to work with mr. ferrigno. we have heard he has a history of aggressive behavior and intimidation to get what he wants. one neighbor noted he screamed at her over the phone. he has a youtube video talking about winning fist fights in grade school and winning this girl. when we were leaving starting to walk down the stairs, he could not help but call after us, get ready for a very long process. as a result i haven't felt comfortable talking to him and my husband is the only one who interacts with him in person. on the issue of the d.r. we have a hard time figuring out his true concerns. added a green roof and living wall, he said he didn't want to lose green space. he made clear all remedies don't satisfy his concern which is the possibility of future a.d.u.

he misdocumented this to the planner. after every meeting we sent the planner meticulous notes. in reality we propose several remedies and he made clear he would still file a d.r. even if we made these changes. for example we offered to remove the toilet but he said it could be reinstalled. he stated the same for us if we remove windows and doors. this leaves us with little to do to address his concerns as he seems to not have compromise built in. to be clear we don't believe his issues are valid. we tried to work with him in a neighborly relationship to prevent a d.r. we hope the d.r. committee will see that we tried.

>> thank you. you have a two minute rebuttal. >> sorry. public comment. does anybody have public comment in favor of the project sponsor? >> i would like to say i don't have an additional dwelling unit. my unit is approved two unit building at the back of my house. if it's called an additional dwelling unit, it's a two-unit building. the next subject of the addressing, i just got this information on july 18th that there was a potential for an additional dwelling unit within three years of construction of this unit. so that was a shock to me and a shock to my neighbors. there are eight neighbors that

said i didn't know they could change the use. they've got what they really need, they will live there, they say for the rest of their lives but they could sell it tomorrow to someone else and put it out as an asset. i'm a real estate broker in san francisco. and it is valuable. but i think they have been taken down the wrong lane. because i think promising someone, it's nice work if you can get it. $125,000 to build a unit. $600,000 if it's rented. i don't know if they pay more taxes or repave the road, who will be responsible for the road. so this will all come out in the board of appeals because i don't have time to articulate the whole history that you are looking at here, but i think you might say there's something a little rotten in san francisco or denmark. which ever one you want to take. there you go. >> project sponsor?

>> i can answer any questions, but i don't know how to address. >> the commission may have questions for you. thank you. commissioner moore? >> my button was never taken off. i believe in front of us is a reasonable application and the speculation they may or may not be an a.d.u. is really not in front of us in the way we would ultimately welcome everybody looking at parking being replaced by a.d.u.'s because we need, we have more room for cars being housed in san francisco than people who really need to live under a roof. that said, i'm not going to get into standing on a soap box. i believe that the application

is reasonable and follows the codes that govern what we are looking at and i move to approve. >> second. >> there's a motion to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 4-0. commissioners, this places us on case 16 for 2017-009996drp. 434-436 20th avenue for discretionary review. >> the item is a public initiated request for discretionary review to construct a fourth story vertical addition and horizontal at the rear of an

existing building for an additional dwelling unit. one d.r. was withdrawn by an agreement by the neighbors to remove the roof deck, include a solid railing on the lower decks and limit exterior lights. this, as i understand has been recorded as a deed restriction between the property owners. this block of 20th avenue consists of three story stucco buildings. this building is one of the shallower buildings in the pattern. the rear addition as proposed would extend 19 feet from the existing rear wall and 13 feet at the second story and would be setback five feet from the property line. the vertical addition is to setback 10.5 feet from the street front and screened by the roof parapet to maintain the scale at the street. the reason for the d.r. requester, a tenant of 436 20th

avenue is concerned with three primary issues cht first, displacement and economic hardship during the construction. and an increase in rental cost due to pass through of building equipment and further impacts to parking with respect to muni services and general congestion due to addition of additional parking space in the ground floor of the property. the public comment to date we have not received any letters of support nor opposition. and our recommendation in light of the d.r. requesters concern, we contacted the rent board with respect to tenants rights and found because the building is under rent control, entitlements are governed and the state civil code 1947 requiring notice and per diem compensation for temporary displacement and that comes in various tiers depending on duration of displacement. i can elaborate on but i'm no

encyclopedia yet. the improvement is determined by rent board hearings upon petition of the building owner. the rent board doesn't have record of a protected tenant at this address though that's not unusual as it doesn't time, i w

quick as possible. our concern is of a social nature and it's basically two families are currently living in this building. eight human beings. two protected class. one 14-year-old, our son. elderly man lives below us. so there's three people in our unit. five people in the unit below us. our concern is we are going to be basically thrown out on the street with really nowhere to go. the city is trying in their charter to preserve housing supply. our landlord lives around the corner from us. she has a large home around the corner from us where she lives. she has conveyed to us and it's

also in your staff report that since the remodeled building will be owner occupied the owner and her family are going to move into the building after it and we're not going to be able to move back in. so pass throughs and what not, we were told via email that was her intention to move back in. i know the city has a serious housing problem and on the surface it appears an extra unit will be added but eight people are not going to have a place to live and it's going to extend, the project. i've seen similar projects in our neighborhood take a year to 18 months to even get finished. in that time there's not really any opportunity for us. my son goes to school, goes to washington high school a few blocks away. just started, not sure what he will do, the boy below us just

started san francisco state college, just graduated from high school. the old guy has got to be like 80 years old. they don't know what they are going to do. we have been there for 14 years. it's the only home our son has known. it's just, you know, we see our neighborhood changing. and you know, i can't say for sure, but i can't understand why someone with a home a block or two blocks away, five bedroom house or something like that would want to move into a four story building claiming that getting old and having to walk up four flights of steps, intending to put roof decks and extra bathrooms. i understand but like i said, we received an email that her and her family will be moving

to 20th avenue and i guess i can put it here. you can see from the proposed plan it's a major renovation. >> sir, i'm sorry, can you pull the mic over and speak into the microphone. >> sorry. just basically reading what it says that you know, she wants to move back into the house and spend the rest of her life there with her family and this major renovation and we would have to be out for that. sorry. anyway.rate, we are

paying $2100 or whatever a month. similar apartment we are looking at $4,000 a month. there's no way we would do that. we just can't survive. thank you. and appreciate your time. >> thank you. is there any public comment in support of the d.r. requester? >> commissioners, joseph smith, housing rights committee, richmond district.

as the tenants have presented, the landlord has already revealed their intent in writing that they want the tenants to leave permanently. owner-month-in evictions with families with children enrolled in our public schools and with seniors are complicated for a reason. the city has acknowledged -- sorry, the hardship of these evictions. but, as we know, this is the intent of these renovations. you may think we are gaining a third unit, so that's a benefit, it's a resource. and we might agree. but in this circumstance, we might gain a unit but at the expense of losing two rent-controlled units. that might not seem to make any sense but it does. with such a large scope of work, d.b.i. will require a new certificate of occupancy once

the work is done. so at the completion of the renovations, this will no longer be a 1916 building, instead it will be a 2019 building and unfortunately our rent stabilization ordinance only extends to buildings that were built prior to 1979. so even if the tenants are able to move back, which we are doubtful they will, based on the owners intentions, they will no longer have the rent stabilization or just cause protections they benefit from currently. and as we know based on the housing balance report, district 1 and most districts across the city, we are losing rent controlled stock faster than we are able to replace it with any new affordable housing. so our request from housing rights committee is for the landlord to focus their capital improvements on the deferred maintenance items the tenants

are suffering from currently, if they want to add a third unit they can do so at the ground level where there's plenty of space to add a studio-sized unit without the major renovations they are proposing to do. thanks very much. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> teresa, senior and disability action. again, this is a very puzzling situation. and when you hear about someone wanting to live with their family, age in place, and then to think of an additional floor being added, again, all of those stairs one would have to go up. that's just not typical aging in place behavior, for one thing, and certainly not building something like that. again, as joseph said, this is about displacing eight individuals. a senior, and a child.

and in terms of a behavioral pattern with the owner who does live a couple blocks away, a five-bedroom home where she had received a notice of violation because there was an illegal unit being used as housing, back in 2012. and so that was followed up, of course, by inspectors. that was abated. but when there's already some behavior. and again, you look at a five-bedroom house. two blocks away. there's already an in-law unit in there that is now illegal, the idea of aging in place and with family, while displacing people who have lived nearly a decade and more in the current building that they had recently acquired. it doesn't make very much sense given what's going on today.

also, i don't trust their actual intent of the three-unit building. why can't they just add, as joseph had said, add another unit and a lower level would certainly make more sense than aging in place and having a family member there with them. so, again, i'm not sure what the intent here is, it would clearly displace tenants. it would clearly cause a lot of misery and not sure if this is just about market rate rentals, and again not sure what they will do here. so putting this all into a big question. thank you. >> thank you. any more public comment in support of the d.r. requester? all right. the project sponsor? >> good evening, commissioners. my name is john lau.

i'm the project engineer for this project. i sort of get caught between a hard rock and a stone. i know the socioeconomical that's the problem but as an architect and engineer we look at what's best for the client. this client is a childhood friend since we were 10 years old. when we moved here, my parents live on 17th avenue and their parents good friend and uncle. we always have interaction. at that time project sponsor was living on the second floor. now she is married, now she is a widow, raise three adult children. so chinese have this idea they like to live together, especially when you get old. so i suggested why don't you make this a place for your

children to use for the smaller units and that's why the idea come, they want to personally live in that unit and there was a history why they want to do this unit. and that's why we tried to follow all the planning code, engineering code to make it a viable project. we are going through planners and we are going through numerous residential design review and then we come to the d.r. request. we feel for the d.r. requester. i already told to start working with the rent board for compensation, something have to be compensated. i can answer any question you have. >> all right, you still have three more minutes. but if your presentation is over, we can hear a rebuttal from the d.r. requester. sorry, public comment in

support of the project sponsor, come on up. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm actually the son of the sponsor. should i speak now or in the rebuttal? >> you can speak in the rebuttal, you are part of the project team? >> still have two and a half minutes. you still have time. >> i just want to address a couple points that were brought up. it was pointed out that my mother lives two blocks away, that is true and in a five-bedroom home that is also true. the entire reason why she and i will eventually move back to 20th avenue is because she doesn't want to live in a five bedroom home. she wants to live on a single flat where she doesn't have to walk up the stairs to go to her bedroom. the points brought up about aging in place. that's exactly what her intention is, that's why she sent an email to the tenants

notifying of their intentions. she wants to move back and age in place. the other point about why does my mother need such a big house if she can just age in place in her current home. i myself move back with my mother and care for her, i have two older sisters when they have families might move back to the 20th avenue house as well. and again, we fully intend to consult with the rent board to do this properly, the homeowner move-ins to pay the compensations, the relocation fees. please look at the facts before you, and i appreciate your time, thank you. >> thank you. are there any other public

comments in support of the project sponsor. >> d.r. requester gets a two-minute rebuttal. >> would you like to come up? >> i just want to reiterate and just make a comment. about the realities of families like mine in san francisco that in spite of holding good jobs and salaries, this is not good enough, it's not enough to rent a place at market. so this is for you so kind of in the back. also, you know the way you know, this is happening, there is no way for us to come back. they want us out and who knows they are, who knows all the family everything will be an

upscale place. we can't come back. she told us in the email. these kind of actions leave the residents unprotected. affecting illegal renters that can't pay, they move in and out all the time, i see trucks all the time. these actions undermine economic diversity of the neighborhood and that's what i want to say, thank you. >> thank you very much. commissioners? >> project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal if you need it. >> i have nothing to add but i like the d.r. process, i think they did a good job but they shut down our meeting, that's why we couldn't resolve it. thank you very much, i can

answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. commissioners? >> what is our policy as it applies to this? >> i'm not aware this is a demolition by the definition of our planning code. there is extensive interior remodeling. given the current condition of construction realities, it is conceivable that this project could last a long time because, you know, projects, there's a

labor shortage. you can get a crew in there and they will be there one day demoing and you might see no action on the building for some time. and they might come in and do more work and might go away. projects i've seen take typically six months are taking sometimes double that. this is just anecdotal. in other words a building i look out my window everyday and wonder what the heck is going on with that. what's the extent of remodeling versus necessary things to include a second unit in this case. primary to this project to get that second unit where it is proposed is the two means of egress, the two stairwells. there is some demolition to insert those. i'm wondering if there are other things in the plans that could be looked at as

incidental. in other words, desired but not necessary to the addition of the third unit. what's our policy? to my knowledge we don't have a policy related to displacement that's why we rely on the protocols of the rent board and the rules governed by that. >> i do have questions about that and we no longer have the city attorney. and i think maybe mr. smoak can answer this. i believe it's not even in our rent control ordinance. it's costa hawkins about what size of renovation causes that trigger of being no longer a 1979 unit. >> thanks for the question. joseph smoak from housing rights committee san francisco. so i have spoken with

representatives at the department of building inspection and the rent board about this issue because we are seeing it all over the city right now and discussion with the residential expansion threshold which came before you as a policy matter last year. it's a little disconcerting. it's taken on a case by case basis by the rent board and d.b.i. what we are concerned about the extent of renovations with this particular project it would be considered. even if it's not a demolition per d.b.i. because they don't really rule on that. they won't allow the building to be occupied until there's a new certificate of occupancy and that's what d.b.i. has told us. we are participants in the outreach program. a lot of our colleagues in this city who do tenants rights work, so we have direct access to inspectors and code enforcement staff at d.b.i. and that's what they tell us.

they tell us it's really not a matter of interpretation for them. if there's a major project and what they are doing, the project sponsor reconfigure units and adding units they will probably need to issue a new certificate of occupancy before that could be occupied by the residents. >> thank you. commissioner johnson? >> thank you for shedding light on that. what's been confusing to me, this isn't a case of someone trying to do work on a project with no intention of the current tenants moving back in and as soon as the work is completed even though they may or may not pay for displacement fees they plan on turning it into an owner-occupied situation. yeah, it just seems like a very

unusual case but i'm curious if we have seen cases like this before? >> is that a question to staff? >> yeah. >> i haven't, in my role. but that doesn't mean it hasn't existed. unfortunately, i don't know the answer. >> commissioner moore? >> as far as i can recall we have not seen anything as extreme as this one. we had grandview where the tenants were to move out but they were to move back in with t.b.d. conditions of future rent will be but we have never seen anything as extreme as this. i feel as if i'm on the firing line and i feel this ultimately, the problem is coming to weigh on us, including the responsibility of how we decide on this.

i feel almost incapable of addressing it because it's absolutely at the bulls eye of where the problems are. losing two rent controlled units and gaining one a.d.u., which is not even going to be for rental anyway because it's an owner-occupied building, i'm not even sure why we are using that terminology, it's basically converting a multi-people-occupied building into a single family residence. that's basically what the intent is. as to whether or not that's also building capital for the future, that needs to be seen because it's still three separate units. there are all kinds of questions. i have to be very honest, i feel as if i cannot make a decision on this project. i would need the wisdom of my fellow commissioners of whom

three very strong experienced are absent. i would like to ask we continue this project. we get full advisory from the city attorney. we get full advisory from the rent board and other institutions help us make a decision that's least detrimental to those who would be losing their home. >> i second that motion. did you want to say something? >> yes. if we continue it can we request the testimony from a rent board representative? >> yes. >> we would be asking the city attorney is present and every commissioner is present. >> i would like some kind of policy from the department. as to how this specifically relates to the policy of, you know, not demolishing

rent-controlled buildings. >> commissioners, november 29th is the earliest date all seven of you are scheduled to be present. however it is closed to d.r.'s. i don't know if you want to add this onto that otherwise it will have to go to december 13th as well. >> including we have to have our other commissioners listen to the proceedings of this meeting and the discussion we had. >> on that motion, commissioners to continue this matter to december 13th? [roll call] so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 4-0.

>> good morning, everybody. good morning! my name is >> in the community that when we build affordable house north a community, we build it for the residents in that community who need it the most and who can

barely afford to live here. china town is an amazing neighborhood by it has low income residents who badly need affordable housing. a great project is being built nearby, 88 broadway, which also includes. this will provide 178 homes for families and seniors many of that's really exciting. many of the affordable unit in the senior housing development are unfortunately still too expensive for the seniors who live there. in fact, 56% of all seniors living in all of district 3 are at 30% of area median income and below and for chinatown, the percentage is even higher.

opportunities for affordable housing must reflect neighborhood needs and that means, this senior housing cannot be set at affordable levels that chinatown seniors can't afford. the city is making these senior housing units even more affordable. today is why we're here to announce that we're going to be doing this by buying down the affordability levels on 13 of those units, which will move these homes from 60% of area medicinit willcost $710 a month.

the deepen affordability is made possibility through the city's investment of $1.5 million. this investment represents my commitment that when we build housing that our city meets and we need to make sure the people in these communities where we build affordable housing can qualify for the housing we build. i'm truly proud of the work that has gone into this project. i want to thank bridge housing for john stewart company, the port of san francisco, the mayor's office of community housing development. i want to acknowledge our community partners in this effort. china town community development center, the chinese progressive association, the community tenants association, and i also would like to thank barburcy coast neighborhood for this support. this is a project that is a part

of this community and we haunt to make sure have a real shot at being, maintaining and continuing to be a part of this community which is why this investment is important. one of our champions on the state side, as it restate relato affordable housing and someone who is working hard, not only for the residents here in china chinatown, our assembly member. [applause] >> thank you. it's fitting that this morning, as it's been raining, just as this press conference is starting, the sun is coming out. as our city has been experiencing the intensity of the housing challenges that we

have, today is a bright spot and an important announcement on how we move things forward. let me start by thanking mayor breed, your city departments for your investment in real affordability. and ensuring projects like this move forward. as a resident, i'm grateful to you and what everyone here is doing. i will say as a former supervisor of district 3, i want to thank the neighborhood associations, particularly the barbury coast neighborhood association, our non-profit organizations from ccdc and the pca and i want to thank bridge housing and the john stewart company and others, for moving forward this important project. i will say, as a chair of the assembly housing committee, i want to thank governor brown and my fellow colleagues for voting and signing ab14-23. some of you may have known that we had to get changes to our state-public trust law in order for the 88 broadway project to

include a childcare center, as well as to have the mixed income affordability that is the hallmark of this project. it takes all of us working together to ensure that we are addressing our housing challenges. this is exactly the kind of project that we should be building. projects that build affordable housing, community, that takes care of families, immigrants and seniors. this is what san francisco is about. i just want to thank everyone who has come together for this important announcement. thank you. [applause] >> i'd like to introduce one of the partners in this effort who is helping with the development of this project, maria debore, the vice president of development for bridge housing. >> thank you, mayor breed. good morning or good afternoon. my name is marie with bridge housing.

we're one of the co developers along with the john stewart company. it's a mixed-use multi-generational development with a broad range of housing needs, including affordable housing, middle income housing and housing for the formerly homeless. the project includes retail, a community-serving childcare center with programs and supports for all children of all income levels and incorporates a robust services plan that tends to the needs of the seniors, families and formally homeless tenant populations that will be living there. the john stewart company and bridge housing are co developers on this project and are very excited about the deeper vulnerability levels at 88 broadway and 75 davids project. the 30% units will serve very low income residents. it will be one additional step towards meeting the deep and continuous needs to create affordable housing opportunities and will be reflected i have housing needs in the chinatown

and broader community. the proposed project will pursue the city's goal of integrated a diverse population with the family and senior components of the project. a.m.i. levels will range from 30% a.m.i. to 120% a.m.i. with five 30% units. at the senior building, rents will range from 30% to 70% a.m.i. and will include a 28% homeless as well as the 1330% units that were just added. the developers have done extensive community outreach and held close to 30 public meetings to obtain approval for the 88 broadway and 435 david project. early planning began in 2014 for this project. when most 'em parked on a goal to form the 88th broadway working group to the community input while conceptualizing this

affordable housing project. as a result of early engagement and the relationships with the community, the city's vision to create a broad range of affordable housing is finally moving forward. we're excited to start construction in the second quarter of 2019 and we'll have the first apartments become available for residents in the summer of 2020. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. chinatown community development has been an incredible force of working with the community to make sure that our seniors have access to safe, affordable housing. and they are the ones who brought to my attention the concerns about the ability for the residency, the seniors of chinatown to have access to these particular units, because the affordability levels were too high. at this time, i'd like to bring up reverend norman fong, the

executive director of chinatown community development, to say a few words and talk about the incredible work they continue to do to support our seniors. [applause] >> ok. first turn to the person to your left and right and say you are beautiful. you are beautiful. mayor's office of housing. all right. it's a beautiful day in san francisco and we're here at heart of san francisco. this is it. this is where our city grew from. until today, there are still many seniors that live in chinatown in single rooms. i think we can do better. today, we celebrate every -- the mayor. [laughter] and others who added some. of course we want more but today symbolizes the heart of san francisco's showing real compassion for seniors that should not have to suffer at the

golden years of their lives. also i i want to celebrate the team. i want to celebrate c.p.a., the community tennis association, seniors themselves who said we need to get more affordable housing. this change of percentage from the 60 to 30% is a big deal. so we have to do more of this. mayor breed, i know you will do more where we can find a way to build more affordable housing reflecting the true heart of san francisco and making it beautiful. all right. [applause] >> we do have a representative from the community tenants association. we're going to ask her to come up now and say a few words. [applause]

>> hi, everyone, i'm resident of community tenants association. glad to see the future of both the housing project have set aside for seniors, however, i believe a lot of seniors cannot afford or don't even qualify to apply on the income requirement and rent level is at 15% a.m.i.

>> now we have a good news. the community and may have have been advocating for lower threshold and now the requirement of 13 of the units are lowered to 13% a.m.i. levels. we should see mayor breed and all community members thank you for your work.

[applause] yes, this is just a first step. the city and the community still need to work to fight for more housing. they want to use this opportunity to ask everyone to vote yes on prop c in november

election. prop c will provide more housing for individuals, families and homeless people. it also helps to create a cleaner city. most importantly, the tax increase suggests will not effect individual or small business because it targets large enterprise that has revenue above $15 million. prop c will adjust the current housing crisis. vote yes on prop c. thank you, so much. >> we have the chinese progressive association. [applause] thank you, mayor breed. thank you everyone. thank you to c.p.a. for those words. i'm the organizing director at the chinese progressive association here in san francisco. we are an organizing educating and organizing working families, youth, tenants and seniors in san francisco.

i think it's fitting that we're marking progress for the struggles for our community to find affordable housing. here in the heart of chinatown, which has such a long legacy of community advocacy and it has led to the types of livable community that we've been able to build here in san francisco and in chinatown. we have a long way to go and we're proud of being part of that legacy. we're also proud members of the chinatown coalition for housing justice. which is a coalition of organizations based here in chinatown that began organizing back in 2015. around the time we really saw the very impact of gentrification starting to hit chinatown. with s.r.o. rents going up drastically from an average of $600 a month to $1,000 a month. and seeing the influx of developers trying to profit off of the housing that we believe should be preserved for low

income seniors and families who are working and providing services to the city of san francisco. when we first learned about this project, we were concerned about the affordability levels. it was part of a whole program of work that was happening at the time. conversations, surveys, forums that were being held in chinatown because of the concerns of the community that, even affordable housing was just far beyond the reach and i appreciate the mayor for naming that. these developments need to be accessible to the community that they're committed to serve and we have to recognize that affordable, for someone who is working a minimum wage job in san francisco, is very different from affordable for someone working a different income. we have to make sure that housing units are successful to all and we've lost too many already of our working families. our blue collar workers, our immigrant families, too many people have had to mom to antioch and out of the bay area in order to survive. the members of the chinatown

coalition for housing justice, we are really happy today to mark this progress. and to show when community partners and developers and the city come together to really think about the solutions and recognize the needs, we can come up with creative solutions to make san francisco a place that all of us can afford to stay. thank you. [applause] thank you. i want to thank you for being here. thank you to all of our partners that are here today. we know that san francisco has a long way to go to address what we know is a serious crisis, as it relates to affordable housing. and part of my goal, as mayor, is to make sure that we support the surrounding communities, especially as i said, when we build affordable housing and a neighborhood, it's important that we look at who is in that neighborhood and how are we going to make sure that the people who are part of that community that shop in that community, that are part of the

fabric of that community, have a real opportunity to maintain their lifestyle in that particular community. that's what this is about. but we have to do more. we have to make sure that we do everything we can to build more housing at different affordability levels because, as we've said before, you know, someone making minimum wage, a family of four, it just varies for each family. we need to make adjustments how we provide housing in san francisco and working together we'll do just that. thank you so much for being here today. [applause] breed.

>> this neighborhood was lived for approximately 22 years. >> yeah, like 21 years. >> 21 years in this neighborhood. >> in the same house. >> we moved into this neighborhood six months after we got married, actually. just about our whole entire married life has been here in excel. >> the owner came to the house and we wanted to sell the house and we were like, what? we were scared at first. what are we going to do? where are we going to move into? the kids' school? our jobs? >> my name is maria. i'm a preschool teacher for the san francisco unified school district. >> my name is ronnie and i work

in san francisco and i'm a driver from a local electrical company. >> we went through meta first and meta helped us to apply and be ready to get the down payment assistant loan program. that's the program that we used to secure the purchase of our home. it took us a year to get our credit ready to get ready to apply for the loan. >> the whole year we had to wait and wait through the process and then when we got the notice, it's like, we were like thinking that. >> when we found out that we were settling down and we were going to get approved and we were going to go forward, it was just a really -- we felt like we could breathe. we have four kids and so to find a place even just to rent for a family of six. and two dogs. >> we were going to actually pay

more for rent and to own a house. >> it feels good now to have to move. it feels for our children to stay in the neighborhood that they have grown in. they grew up here and they were born here. they know this neighborhood. they don't know anything outside san francisco. >> we really have it. >> we'd love to say thank you to the mayor's office. they opened a door that we thought was not possible to be opened for us. they allowed us to continue to live here. we're raising our family in san francisco and just to be able to continue to be here is the great lesson.

>> we have a great program today. i know many of you are here to celebrate the opening of a building. so many more of us are here because it's an exciting day to celebrate the life of one of our good friends and colleagues, natalie gub, and a lot of us are gathered here for both, so -- [applause] >> i'm doug shoemaker, and we're lucky enough to be here with you to