utilized commercial space. continuing with the overhead there's a bunch of points i was going put in. there's the transit that can change in frequency. you have the map and it's going to change. might as well make it jell-o and unenforceable projects that must meet whatever it's going to be changed to and metric not applied today and the on site and the affordable is unclear and it incentivizes developers and san francisco lacks clear objective planning building demolition criteria win aha and sb50 you get increased

demolition and expansion so the impact is under utilized spaces, empty lots including affordable housing and looks at renters short term not long term and rh9 united states -- units will be effected and i submit this under sunshine in the record in the minutes. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is tom. i'm 20 years old and currently live in coron corona heights and

like to speak in favor of sb50. my phone delete the note and i'm nervous because it's a hostile crowd. so last year i came up to speak against the central soma upzoning which adams amazon hq worth of housing without commensurate housing. so you look at all the housing projects we have in the pipeline and historically how we've done development in san francisco on that scale has been brown field development in places like hunters point and treasure island. we have an issue with the companies that do the cleanup and we won't be able to build amazon worth of housing. the contracts prove they're

unreliable. i think the best way forward for the city to house the workers that are going to be working in central soma is a way to house them in our existing neighborhoods an sb50 is one of the best ways to integrate gentle density to our neighborhoods. thank you for your time. >> commissioner: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is leslie trusian. i've seen the growth. i've working on the hunters point shipyard now and the artist studios and i see what's being planned for that region and also the area between the shipyard and candle stick park. and if we're talking about new

development and infrastructure being built, i think there are plans for that now and i recommend that we look locally and not proceed with the sb50 and have it be directed out of the sacramento state but actually for us and the planners that exist here locally who know the needs and the train to be able to address the issues around where the appropriate kind of housing that is being recommended in sb50. i do think that we do need housing i agree with many who oppose sb50 as written. it's so robust, broad and vague it seems better to abandon it or not support it for the san

francisco area certainly for the city and county. i think the transit areas are important but a half a mile between the number of what's being defined as transits ends up incorporating the entire neighborhoods. i think it's ill defined and i would recommend that be more examined and have it more robust along the big corridors rather than to stream out and incorporate throughout the whole city. thank you very much. >> commissioner: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm a fourth generation san franciscan and live in the richmond district and here to oppose sb50. my primary issue is the current tenant protections it espouses

are effectively empty promises and has no actual enforcement. there's no effective city audit and the burden is for those evicted to in force the terms. owners and developers are not held accountable but sb50 assumes they are. once more, i can't tell you how many times i've been for smfg -- affordable housing developments. and if you're goal is to increase the values of existing property owners and developers, thus encouraging higher sale prices and rent increases, congratulations, sb50 does that and from a transit perspective it's laughable. it doesn't do anything to encourage auto-dependent

communities to do something different. i'm not opposed to taller buildings but this brings higher property values and displacement. instead i wish senator wiener was create rental registry, fund a robust vienna style program that delivered affordable housing instead of this trickle-down housing farce. >> commissioner: thank you, next speaker, please. >> i'm not going echo everything said about why sb50 is a billion-dollar giveaway but it does nothing protect tenants. that's what the housing crisis is about in san francisco and california. every day we see people coming in to our office and being pushed out because landlords know how much they can make off

their ients durb -- units and it increases land values and increasing the pressure. what's so gross about sb50 is while it promotes gentrification it uses racial justice language to do so we know in five years of an area being considered a sensitive community is just long enough to rebrand a neighborhood for realtors. beyond that there's concerning loopholes that disincentivize affordable housing over and over again throughout the bill and goes around existing density so allow developers to triple density or more with the same without having to build more affordable units. this is a disaster to build

affordable housing or keeping people in their homes in rent-controlled housing. ask senator wiener to start again and start from affordable housing. >> commissioner: thank you. next speaker, please. >> teresa flandrick of north beach tenants committee. i will echo what mr. parsons said also being someone who is on the street on the ground seeing so many tenants losing their homes and all for a matter of profit. it's not about our communities. it's about the dollar. and this sb50 is only going to further all we have been trying to preserve. preserve communities that are ethnically, economically diverse. those who have various occupations all on one block. you would have everything that

is part of what a city and community needs in terms of jobs. occupations, your doctor, your mechanic and we are losing all of that and as an inclusive city we're becoming less and less so so few people can afford to live here. it's an affordability crisis we see seniors having to move away from their medical assistance. there is nothing affordable today. and this does harm to san francisco and other cities going through displacement.

i oppose this and ask scott wiener to go back to the drawing board and to include people in various communities especially in his own city. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> this is the pro-gentrification, pro-developers act and i'm also have a love-hate relationship with the district and i can walk down and go to the restaurants and still find awe in this charming city we call home. yesterday i supported a business that's been serving our community over four years. can you imagine all this stuff

gone? i can and i don't want to. this is the highway to losing the magic and gentrification and we all know affordable housing is a joke. i went through the below market rate housing program and though i was excite about it, unfortunately i decided there was nothing affordable and so who is it for low-income people or people who can afford to live here as-is. there's already plenty of housing for them already. who is the bill benefiting? for my beautiful commissioners is the destruction of the city how you want your legacy to be remembered. >> commissioner: thank you, ms. wong. next speaker, please.

>> hello. my name is don emmons and i'm a member of the cal haul association board of directors. many of the topics i wanted to address and we need to accommodate increased density. the infrastructure is already inadequate there's nothing provided in this as far as i can find related bills that will address the issues. for example, most of these buildings will have no parking requirements. this assumes people will sell their cars and take public transportation.

this is not feasible for a high number of families or for the trips people need to take in the city. it ignores the downside impact of the building being billed as stated now. as you planning commissioners already know, you have approved many times the amount of housing that is being built. there's a huge under production situation. this bill does not to address those issues. and it will lead to bizarre development. >> commissioner: next speaker,

please. i'll read some names first. [reading names] >> i'll be on a narrow street that can barely support four stories much less a lot and because according to sb50 i live in a rail-rich area and i'm here to speak against this unfair legislation not because of the sanctity of our single-family homes after all i live in an apartment but this brings more

condos for the afford crisis and this only benefits developers laughing all the way to the bank. why should san francisco keep gentrifying working-class neighborhoods to make more for silicon valley when they only build office space but no housing space and with more than 2,000 square miles of land refuse to build on dead shopping malls. woe built market rate housing. what we need is more affordable and sb50 makes things worse. just say know to sb50. thank you.

>> commissioner: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm from the tenderloin development corporation. what we're interested in is stopping the displacement of low-income people and people of color and ensure i remains available and we feel like a lot hinges on the two maps the one of the sensitive communities and jobs-rich maps and we have questions about the map released tuesday and the exclusion of large parts of the mission. it's kind of depressing and shocking to think anyone thinks the mission is beyond needing protection. we hope there could be a closer examination of that. also, a community is declared a sensitive community, what it gets in exchange say five-year

community -- is a five-year community planning professor and we feel there's -- process and we feel there's eight unsaid. will there be resources available to the low-income community for a planning process. we know it's not easy and take a long time to do well. what will be offered to these communities to do a good job? also, who will make a determination whether it meets the requirements of sb50. it seems there's wiggle room and we would like it see more clarity around what that means. we'd love to see the peninsula building more housing. it will relieve the pressure on our housing stock in san francisco. we feel like before moving forward we need to know what cities are going to be forced to

build more housing besides san francisco. we also want to say that though some of the tenant protections are good -- all right. >> commissioner: next speaker, please. >> members, i'm the chinatown community action center and i want to make a point about chinatown and the impacts. the general point is i want to recognize though some have spoken about the issue of being about local control. i would say it's about democracy. the reality is just the process of the adoption of the legislation is an illustration of the issue. sacramento has issued no map to tell us what a sensitive community is. we have to summize it and it's coming from your staff that has mapped out the potential impact. there's nothing coming moreover there's no opportunity to have a

conversation with sacramento. i've been there. there's no public comment and there's no opportunity to come out and speak we're not afraid of democracy. we want a conversation and that is a general point. if not sacramento that protected tenants with rent control, there's no statewide rent control. fit was sacramento tenants wouldn't be living in san francisco. if it wasn't san francisco that protected chinatown from office develop. it was this city and planning process and board of supervisor protected chinatown back in the '70s and '80s this is not about local control but democracy. the whole concept is fundamentally flawed. you can say it's sensitive communities on one version of the month and the amendment next week, we're gone. this process is not democratic. it doesn't protect communities

and furthermore, sensitive communities doesn't protect communities it's a temporary reprieve. it's a sun setting of protections for communities like chinatown for the mission and the tenderloin. this is fundamentally undemocratic and a threat to communities and vulnerable communities like chinatown. >> commissioner: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm with the coalition on neighborhoods. no on sb50. welcome to wienerville. if you want to protect your neighborhood, street, house or planning commission, it's time to defeat or mitigate state

senator scott weiner's sb50 legislation. wiener and vales want to replace housing stock with dense multi-family housing and they'll be called wienervilles and feature many of the structural components as hooverville and ruin neighborhoods an gentrify working-class areas and worsen housing affordability and displace san francisco kiss -- san franciscans and the least expensive housing that is already built but will impact

100% of san francisco's residential housing stock. sb50 would not apply to any property where there has been a rental tenant in the previous seven years or where a unit has been taken off the rental market via the yellow tag for the previous 15 years. the problem is the city has no way of knowing and in way of measuring what is and what isn't true and will have to rely on probably developers for their information. thank you. >> thank you, mr. wooding. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, lorraine petty from district 5, a long time affordable housing advocate.

sb50 does not stand alone as staff pointed out. we're being presented with a dizzying array of confusing and cumulative legislation from the state all superceding our own. if one bill does not allow something, the next bill will. please, keep this in mind. all of these bills are directed at removing local control and all neighborhood input and all of them presenting a smorgasbord of special favors and deregulation for the builders and sellers of luxury housing. they appear to offer a trickle of affordable housing with no real neighborhood or cultural protections. tenants and small homeowners, no protection either. sb50 would have disastrous and chaotic results for san francisco which has largely

complied with the residential housing requirements. it would start a new wave of speculation and price increases. i urge the planning commission to oppose sb50 unless there's an exception for san francisco. someone thinks that's funny but most in the audience don't. as previously suggested pursue having a tenant specialist added to the staff. we need to complete a rental registry and we need as soon as possible to complete a cultural and historic city registry. thanks very much. >> commissioner: thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you. my name is ann harvey and i've raised hi family here since

1978. this bill is so disastrous, sb50. it's a developer's giveaway. to that i cannot believe a representative of san francisco has pointed it forward. we testified here a year ago before mr. peskin, sb a27 and he doesn't give up and he represents san francisco. i propose somebody investigate how much money he is get from developers for this bill. it's so bad. also, another more positive proposal is look at areas of long buds street and there's areas sitting vacant waiting to be built. they're plowed up and gas stations are torn up and developers are just waiting to

put up places. maybe there should be a tax on empty lots as being proposed on empty apartment. maybe if you have a lot and can build on it for current code there should be a penalty to lay land vacant. it's a developer's giveaway. there's some money here and people like to park their money, i think it's coming here. i also would like to send an e-mail reminds me of what happened to fillmore. >> commissioner: thank you, ms. harvey. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i oppose sb50. it's unconstitutional and violates people's right to live here with the community here and it's like ethnic cleansing. i've been here 49 years in san

francisco on union square and have been to western addition. it's ethnic cleansing. i have seen since 1970 there's no people live. hunters is going to antioch. it affects people of color. i respectfully ask you to decla declare this nul and void. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is nemorolis. i moved here in 2001 in search of economic opportunity like many people in the great recession. there's a lot of disagreement in this chamber about sb50 and what to do about housing in san francisco but most of us probably know one thing, our dislike of our president,

president trump. what's the connection between president trump and sb50. i would argue nimbies created president trump. it's the last growth industry, the technology industry. if you're not trying to get in tack and 20 or 30 something, good luck. this city creates wealth like no other in america. we mint jobs yet who can afford to live here? who can afford to come here? there's a whole lot of people in america who would like to live in the bay area and take advantage of the san francisco economy but they cannot. why? the rent is too damn high. because we don't have enough housing in this city.

what do desperate rural people do with no opportunity and can't afford to move to a growing city like san francisco? they vote for someone like donald trump. san francisco is becoming a city of the 1%. a city that only millionaires and billionaires can afford to live in. i don't want that future, do you? i want a san francisco that is taller, denser and more affordable for everyone. i urge you to support sb50 and any other pro housing bills like it because in so doing you're addressing the great problem of our time, economic inequality. >> commissioner: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> i'm going to read off a few more names before you start. [reading names]

if you did not submit a speaker card and still want to speak, come up and do so. >> i'm with the knowing neighborhood council and san francisco land use coalition. first, i would like to thank ms. rodgers and her team for the thorough analysis of sb50 particularly where they have showed our rh1 all of a sudden becomes rh9. i maintain this is the hidden agenda of the bill. why? because as the staff announce shows the bus-rich areas can be ballooned up to six units and 2500 square foot in a small lot as little as 2500 square foot without receiving the added fight or the three incentives in concessions.

overhead, please. here's an exhibit a showing the speculator's delight when rh1 becomes rh6. the gray rich areas will have it worse. the average heights give nine units and 9,375 square foot in small lots and all this with no requirements for giving one square foot to affordable housing i don't have to tell you who the ben fishes -- beneficiaries will be but i can tell you who it will cost. here's the san francisco neighborhoods where you can see what neighborhood will be impacted. noe valley and the real story is the impact to working-class and under privileged neighborhoods in excelsior and noe valley.

these are heavily rh-1 zones. >> commissioner: next speaker, please. >> i'm mary mcfadden a fourth-generation san franciscan and i remember them blowing up housing in the redevelopment places and the displacement of my friends and family from that area rippled to this day. i think we're in danger of establish long-term policy based on immediate needs. the demonization of single-family homes fails to recognize families want the single-family homes and the

backyards with the only genuinely open green areas in most cities and san francisco is becoming the least green open area in california. high density building create heat islands raising the temperatures to 6 degrees and it subsidizing international companies at the cost of established residents, funds for education and infrastructure. to come -- accommodate people requires four sales force towers per year. that's not possible. and for which sb50 was based ignores the cost and time line of homeless and low-income people and ignores race, transit and sewage system. when a policy tells you it's full of sewage, pay attention.

also, it forces a false equivalency between job-rich palo alto is not the same as farm-rich modesto. certainly we can device creative agreements with cities and states with a housing and educated workforce. atlanta, georgia, detroit, michigan and indiana, residents have done and they can establish a creative community. >> commissioner: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> i believe in delower --. this is an instault to anybody that si planning professional and a giveaway to developers that support luxury housing and

not actual affordable and low-income housing. i would recommend changes to sb50 or completely go back to the drawing board and start again. the other thing i want to do, overhead, please, is to go back to this map. the areas to really get screwed, excuse my language is here. when you look at this, these areas are way cheaper than other parts of town. they'll be buying up properties in the bay view and excelsior and developing them and not giving us the property support to provide all the services you need when you increase the city

by huge amounts. we've lived through this the last five years and it's been pretty wonky. imagine what will happen with this. you have to be kidding. thank you so much. >> commissioner: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is lori leaderman. this place as a target on san francisco. it's a deregulation bill. the city doesn't have the data to conduct the lookbacks in the single-family homes where many rentse rentsers -- renters it's a giveaway to developers and the developers who will at their

sole discretion decide which exceptions they decide to take while allegedly transit orients there's no provisions for impact fees. according to staff, rh-1 and rh-2 lots thus produce no new affordable housing. at the same time, mandatory increases in height and floor area ratios do not require a minimum number of units owning a wide door for the monster homes invading city neighborhood and sure to be in demand by the incoming deluge of millionaires. it will become more difficult to acquire small sites for affordable housing and the work that went into home sf results in a requirement that a portion of new development be reserved

for family housing and it remains unclear what the interaction will be between local and state law unless stated otherwise, state law will always supercede local ordinance. plead oppose sb50. >> commissioner: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> this bill relies on a profit-driven market that won't ever invest in enough affordable housing but for scott wiener it's great. with our local inclusionary laws buildings with more than 10 units can build out elsewhere so it continues to target neighborhood for displacement and will have little impact on our low and middle-income housing stock. sb50 makes sure poor folks won't live in your luxury condo and kill san francisco's richness and diversity. by overriding years of planning, sb50 almost weaponizes local zoning and local input to turn all our neighborhoods into expensive, high density real estate. it will turn our communities into commodities with very few

affordable place to live and folks leave and those neighborhood connections that community is lost. my neighborhood and yours won't be welcoming place to live. they'll be places for capital, global capital to grow. this bill is bad housing policy and i'm not a commodity. i don't think anyone here say commodity. please oppose it and second it up. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you very much. next speaker, please. good afternoon, commissioner. i'm tes wellborn president of the haight-ashbury council and ask you to listen more to the voices of the community than to the paid lobbyists here speaking too. listen to us, the voters. there's a false narrative going on with sb50 and with casa saying cities have prevented the

production of housing. it's not true. show my a unit san francisco has prevented building by and large most things have been approved and that's why we have this tremendous backlog of approved and someone else has their hands on the lever. sb50 is also a project of the casa plan. they've said it should all go through together or none of it. but guess what, the tenant protections have not lead. instead we have a gift to developers as the lead part of the casa plan. look hard at the work of the planning commission, planning department and their study and the implications of this bill. i also want to remind you about some of the bigger issues that

you should be looking at. the water supply in california. the global warming and much of san francisco is going to be subject to rising tides. housing is a very slow to be build and by the time a lot of it is being built, more people will be fleeing for arizona. so we have to think about that too. let's put protections for tenants, the haight-ashbury is more than 60% tenant occupied. put them first and let's make sure there's a democratic process that protects zoning. >> commissioner: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioner. i'm a native san franciscan of the noe valley and active member of noe neighborhood council. i'm here to speak in opposition

to the sb50 because it is a discriminating and unjust piece of legislation that should be opposed by every san franciscan and most buildings will be upzoned to accommodate five and seven-story luxury towers. why? according to senator wiener transit-rich areas have to build taller and deeper homes to make up for the what the silicon valley suburbs should have built years ago when they approved mega office parks of apple, google and facebook. san francisco has built more than its fair share of luxury market-rate towers we've now become the silicon valley bedroom because the office space fostered these employees on us.

the job-rich qualifier for silicon valley suburb to pay their fair share is just a symbolic gesture because when i see a legislature that forces up zoning between facebook or google headquarters that's when they'll hold those who benefit from the richest companies in the world accountable from the mess they're creating. i urge you to know vote on the legislation. >> commissioner: next speaker, please. >> i'm on the board of the glen park association but speaking on behalf of myself today. my husband and i bought our house to live a transit light

and we thought it would be good to raise our daughter in a more diverse community and in the 10 years since then the affordable problem has gotten worse and friends can't afford to buy a home in glen park and my sister left for school and can't afford to move back and houses on the street are selling for $7 million. glen park is exclusive but not where i do the -- chose to raise my daughter and three and four-plexes aren't allowed. developers buy property and build them as most valuable as they can and what's legally allowed in glen park is a giant single-family house.

rather than the two to four normal sized condos affordable to more families to live more families live near transit it's hard to find other parts of america, san francisco's one of the few places that lets you live a car-light lifestyle and your kids can get around without being driven. i'm a librarian of u.c. berkeley and young professionals can't afford to live in the bay area and i know the opponents here today would say upzoning the transit won't solve the problems but anytime a friend or colleague leaves the bay area i see it's the supply of housing that's part of the problem wa we're doing now isn't working and hope the commission supports these efforts. thank you. >> next speaker, please.

>> i live in d8. i doesn't matter how long. right now if you want to tear down or replace a mansion in sf francis wood, you have to replace it with another mansion. why are we mandating mansions? want us to legalize apartments in all parts of the city to not focus on the mission and soma and in the mansion zones in parts of the city that we're excluding non-rich people for almost a vinch now. -- century now. this take power away from big developers. right now only rich and connected developers can navigate this planning process. big developers like the status quo because it works for them. the more homes act will allow

more middle housing for people who take out a lone -- loan and build a small apartment. my building was developed someone would was a mechanic. what this could do for the region is person and i wand to respond to the person saying backyards are the only genuinely green space and if so i'd like to invite my friends over this weekend. i think that would be fun. i support the more homes act. >> commissioner: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. tim coalen a vol en -- volunteer. land use policy has shift from san francisco away from local jurisdictions. this is because coastal

jurisdictions have abjectry failed for deck -- abjectly failed to build for our growing economy and population. this hearing perhaps explains why. we're currently failing the environment and planetary levels are exceeding and we oppose height and density in transit rich areas and in the next claim we'll claim to be environmentalists. not only are they fighting to preserve 1970s carbon footprint for themselves but much worse, through the in tra-- unaffordab housing preventing others and we may want to defend our friends in forest hill, one of our most beautiful and privileged neighborhoods who not long ago

demanded local control to prevent building 150-units for low-income seniors on an unused parking lot. it made it clear in many community hearings under no circumstances would they share the neighborhood with low-income seniors. so if our friends who oppose sb50 want to defend local control in this so-called democracy, they might also perhaps explain whether this includes wealthy communities like forest hills. local jurisdictions are not stepping up to the challenge. the state is moving into do it. this is a good thing and you should support sb50. >> commissioner: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm one of the environmentalists he yufd --

rejust referred to. more than half the world's population, 55% live in cities. according to the united nations, by 2050, that figure will jump to 68%. in our cities we need to create physical and social environments that are beneficial to wildlife and humans. people learn about nature by close contact with it. stacking people in cities without the open spaces where they can relate to wildlife results in nature deficits and impacts their appreciation of nature in the long run. direct exposure to natural is essential for healthy childhood development and physical and emotional health of children and adults. easy access to nature at home is essential for low-income fa families for those who can't afford to take the trip to tahoe. many are looking to urban areas to survive. wildfire depends on migration

corridors, variety of hab -- tab -- habitats and trees and shrubs and sb50 would have no provision to fund new open space and parks. we need to reject this legislation and protect our open space for children, for families and for wildlife. soon this is all they're going to have. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is denise renee. i've been here before and this is the most painful room in the world. i'll get into it. my grandfather has owned -- he

survived a fire and took his chair and went up to a hill and they had to go find him. she does and that's why i'm here. my cousin my -- mimi rodgers oakland chapter. it's a charity started in the '40s and '50s. we had a beautiful event and we were lucky enough to go to an aquarium by the bay and i'm glad you weren't invited. i'm opposed to this because you guys don't want anybody here. you despise our existence. you commissioner, the president and you, ms. johnson, commissioner, an open setting as public officials said it was a badge of honor to get your teeth knocked out as you crossed the

street in san francisco. it is not. it's against federal law to scrim nate against the -- discriminate against the disabled. if you take the bus to the mission it will take two hours. i know because i've done it. it's horrible. please, mayor london breed, the please chief, william scott, please help us. please save the city. erase all these guys. don't deserve to sit in these chairs. you don't deserve the toner, the ink, the staff. nothing. you're corrupt and you're filled with hatred and i can't stand to look at you but i can take the pain because i've been here before. >> commissioner: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioner. i'm caroline bosh speaking on behalf of the northern

association of lauerel heights and the pre -- per ---northern neighbors does not want to squash the good for tune but etch tend them by increasing our share of housing availability with the greatest challenge to california is housing. we believe the more homes act will contribute to making our nor neighborhood a greater place. there's many new homes needed which can be converted from single-family homes and lots and

those who are currently homeless or scraping by and for teachers, firefighters and others who serve our city. new market-rate homes so there's housing available for our children being born today. at our current rate of housing, district 2, these homes will never be built. people will remain priced out of well-paying jobs and people will continue to leave san francisco and our native children will not be able to stay here because we didn't have the foresight to change the problem. we hope you consider all the voices when you consider the act. signed, myself, eddie siegel and francis moran, alexander walker and others. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you very much. next speaker, please.

>> i'm hore to ask you -- here to ask you to support the act. i have had friends make plans to leave because of housing. even those of us that are lucky enough to afford housing find it hard to imagine to stay here but it pales in comparison to those who afford living in the bay area for the next five days or five months rather than five years. the problems stem from or zag r zagger -- exacerbated by inaffordable housing. and i'm lucky and privileged to be able to live in san francisco. but if we don't change course, the only people living here are

those that are going to be privileged in the same way i'm privileged. i don't want to live in a city in a population of 8,000 of people like me. i'm not tra -- that interesting. and environmental groups like nrdc and seniors advocacy like the aarp endorse the more homes act. they understand the bill would offer more housing and better housing mobility to transit-oriented development and decrease the needs for the cars that pollute our cities, kill our neighbors and cook our planet and adds protections without removing other protections. it's a massive improvement over the status quo of displacement and environmental harm. for these reasons i urge to you support the more homes act. >> commissioner: thank you very much. next speaker, please.

>> hello. i'm originally from san josé, california. i came here because there was an opportunity and it was non-bias and somewhere where i didn't have to be in a gang or constricted unsafe environment where i had been and it was traumatizing left and right and i still deal with complex posttraumatic and san francisco welcomed me with love and ha happy moments i'm able to experience here and a can't stay. i'm currently homeless and a full-time student at mission inn cloud. i work with peer-to-peer counselling and other survivors of trauma and helping them find opportunity where we don't have in the non-rich areas. i would lucky eh