francisco state university. we support the legislation, and the update to the existing jobs
housing linkage fee. the economic displaced and, of the community, has been in a effect of the gentrification cost with the boom of tech industries coming into the city. this reflects how the tech industry grows is top priority, and not the needs, nor the welfare of the people of the community. our community does not need to prioritize the needs of high-rises, things. but rather, we need to prioritize more affordable, and equitable housing for the sake of our community. we need to ship the job housing talent -- shift the job housing balance, by making it equitable for the people in the families that are originally from the city and the community. this is why it is essential to fundamentally change the city's priorities through the update of the exist linkage fee for housing. our people first, not corporations. with that, i urge you to support
this legislation. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is alexa, i am also a resident in the south of margate and i support the legislation and the update to the existing jobs housing linkage fee. one of the speakers earlier, i think jordan, was thinking about babies, i think that baby is me, i was born and raised in the south of market, i'm in college, but ironically i am actually going through a housing issue where, in high school, i was evicted one in 2014. right now i'm going through a foreclosure and it in one year. our building, likely having tenant rights and organizing my building to fight this foreclosure, whatever dirty deeds the bank is doing. the constant thought is, how are we going to keep our housing?
living in san francisco there is rent control, there is tenant rights, there is always this thought of what is going to happen if we get this lease from our home? the first thing everyone thinks about is affordable housing, we are going to apply for that. even with affordable housing, it is tough. it always feels like it is a competition. there are 3,000 people applying for affordable housing. the fact that there is not even availability of housing, in the area, that is really disappointing. the fact that the last time these were raised was what i was born in 1997. i think it is time for a raise in the system to be up-to-date, and also the updated fees would generate over $500 million over the next decade which would produce about 2,000 new units over the next ten years. if anything, i urge you to support this legislation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker,
please. >> hello, commissioners. my name is ramon. i am a resident of district 6, the market area. i support the legislation and the update to the existing jobs housing linkage fee, because many of our existing tenants are being pushed out doing to the growing competition for affordable units, especially near the area where with concentrated office construction area. development should pay for its fair share to house its workers. according to the city, at least one of every three office workers -- [inaudible] cannot afford market rate housing. when a date has been anticipated for many years, and it has been overdue. i just urge the commissioners to
support this legislation, and thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is sam luke on my work at the coalition of homelessness, i was also born and have watched my city change a lot, for the worse, over the past 25 years i have lived here. i am in support of the jobs housing linkage fee. particularly for the fact that 30% would go towards housing. those units go to people who are experiencing homelessness. the other reason why i am in support, when we are talking about this fee, it talking about tackling the homelessness and housing crisis. were not talking about something that is sterile, we are talking about people who are literally dying on our streets every day. one of the things that has happened to me, since working at the coalition on homelessness. i have been two more funerals and memorials and any other time in my life. we are literally seeing people die by day, languishing on our
city streets. right now, there is 1,098 people on the shelter waitlist. the oldest person on that list is 89 years old. these are our seniors, these are people that are the most honorable people and without something like updating this fee , we are not going to have enough affordable housing units and permanent supportive housing unit to really address and tackle this issue. the other thing i want to bring up is that people are always talking about the homelessness crisis area the fact is, 70% of homeless people were housed before they became homeless. we have to begin to invest in real solutions to actually prevent homelessness before people are out on the streets, which is one of the things that this piece of legislation redo. we are at a point where the department of homelessness will tell someone like me, and other community members, hey, you have to choose whether you want us to house a pregnant woman leaping on the streets, or a homeless
family that is being on the streets. we know in a city as rich as san francisco, we do not have to choose between housing two of those vulnerable populations. we can house everyone here. that is why we have to pass legislation like this, that will actually invest in the millions of dollars to build the units that we need. this is a common sense moderates, and effective measure to ensure that people are not evicted and the people in our community are not dying. thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. i am calling. i work for tenderloin neighborhood development -- and i lost my voice grade i'm just going to say that we support supervising -- supervisor haney's 2014.0926dnx. sorry. >> thank you. next speaker, please.