thank you. commissioner richards. >> question for staff, whichever one. what is the definition of group housing? we saw o on monticello a buildig of this and the bedrooms became a dorm matory. what is the deaf iwhat is the dp housing? how do you unwind it? it is extraordinarily large. >> technically in this building district group housing would require a cu or is not permitted. i will have to talk to my staff. >> i believe it would be a cu. the group housing relating more to the use, not the physical form. i believe we have if it is over six people who are not living in

the family condition where they share control over the property, tenancy and common spaces. >> if the project sponsor's children grow up and move out and it is he and his wife and the sister moves on and they have five or six you bedrooms they rent is it a group house you go situation? >> it would depend how it is used. we do have -- if it is like a roommate situation whereby they all share the property, then it would not be considered group housing. however, if each individual had a separate lease and none of them had any control over the use of the property, the lock on the doors, and, you know, nobody living there, because you are

allowed to rent a room in your house. it is your home. you can have housemates, specially. when you have like the off site owner who is leasing out so nobody living there. they don't live communal leann nobody has control or say over it. >> another question. 51 feet to 37 feet yard. that is 30%. no variance needed? >> no, it is 25% of lots. >> okay. okay. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to lay a couple layers back in order to place us what we are to judge on. let me start with saying that the submittal on its on is faulk shouter of what we expect --

falling short for a project that is a demolition. it did not show the project in context, it doesn't have any 3-d and any material descriptions which we normally expect for projects of this magnitude. the second thing i would like to talk about is it is very difficult to understand this project as a family oriented project. it is almost impossible to do so when the living space including access to the real yard which has to go through the bedroom is making it difficult to understand how we interpret family space and what normally is a standard discussion and interpretation, not talking about the fact that a family has more bedrooms. this is set up like a hotel. luxurious bedrooms, bathroom with a bathtub and shower are

far larger than what we normally do. let me jump forward quickly as i show up a couple observations. the adg does not really work. there is a stair connection which has to be severed. number two, the living room itself is without ventilation. it would require mechanical ventilation. no indication that is being entertained. that does not really work. >> yo you need to look at a door and window? that is the same question. the edu living area has a window and door into the light well. >> i don't see that. the living room borders the hallway and the living room borders the outside wall that is it. >> towards the street. from the living room on the

ground floor? >> i thought the same thing. it looked like a nested living room. there is a window and door. >> i think from general ventilation i think you need more to have a fully functioning room. for quality of the unit, i think, it is something i would question. if we are talking about adu our responsible to deliver adu with a degree of livable is as important as not asking that question. i have great difficulties with taking the plan as a plan for an expanded family use, and it looks really to me more like a dormitory and number of bedrooms somehow defeats the idea this is the family that has three children because i don't see or is expecting a fourth child. i do not see provisions for the

core of the family other than the inlaws to function properly. i am at this moment very troubled by how this project is presented, and i presently at this moment cannot support it. >> so i have to say that i don't quite agree, commissioner, i don't see what you see. i am wondering if, you know, it is sort of pushing my butt tons sometimes to have the expectations what a family is and how the family lives in terms of use of space because i think that is based on different cultural norms, you know. my family has six adults and kid and dog. you know, we use the space

differently. i don't see that it is necessarily our jurisdiction to dictate on how that happens. paymentat the same time i remember the project in monticello, i want to make sure we are doing what we can to prevent those issues. i am looking at the floor plans, and i see a family living here with seven adults and three kids. i think that when you have older parents, which live with me, there are certain requirements of privacy between like the couple and the family and the older folks that require separate bathrooms, and so i am not seeing what you see in that respect. i do have concerns over the design of the adu and i would

like that to be better quality adu. i would like to make sure that we are adding to the housing stock in a way that is meaningful, but as far as the six bedrooms with, you know, the bathrooms add attached to the bedrooms, i am actually okay with that. i think if i had a family with my parents and my partners' par rents living with us, that is what we would need. there are some things i would do to this design. the quality of the adu, the light and access to that, and then also i think the deck on the third floor is a little bit excessive. i don't know that you need that. do you need that for, you know, open space? i don't think so? >> this project can obtain the

space in the rear yard. that is excessive. that might mitigate some of the concerns of the neighbors. other than that i am okay with this with the tweaks to the design. >> commissioner kopppel. >> i am leaning to wards supporting this. i don't have a problem with the bedrooms. the number of bathrooms is what stuck out with me, and i understand what we are trying to avoid by having this become a too many people dormitory. this is rh1. they can't add second unit which is what we would normally suggest or look at. they are utilizing the adu. i want to see what you think and want to see, i am leaning towards supporting it. >> commissioner moore. >> i am not opposed to such

porting an -- supporting an enlarged family. the plans resemble a story how these people live. aside from the adu not working at the moment, i object to a submittal. we have to have sufficient information to understand the project. this project is very scarce if not even to lower the standards we normally get. i wouldn't be asking the questions if this was properly thought through and properly documented. for that reason at this moment while i am attending to support the idea of the expanded family. i need to see the adu redesign that works. i want to see that fully drawn out and fully documented.

>> commissioner fong. >> it is a big family. when he goes to the movies he gets a good discount with the number of people there. i think if you look at the hch group, bathrooms, everyone has to get to school the same time. you suffer the same problems. i think we all and rightfully show should have it up and watch out for any kind of abuse whether it is group housing or air bnbs. i have in other situations i don't sense it in this particular one. it is 40 feet. not going up crazy high. i feel for the neighbors and entertain some changes regulated to the deck or squishing in as we normally do to give light to neighbors.

i see it as part of the squish of san francisco and wanting to keeps those in san francisco in the city. i understand for the neighbors, this is how the city is changing. we have seen other cases where people are much more aggressive as far as going much higher and pressing the boundaries. i understand that and i am sensitive to that. >> could i ask the sponsor or the architect. did the architect leave? we are massing how this fits to the neighborhood, less on what is inside the building. people can use rooms differently. we don't necessarily get into that detail and sometimes we do and it raises concern about air bnb or not using as a residence. it is a large residence with a

lot of people living there with a lot of bedrooms. the massing works in the front. it goes longer than most on the block. there is a neighbor that bumps out, too. two things i would support. there are two third floor decks. the one in the front troubles me the most it is a typical to have that on the street level. i would support eliminating that. you access the adu down the front hallway covered at the front then you go to the living room. there is a stair to the left going upstairs. we would eliminate that. the other staircase goes to the garage which is fine from the main residence. there is that other stair down. i think we all raise the issue your living room there is a little odd in that there is a door from the light well and there is a window that is going

to happen in the stairwell. that is it as far as light and air. i agree with the comments that could be a more livable unit, i think. i don't want to do it at the expense of losing a bedroom. uled turn that on you o -- you a larger living area. i would like to see two bedrooms there if possible. can you explain what can be done to improve the light and air? >> the concern about adu is making sense to me. there is one to improve definitely. we got into the upper floor addition. the adu we can make improvement on it. >> can you talk about how you

may be able to add more light in there? >> maybe we can switch the living room and the bedroom. those are options there. >> i was thinking that. then you would access the adu through the bedroom which is strange also. i don't know if planning staff looked at that. it is an odd nested living room situation. >> with adu there is a balance between the additional bedroom and not having access to the rescue window that leads to a safe area. what we find with adus they are using mechanical ventilation. these are site plans they have not gone through the full development with electrical that would show the reflected plans to indicate if they show light as well. now, i think there is a

possibility they may be able to reorient the door then make where they have take door and window. there may be design moves to increase light from the light well or maybe, you know, a few more design moves in that area. it is not going to be, you know, a living room that has as much natural light as the bedrooms in this scenario. if we want this living room to have as much natural light, they would wind up losing the bedroom. >> commissioner richards. >> if you get rid of the stairs that go down into as you were talking b you could extend the light. >> there is live you go space above the stairs. >> what stairs are you wanting to get rid of? >> you have to incorporate that

to the ground floor. >> that is what i would do. i would like to take away the deck in the front, have the project sponsor work with staff on making the adu more livable in terms of light and air and trying to incorporate that stairway. use that as additional living space to make the adu better. >> eliminate the staircase going up. that is a good suggestion. eliminate the laundry room. you have a laundry room with light and air coming into the laundry room. >> commissioner melgar. >> i was interested in commissioner moore's comments. particularly the second floor.

i had in your comments. i am interested what it is you would want to improve. >> it is a general discussion item. in well designed homes you have bathrooms with doors on either side that when the bathroom is okay you paid from one user the other person waits until the bathroom. it is good. okay. as rehas a modern functioning ht not giving too much space away but detract from general live ability. the dining room and living room and den. none of those are part of this building.

that concerns me. i am not trying to raise any suspicions or questions that this owner would not be doing what he is saying. it leaves too many unanswer questions. it is my responsibility to look at the drawings as road maps how people live. if there are too many questions about the monticello or the project where it is not a credible story about a family home that is what i believe we need to do. i think this project has all of the possibilities to be a better designed project if they spend more time thinking about the functionality of what we are trying to a amend. we might as well send it back to have it thought more around those lines. >> there is a motion that has

been seconded. i am a little bit wanting you to amplify. we will sending it back to staff on the adu. rearranging the laundry area and eliminating the steps, getting rid of the deck. i believe that is it. when you say we are sending it back. what other concrete things do you want done? i was looking at homes in palm springs on recess. homes have bathrooms with two doors. we hate these, we hate these. you have to wait for the other person. we would rather have other own bathroom. it is a preference. jack and jill bathrooms. anything else you would add that we can tell staff, you know, do x, y, z while it is being sent back in. >> what i would tell staff is do

what we are talking about here before the project comes to us because the shortcomings of the adu were apparent to you because you called them out before we started. that goes to questions about the completeness of the submittal. those are my comments. i am not going to add any further design suggestions. >> shall i call the question. motion and seconded to take dr and approve the project as amended by the commission eliminating the third floor roof deck. >> there there two. >> the front third floor roof deck, have the sponsor continue working with staff on the adu for more livable space for light and air, eliminate the stairway from the first floor to the second floor, that would have been the one adjacent.

>> that would give the opportunity to improve the design. >> okay. on that motion commissioner fong. commissioner kopppel commissioner moore, commissioner richards commissioner elgar. that motion passes five to one with commissioner moore voting against. that brings us to item 21. discretionnary review at 2131 41st avenue. >> if you when allow me one moment to just shift. before you is another discretionary review against a project at 2131 41st avenue.

i am speaking on behalf of staff for this beliefiated review. this includes remodeling with a 16-foot horizontal addition at the rear and stair penthouse leading to the third level proposed deck. it including interior renovations. the concerns of the application are as follows: permanent loss of light and view in the bedroom windows, potential increased volume to crowded street volume, history of flip you go houses and -- flipping houses. they reviewed the project and once again when the visits were made to remove the third level

entirely in regards to the d.r. requester as well as setting back the first and second level addition by five feet on the side to the property line. they found that it did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances. public has received from the project sponsor four form letters signed by neighbors in support of the project and one letter supporting the d.r. request. it is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. this concludes my presentation. staff is also in the audience to field any questions. project sponsor also available. >> d.r. requester. welcome. >> we have a powerpoint. do you want paper copies? it will be on our screen. >> leave them on the podium and

we will grab them. >> this is a typical street in the sun set district, best district in san francisco. two-story houses, close together. windows on front or back. terms of in the 1940s when these were built they were described as spacious and sunny rooms, priced low. that ship has sailed. they have well considered design and combined with thoughtful planning. this is the current situation. i own the house on the left. my mom and dad bought it in 1948. you grew up in it. my son currently lives there. this large addition on the right to the south wasbility in the early 1950s.

more 50s. . >> the developer considers his proposed development to complement the 1950 very large addition. that means it's substantially out of scale with 23 other homes. going back to the residential design guidelines, building expansions may not be

appropriate if they are uncharacteristically deep or tall. an out of scale rear yard addition can leave residents feeling boxed in and cutoff from the open space. current view from our master bedroom. this is the one to the south with the addition. if that's not boxed in and cutoff, i don't know what is. so going back to the residential design guidelines, we're in a three-story neighborhood. what are the recommended additions? two-story addition on the left, a two-story addition on the right. if we apply that to a two-story neighborhood, i would have to say that a two-story addition is substantially out of scale with the surrounding buildings, and the remedy is to go with a one-story addition. here's the clear guidance from the residential design guidelines.

in a three-story neighborhood, you're good for a two-story addition. in a two-story neighborhood, stick to a one-story addition. this is what's on the books, a two-story addition with some additional height on the third floor, a stairwell. our proposed alternative is a one-story rear yard addition and a third story on the existing structure, which is consistent with the recommendation from the residential design advisory team. this is what's proposed: 100% of the sun light on the addition, we're in the shade. this is our alternative, a one-story addition, a third-story addition on the existing building. they've got plenty of west facing windows in the sun, we keep our two windows and get a couple in the shade. i think this is a much more equitiable division of the impacts. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. we'll take public testimony in

support of the d.r. requester. [inaudible] >> president hillis: sorry. so are you supporting the d.r. requester or supporting the project -- [inaudible] >> president hillis: okay. >> commissioner moore: speak into the microphone. >> yeah. i e-mail the letter to all the commissions. actually, i live in the house with the three stories that this gentleman refer to. so when we bought the house 15 years ago, you know, my sister and i bought the house, and this house was -- looked so unusua unusual. you know, it was the only house with the three floors. and it was a breath taking view. you know, to the two story, in the bathroom, we could see the sea, and it's a panoramic view.

i believe at that time, it was kind of buyer's market, but we were still bidding with many others -- buyers who also loved the house, you know, but we were -- we loved it so much, we pay more, and we got the house. we were happy, and over the years, you know, we sell -- weo

not see san francisco to our right anymore. you know, the house is a place to live in, but sometime, it can provide, you know, beauty and joy, and so that's -- i would like the commissioner, you know, to consider this case. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. any additional public comment in support of the d.r. opposed to the projector concerns with the project? seeing none, project sponsor.

>> my name is debra wells. we bought the property back in 2015. we have four children, and when we bought the place, it was pretty much sand dunes and weeds, and we have done dramatic efforts to improve the interior and exterior of the home and create living spaces that are much more enjoyable and i believe have improved the property values of everyone on the block because of that. we do have a big extended family and we do enjoy entertaining them for extended period of times, and between them and our four children who are home from college, come -- in college, and come home for long breaks, also in between, being able to live in san francisco in an affordable situation, coming home from college will need our help to live in their hometown.

so we want to be able to have them have that interim time at home for as long as they may need. so this is why we are trying to do an addition. we have done everything, i feel, very tastefully and would also like to acknowledge that we've made concessions, as well, on these plans to try to please the neighbors as much ae

me for a second. in our first -- this is the first story seen, the elevation from the street. this is the neighbor to the south, this is the d.r. requester, this is the addition, 20'6" to 20 feet wide. as we move down to the -- up through the building later, we actually -- this is the addition here. we've got the staircase, the bedrooms, on two levels. each bedroom is around 11'3" -- 11.5 feet by 12'3".

this stair goes to the roof as the neighbors have pointed out. as you can see, this is the view from the back. so yesterday, we received an e-mail from the staff indicating that the neighbor on the south was complaining about the penthouse, and that the went house was blocking her view from the deck. so that was a late-evening -- we received that information. we talked to the clients on the phone last night, we got our engineer and our framing consultant this morning to talk about what we could do to remove that penthouse. so in your packet, you have this sort of diagram here, and what we're proposing is to remove the penthouse as you see right here. it's going to be an open stair to the roof deck, so it's, like, a one-story light well. you would open the door on the living level and go up a flight of stairs and it's all open. there is no longer a stair penthouse to the roof deck. i'll show you what's in your

packet. i think that is in your packet, and then, that is when it's removed. again, that's in your packet, which is this here, this penthouse. now, it's gone. all we've done is we, of course -- the building department will want us to have the solid wall that will match the neighbor's wall for the deck, and we have glazing railings all the way around. on the back of the building, you can see, yes, it's true there are some shadows here in the morning. but we have to remember that all these facades, the rear facades face west toward the ocean. there'll be sufficient light toward the afternoon. our addition will be characteristically very similar to this one year, except it'll have a five-foot set back. and again, this was in your packet. i believe this is the penthouse, this is the penthouse, this is the penthouse, this is the penthouse, and this is the penthouse. what we've done now is we've removed that seemed that the

requester didn't contact anyone and try to work things out. so you know that's one of the things that's asked of people building in the city is that you try to work with your neighbors, try to compromise with them. under the new pending legislations that's coming out for d.r.'s, this wouldn't even be heard. there's nothing that's exceptional or some sort of unusual circumstances. you know, the wells' -- just to give you a little bit about the wells. you know, tony has -- was a founding member of golden gate rugby club. he put a scholarship out for kids who couldn't afford to travel. after he did that, he went over to reardon high school and founded a rugby problem there and founded scholarships to come from the city and go to reardon. tony's a blue collar guy.

we're building affordable housing. i don't want to poke -- this isn't an eight bedroom place, this is a four-bedroom place. he takes care of his mother-in-law when she comes to town, sometime. she needs help. we want to improve affordable housing and family housing. if we can't develop on the west side, minimum intensefication on projects like this, where are we going to do it. what are we going to do? if we turn this down, where are we going with intensefication? where is the west side going to go ahead and absorb some of its responsibility. i grew up on 37 avenue. i love the sunset. i was the beneficiary of an addition because of an addition. this is somebody that's part of the community. i really urge you to deny this d.r. and approve the project as

proposed, just to show you, last-minute, they dropped the penthouse on the roof. i mean, these are people that want to work with it. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. so any additional comment in support of the project? seeing none, d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the commission. my name is monte travis. i represent the d.r. requester, and i'm going to obviously be handling the rebuttal. i just want to make one quick response to the last speaker. the d.r. requester has tried to work with the wells from the beginning, and there have been some concessions, but not all the concessions that they claim. the five-foot set back was part of the plans as originally seen by the d.r. requester and his family. in addition, the d.r. requester

attempted to schedule a community boards mediation, the wells' refused. now i don't want us to be sidetracked by that because that's not the main issue here. the main issue here is all about the possible destruction of the character of that portion of the sunset, and in particular, the midblock open space, its light and its air and its sun. the last speaker made it clear he's all for filling a lot of it in with what's proposed, but this extension that's being requested as part of this project is using as precedent the extension next door, which is an aberrant extension, built back in the 1950's. there's nothing else like it on that block. there are no other two-story rear yard extensions. that's the only one. now, i also grew up in the sunset. i know what the deal is out there. the sun doesn't even come out in the summer, but that's okay

because when the sun does come out other times of the year, and the sky is blue, it's the bluest sky anywhere in the world. what makes this extraordinary and exceptional and what warrants design review in addition to the disproportionate impact on the requester is this danger of the incremental unplanned destruction of the planned block space. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you very much. project sponsor. >> commissioners, gary gee, gary gee architects. just briefly, the midblock as we've shown earlier, there are some additions on the block, but also, the remaining 42 feet of rear yard is very generous and sufficient. as you can see from the previous photos, the wells have done a very good job of landscaping. they cherish their rear yard. it's facing west. we feel that this is not an unreasonable addition to a

house in the sunset, especially with a family with four children. this summer, they're all there, and they just want some more room to accommodate the family. i think the r.d.t. did ask us to move the building to an existing part, but they had already remodelled that when they got the building. they had sole or panels on that part of the roof. what we've done, we've talked about the building deputy. most of the seismic work for the two stories will be in the back in the new area. if we put the third-story addition on top of the old building, we'd have to seismic upgrade the old building, and that's a cost and a feature they didn't want to do. so that's why they decided to move the third floor, too. i'm available to answer any questions. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. so we'll close the public portion of this hearing. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i find the addition reasonable. if we need to look at

densification in that area, i believe that's a proposal that the architect proposed, i believe it's within the boundaries of what is supportable. i do understand about the addition basically carrying the responsibility of the seismic upgrade of the existing building. we had other projects like it in support of that. it's some major cost savings, but it is a reasonable addition. and i think that just that there is concern for the penthouse, which i would have brought up myself. i am comfortable with the project as it is proposed. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so when i heard that the penthouse was going away, i thought the roof deck was going to go away, as well, because -- >> oh, no, the roof deck is remaining. >> commissioner richards: as i look at the map from the air, i'm struggling to find any other houses with roof decks. i think there's one.

i don't see any in the block, so, i mean, you have a 47-foot back yard or whatever you say. >> 42. >> commissioner richards: why do you need a roof deck and a -- >> it's just a feature they like to share. >> commissioner richards: if you get rid of the roof deck and get rid of the stair, you actually have more breathing room for the neighbor. densification great, roof decks -- we discussed roof decks a lot here, but with that big of a back yard, being able to create less impact on the neighbor, i would support. >> president hillis: mr. diek, i'd like to ask you a question. you've got two staircases in the house? >> let me get the drawing here. which sheet are you on? >> president hillis: 2.1. >> okay. it's an original tunnel entry house as you can see, and that staircase coming in on the north side, that has the

triangular shaped staircases, that is sort of the tunnel entry to the main door up to the second floor. >> president hillis: can you put that on the overhead? you can just put that drawing on the overhead. >> clerk: gary, you can put it on the overhead. >> oh, i can put it on the overhead? >> president hillis: then you can point to it. >> talking about this staircase, this is the ground floor. >> president hillis: right. you can just speak into the mic. pull it toward you. >> that's the ground floor. that's the stair. in a typical tunnel entry, the house, this is the stair that comes up to the main floor. of course it's really this one here. >> president hillis: does that, then, staircase go up to the next floor? >> right. that's the main floor. as you can see the kitchen, living room, and a bedroom, and this is the new den, but this stair doesn't go up anymore. >> president hillis: okay. got it.

>> so what happens is you see this other scare case right here back, this goes up to the roof, and it also goes down to the lower level, which we have. oh, it went out. >> president hillis: i don't know what happened there. oh, so the back staircase, you need to get up to the next floor. >> correct. the back staircase connects the rooms in the back. there we go. if i can get it in there. there's your back staircase. it's on the ground floor, and it connects the first and second floor, too. [inaudible] >> president hillis: right, okay. i mean, i -- generally, the board -- kind of commissioner richards, although i think the

project sponsor didn't necessarily request it, are we doing it kind of for nobody's benefit. it's a feature that the property owners want. i don't think it's something that's being asked for. as a matter of fact, the d.r. requester is asking for a living space to be out there. >> commissioner richards: right. i mean, i take back my comment. the roof deck's only 239 square feet. that's reasonable. >> thank you. >> president hillis: i encourage you -- we face this a lot where people want to bump out into the rear yard, where it may happen on one side and not on the other side. certainly, you're kind of bearing the brunt of that and the impact of that, but it's code compliant. it's not particularly extraordinary. we see it happening all the time. you've got the five-foot set back. i encourage you all to continue to work together. maybe there's some modifications, that staircase may be able to squeeze to be more narrow, and you can move the building over, but i don't see anything particularly extraordinary here to grant a d.r. and for us to modify the

project. commissioner fong? >> president fong: i'd like to make a motion to not take d.r. and approve the project. >> commissioner moore: second. >> commissioners, you pretty want to -- approve the project at -- as modified? >> commissioner richards: yes. >> president hillis: oh, the modified without the -- yeah, without the penthouse. thank you. apologize. >> clerk: commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded to not take d.r. and approve the project as has been submitted by the project sponsor, on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. and -- >> president hillis: already. the meet -- all right. the meeting is adjourned in memory of barry gallagher. >> clerk: very good.

- working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrant and dynamic city that's on the forefront of economic growth, the arts, and social change. our city has always been on the edge of progress and innovation. after all, we're at the meeting of land and sea. - our city is famous for its iconic scenery, historic designs, and world- class style. it's the birthplace of blue jeans, and where "the rock" holds court over the largest natural harbor on the west coast. - the city's information technology professionals work on revolutionary projects, like providing free wifi to residents and visitors, developing new programs to keep sfo humming, and ensuring patient safety at san francisco general. our it professionals make government accessible through award-winning mobile apps, and support vital infrastructure projects like the hetch hetchy regional water system. - our employees enjoy competitive salaries,

as well as generous benefits programs. but most importantly, working for the city and county of san francisco gives employees an opportunity to contribute their ideas, energy, and commitment to shape the city's future. - thank you for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco. >> all right, hello, everybody! >> hello! >> you know, there are days like this when being mayor is absolutely amazing. this is exactly why myself and our aseptemberably man phil tang, this is why we do this work, to make a difference in the lives of people who need us to make sure that we make the right investments.

thank you all for being here. i'm glad to be here to announce the grand opening of the division circle navigation center. clear cheer [applause] [cheering] this navigation center will help so many people transition off the streets into this place, into permanent housing. the opening today is a result of a collaborative effort between the city, the state partners like our assembly member phil tang and cal trans. we are working together to help address this homeless crisis. many of you know my top priority as mayor is to make sure that we're moving our homeless population out of tents, off the streets and into permanent housing. navigation centers go beyond

the traditional shelters by allowing individuals to bring their partners, their pets, their belongings with them, which are often barriers to getting into our shelters. once they are there, the centers provide the care and services that people need. health care. services around social workers and possibly, hopefully permanent housing. this particular navigation center will serve up to 125 individuals at a time. the opening today is the result, as i said, of a collaborative effort and there are a number of difference people who made this possible. and it is a reflection of what we can accomplish when we work together for a common goal. phil tang helped to secure $10 million last year in the state budget to help with two navigation centers in san francisco.

[applause] [cheering] and that is not all he did. his legislation, aba-57, allows the city to lease underutilized property that is owned by cal trans at a very reduced rate. we wouldn't be able to national -- to make this happen without his leadership and we're so grateful for what he has done to lead the charge in just a minute toe. -- in sacramento. cal trans worked in partnership with our state and local representatives to involve the hurdles in leasing the land and i want to thank laura berman from the cal trans director here today. ams want to thank the departments of public works who helped move this project forward quickly. jeff kaczynski from the department of homelessness and the city real estate division, countless other folks who made it possible and especially our homeless outreach team who

consistently are out there on the front lines trying to identify folks who are in need and bring them into our navigation centers to get them the help and the support that we know they need. i'm commited to addressing this humanitarian crises that we see in san francisco and all over our state. it is going to take a consistent and sane effort to open navigation centers like this one all over our city. together, we know we can bring noticeable changes. i have met some of the people personally who have been in our navigation centers, who are now permanently housed. but i also met people who have been in our navigation centers and who have come back time and time and time again. what i appreciate about the work of so many of the city employees and nonprofit agencis that work to help folks who are struggling on our streets that we have not given up on folks. and we won't give up on the people that we know need

support and services the most. that is why navigation centers like thiss are critical. they change and they save lives. and that is what we're committed to doing. one person at a time. and with that, i'd like the introduce our leader in this effort, assembliman phil tang. [applause] >> thank you so much, mayor breed, for your leadership on this issue of homelessness. i know that we had an opportunity to work together when you were president of the board and i have no doubt that you're going to be working on this issue every single day as mayor. i also wanted to thank supervisor hillary ronen who had approached my early on to talk about how we can fund navigation centers in her district and also in san francisco. and i would be remissed not to thank late mayor ed lee who

brought me aba-57. it was really a team effort where the citied that idea of we need to work together to solve this problem. this is a state-wide problem. we have 134,000 homeless people in the state. it is a state of crisis. we have 7500 people here in san francisco. but these people aren't numbers. they're lives. they're lives that missed different paths, that have taken very challenging directions. but we as a city have not given up on them. we as a state have not given up on them and only by working together and solving this problem together can we really move this issue forward. cal trans has been great because cal trans told me they spent, i believe, almost $10 million last year or the year before to just move homeless people off their property. homeless encampments up and down the state wereer