Architect for the project at 2323 mission. Im here with the business owner. The patio has been in use for 23 years. One of the neighbors complained. Thats why were here today. I will give you an orientation and then ben will speak more specifically about the use. The twostory awning that you see is the project. This is a floorplan and you can see that ive illustrated theres a red line. Thats the existing plan. Structure in the rear extends out far to the rear yard. In our meetings with building and Fire Department staff, to provide a second exit from this space, need to make a larger rear yard so there is space at the back of the property for people to escape to. There is only one way out to the street in the front and unfortunately no way it put a second corridor. So the Fire Department staff agreed its an appropriate and safe solution to the problem. By limiting the outdoor space to a maximum of 49 people its complaint with the building code. It is the area that we need to demolish and will create a larger rear yard than currently exists. Its difficult to see, but the site is very dramatically sloped. And so when you come out the back of the restaurant, you are on a grade level and theres a step up, another tier, and then a step up, another tier. The property is to the rear of our property and up about a full story, 8 feet, from our patio area. This is a view looking at the section that will be demolished. The area that you see with the blue awning will come off and then you will see theres a covered shed area that will be essentially the new rear wall of the structure and it will not be a shed structure. It will be a full building structure. On the north side here to the right, you can see the wood siding. So thats the north side. There are windows that are on to and face the patio. On the left side, the southfacing side, theres a solid brick wall all the way up, so plenty of sound mitigation. Its a structure that will be demolished as part of the work. These are the only windows in the brick facade that face on to the patio and have faced it for 23 years. Based on the location and size we estimate they could be kitchens and bathrooms, but difficult to know. And on the opposite side, because of the Fire Department requirements, the lowest tier will be the only area where seating will be allowed. Above that needs to be clear in case of emergency. All the use will be moved down from the top two tiers to the lower area. I will turn it over to ben. Thank you very much. Can i thanks for having me here today. Appreciate it. The Planning Department only received two areas of support, but we collected our own and we have about 1,000. So theres 1,000 letters of support there. And then i pulled out some key ones that are not in the stack. These are additional letters that we have and just to point out some of the support that weve had. And i do have seven of these. Can i present these to the yes. So this packet that i give you has a combination of things in it. One thing i wanted to point out was sample letters of support. Theres hundreds of Mission Residents who have chimed in. State senator scott weiner wrote a letter, City College Board members, a number of local business owners, royal coocoo, and others. The Mission Midwives run by cara engleb rect. Mission Street Merchants Association and united Player Services has written in support. I also included a sound mitigation plan that we have in place and i want to point out that i know i only have a few seconds left. We held a Community Meeting on monday and we posted the previous week for anybody that had concerns. Nobody attended that meeting, but were more than open to having another meeting with any neighbors that want to talk about how to mitigate the issues and especially to go over the sound mitigation plan that we think can help to make sure that were responsible neighbors. Thank you. Thank you. So well open this item up for Public Comment. I have a number of speaker cards. If i call your name, you can line up against the side of the room and approach in any order. Steven cook, tom tempranio, ben blyman, wandy felix, and felicia lester. Go ahead. Im steve cooke. Im a resident of the Mission District and executive director of education nonprofit called mission bit for educational poverty. Ive known the owners of this group for several years now and hosted several events at the locations and they never charged me a dime, because they knew i was doing events to support the youth in the community. The item in question is a great suggestion from staff. The outdoor patio has been a great place to build community. Its a jewel of the community. Its very welcoming and charming place to visit. Its not detached and one of the newer, posh areas. One thing i wanted to speak to is the character of the owners. I initially met mark because he was mentoring a student that we shared when i was an academic advisor at thurgood marshall. He was a big brother. So theyve been great stewards of the businesses and great people for the communities that they serve. Thats all i got. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hi. Im felicia lester. And i live on cap street, behind the bar. And i didnt know about the Community Meeting or i would have gone. But i am not opposed to the project in general, but the noise is a big problem. And ive been in the mission for 13 years and ive been in that location for three years. Just had a baby, so now i care about it a little more than i did when i first moved in, but the residents immediately behind teeth have three families that i know and am friends with and have six children and three of them under the age of 3. In my back room that abutts its three houses south and our backyard and our back room goes up against that wall that you saw with the brick ward and thats not adequate soundproofing. I forgot about the meeting on october 26 and heard a lot of noise happening around 9 00 p. M. So i went out back and i was like, oh, my gosh, i missed that meeting. It probably passed. And theyre celebrating. I just want to say that the noise is an issue but i would like the timing that it can be open after a reasonable hour. For young children, 10 00 p. M. Is late. I made an audio recording from the back room of my house. So this is what the you can put it up to the mike. [tape plays] people having fun. Its great, but when kids are trying to sleep in the back rooms, its disturbing so i want you to consider that. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. First of all, i have some the windows that you see that they showed on the side there is Apartment Buildings. And its not its very close. I mean, right there you can look over the patios where teeth is. Im strongly against the expansion to 2323 Mission Street. Since theyve opened six different tenants all the apartments on that side of the building have moved out because of the noise level. Sorry. Im very, very upset right now. Due to the noise level, how do they plan to control all the noise that would come with this change if they cant control the noise now. It would only get worse with this expansion. I dont know how much more noise the tenants in my building can take. This is a rentcontrolled building and we have two vacancies only because of the noise of the patio. People look over and go and i have to explain to them, theyre there until 10 00 at night and its noisy until then. What else can i tell them . This is a rentcontrolled Apartment Building. There is something wrong with that. If you cant rent out two apartments there. Anyway, im sorry. Currently ive been living at 2315 Mission Street for 28 years and its never been this bad. Ive spoke with the owner of teeth about various problems over the years yet nothing changes. Rather than focus on expansion, i recommend they worry about the fixing, fixing the problems that they have first, which is the noise. These are just tenants and also people have emailed the Planning Commission. I hope you think about this. Yeah, the noise is really, really, really bad. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hello, commissioners. Tim temprano, City College Board of trustees, but am here today as a fellow Mission Street bar owner and also a Mission District neighbor in support of the approval for teeth. For those commissioners who have not had an opportunity to visit teeth, virs first of all, i suggest you do. You will see a Small Business that caters to the diversetive the neighborhood and offers affordable food and beverages. I do mean affordable. You cannot beat 25 cent wings or 1 tacos. Theyre truly, in fact, affordable. And i understand the commissions role in having to balance many uses in a densely populated city like San Francisco, but i do also really want the commission to value the role that bars like dr. Teeth and ours and many others play as an economic driver in the city generating 4 billion in spending and employing 40,000 residents. You know, oftentimes for businesses like teeth, matters like this patio can be, frankly, its about survival, as i think that teeth has outlined. And i would hope that this patio, which has been in existence for over two decades, and is critical to the survival of this business, can continue to be utilized by the community. The owners of teeth have em exemplified in opening up the space to the community and inviting the community in to leverage the space to generate muchneeded funds for community nonprofits. As a neighboring Small Business owner, i really do want to commend the Ownership Team of teeth for the advocacy and work that theyve done on behalf of our industry and the 40,000 people that we employ. I urge you today to support these good Small Business owners in the neighborhood to approve the c. U. For dr. Teeth. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hi there. Good afternoon. Im lela cirgold. Ive been a Small Business owner and resident in mission. I own a bar in the mission. I truly believe one of the main reasons that the mission is a vibrant, attractive neighborhood for dining and nightlife and to live in is its Small Businesses. Its warm, positive places like teeth that care about residents that we need to foster and protect. Theyve donated thousands to local charities and they have affordable food and drink and serve a diverse crowd. Without use of their patio, we risk losing another communityfocused establishment. The patio at teeth has been in operation for over 20 years. Today you guys have the power to preserve that and keep this muchloved neighborhood institution open. We ask that you do that. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. I understand its a jewel of the mission and famous bar, but its very noisy and i get that the owners are the greatest people and have the nicest hearts, but theyre rude to their neighbors. Im sure out of the letters they got in support not one is from a neighbor, because every night, especially on weekends, i suggest you visit on the weekend to see how bad it is, the loitering is crazy. The patio closes at 10 00, but im sure a lot of those people go to the front and hang out and talk and a lot of them are drunk. You can hear how drunk they are. Sometimes when i go to work early in the morning, their trash, ive heard them vomit. Its ridiculous im not telling you to shut these people down, but the idea of expanding the back is a bad idea, especially what theyre planning to take down is next to the Apartment Building and these letters here from the tenants, its proof that they cant take it. Just for the sake of the sanative the tenants, i suggest that you dont approve this. Thats it. Just thats it. Its just really bad. And the loudness is ridiculous. And they do nothing about the loitering, which adds to the loudness the focus here is the patio, but the front is bad, too. And just like the ladys recording, it doesnt do it justice. Keep that in mind. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please . Good afternoon. I just wanted to say that to be honest with you, i know that teeth does a lot of outreach and theyre a really great bar. I went on yelp because i only visited them once and thats when they just opened and i had a bad experience. They triple billed me, but i know they do a lot of great things and its awesome that they have so much support in the neighborhood, but the things that are not being mentioned right now is as many good things they have about them they also have just as many negatives, at least if you live next to them. If you dont and you are just there to party, then i think its an awesome place that you can stay at all night, every night, and you know, go home and lie down and forget about it, but for someone that lives next door to them, in the building next to them, i promise you, that you would be opposed to this. As great as they are, as great a staff they are and owners that they may be, they make it literally miserable to live next to them and thats the honest truth. I cannot sleep. I can hear them when im in the back, in the front, in the front, in the back. Our building is next to the patio. I know the pat arroyo patio addition is the main focus today. We never had a hearing or meeting, at least that i knew of because i would have showed up. It may have been a backyard, but they didnt use it until the past few years and thats something that i also note that no one is bringing up. It only started being used in the past two years. It had not been used for 20 some years like theyre saying. To celebrate, they roasted a pig and we had to call the cops on them because it was a fire hazard. They do all kinds of stuff, all the time there, that they should not be doing. They put netting up on our building with no approval because they said that somebody was throwing something on them from our building. Maybe they were. They said they called the cops. Lets see them. Bottom line, they do things on our property. They dont get permission and someone mentioned that there was a meeting. Yeah, there was a meeting a week ago announced. Theyve been open for years. Only until this hearing was announced did they want it have a meeting with us the manager of this building has talked to mark multiple times and told him issues and concerns we have and nothing gets done about it. If it does, we dont see it. We dont get to see the changes. Maybe on the inside. Who knows. They dont affect us or better us in any way. Thats what we care about at the end of the day. We definitely get the worst of it. You did hear a recording from cap street. You should hear it on Mission Street next door to them. Its literally ridiculous. So i could go on. There are other things that happen as well at the business from customers vomitting in our doorway and they only come from that bar. There are two other bars on the block. Never come from them. There are people that do all kinds of stuff and its only from that bar. I know im on a time limit here. I hope you consider this. I know they have pros to them, but i hope you consider the cons as well. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, commissioner. Nice to see you, and, again, thanks for your services. Im al sharwa, doing business in mission for 35 years. And im very protective of our mission community. Im about a block away from the bar that theyre talking about, teeth. And it has been nothing but good experience with the owner and the operator. It became one of my Favorite Places because it offered a lot for the locals. The outdoor we dont have very many places out there. I would hate to see that change. If they close by 10 00, i dont know many people sleep before 10 00. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. How are you guys doing . I worked at dr. Teeth for five years. Theres a couple other bars in that neighborhood that have been known for a bad crowd of people. So i dont feel like teeth is really that big of an issue. The patio, however, its a trademark for San Francisco. Ive had a bunch of people that come to the bar that come from other places just to visit teeth because a friend told them to check it out because of the patio. Taking the patio away from teeth, it will take a part of San Francisco away. Not many places with patios that you can go and enjoy like we have at dr. Teeth. So i think the patio is definitely it would be a winwin for everyone to keep it open. And remodel it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hi. Im miguel olera. I work for dr. Teeth. I want you to consider keeping the patio open because way survive from it. Its important for us to keep the patio open. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Commissioners, good afternoon. Phillip lesser, president of the Mission Merchants association. Im hoping that you will accept recommendation for approval and he doesnt lose the first one that he brought to you. Kidding aside, you have before you a 7x7x7 problem. San francisco is seven miles by seven miles and the mission is 7 percent of the 7 miles. And were trying to do a lot of things within that 7 of San Francisco. Ive come before on valencia street patios. Tacolicious. We did an entertainment venue for blondeys. We had problems on albion street. Lexington street. Weve come here for Mission Street projects as well. Problems with the people on bartlett street. The solution is not to do anything on valencia street or Mission Street and then everybody on the side streets will be okay. Or you can do what weve done, this body did, come up with a lookback period. You may recall, engineering report was required. Thats the former parking lot for new college. It now has the patio out there. And you will see a sound wall around it. There are operating requirements as to when to close. How to keep it clean. How to be neighborly. And theres a lookback period a year later. Community was personal permitted to come back and see if it worked or didnt work. Its in existence today because it worked. I would suggest to do the same thing this evening, to come back with conditions that the community would be happy with and to have a lookback period a year later. Ive spoken to two of the speakers from cap street and they seem to be friendly to that. I hope you will take that into consideration and i wish matthew the best of luck in think position. Thank you very much. Another additional Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, well close Public Comment and open it up to commissioners. Commissioner richards. Commissioner richards im probably the one here who has been affected by situations like this. I looked at the photo here on the back and i was kind of like, holy [beep] their windows are right here. Sorry, these what i thought. And i thought, do you have a Charles Salter report . What is your mitigation on your noise. You said you had one. You are a beloved business, yes, absolutely, want to keep and retain these businesses, but we hear real people that i think are also telling the truth that they have issues. Absolutely. Thank you for the question. Weve had 10 bars in San Francisco that weve owned and operated and this is one of them. I have a long record of communicating with neighbors. We have neighbor issues at all 10 of the bars weve had. And i have been traditionally driven by complaints. So when a neighbor comes to us with a concern, we try to mitigate those. The building manager has come to us with a number of concerns. Some of them are things outside of our control. Theres a hot dog vendor on the corner. Theres a point here. Ive im very surprised to hear these neighbors. Its literally the first time were hearing from them. We tried it have a Community Meeting. Maybe it didnt work for everyone. Were open to that. We felt up to this point that we had actually been answering the neighbor complaints. You saw in the picture there was a foosball machine in the back and the building manager asked us to get rid of it. We did it immediately. This patio was not zoned, but permitted by the abc to be open until 11 00. So we can serve alcohol on the back patio at until 11 00, but we kept it at 10 00. I communicate with neighbors. This is literally the first ive heard from them. Commissioner richards in was in the exact situation as the neighbors, having a complaintdriven system of pushing the responsibility on the neighbors doesnt cut it. You need a noise mitigation plan like weve asked for from other businesses so you can see, this is what im doing to prevent the noise from escaping. And i started that, which i provided to you, a noise mitigation plan. Its nots a technical one, but it outlines some steps that wed take. Commissioner richards i could support the expansion of this, but weve required and asked for in the past on these issues, especially when neighbors come we had the one on the hotel on columbus street, a Charles Salter report, on how the noise escapes and the decibels. If were going to legalize this, we need to understand its effect on the neighbors. Its not, hey, its the patrons of the bar and everybody else go to hell. Its, how can you coexist and how can they have a nice life and their kids get to sleep . I would support this in the future with an understanding of what the impact i dont know. Okay. I just want to make one point, too, just to be clear. Not that this came up, but theres never, just for the record, any music or amplified sound or speakers. The noise issues are 100 people. Commissioner richards right. Commissioner johnson . Commissioner johnson i think i agree with commissioner richards and i see commissioner fong shaking his head, that this is problematic. There are other restaurants that have back patios and its possible for it to not necessarily be problematic. I think here be a absinth has a similar area, but its a cafe, clearly no noise issues. So its not necessarily the setup that 100 of the time be okay. But clearly there are some issues here. I would be open to a continuance. It doesnt sound like a plan has been put in place. I know you said you made some attempts, but we dont see it here in terms of how you will mitigate that sound. Its not that you cant have a patio ever in this setup and it never works, but this one appears problematic. I would want to see much more mitigation than what weve been presented with. Its not 100 no, but i need to see more. Commissioner melgar . Commissioner melger i really appreciate this place. Ive spent a lot of time there. I used to work at the corner. And im wondering and i also hear the concerns of the neighbors. I wonder how much of the noise is your patio and how much is just Mission Street . There is cha chas and a hot dog vendor and a bunch of stuff going on on Mission Street, particularly in the evening. And then right on the other side, theres, what is it, lucky whatever beauty bar. And so theres a lot going on on this street. I think that providing sound mitigation, it would force you to identify where what this is coming from and what youre responsible for. And then put it in paper for folks to, you know, feel okay with voting and doing due diligence. I do support your project. I think its part of the life of Mission Street. And i think that putting together a sound mitigation plan will help you to be successful. You could ask that a sound mitigation plan be put forward by qualified consultant and staff initiate and work with the project sponsor to implement them and then as an added bonus require a lookback, so that way prior to approval of permit to legalize we would ensure that, a, the mitigation plan would be implemented and conducted, and, b, that theyre incorporating things to lessen the impacts accordingly. So it sounds like there is some tenuous support in certain cases pending information, but given that it is something fairly common in other districts, were happy to make sure that this is followed through. Commissioner koppel . Commissioner koppel i want to be sure we dont do too much to hinder the success of the business. Ive overwhelm been there only been there in the daytime. I think 10 00 is fair. I would not go to this part of town and expect a quiet night. I do respect its been a locallyrun, successful Small Business and its places like this or el rio or virgils that are part of the neighborhood and i dont want to handcuff them too much, but if its the will of the commission to continue and do more, i will be supportive. In general, im supportive of the business in general. I would be supportive of what the planner has recommended that we recommend or require them to get a come up with a sound mitigation plan working with staff and that a year after thats implemented, we have a lookback. But they approve and implement that and get whatever expertise you need to do it and avoid another hearing. But weve been down this path before where weve had these issues. There is clearly legitimate concern from neighbors that are not going to be totally avoided. There will be noise from a back patio use. We face it a lot. But i think getting a professional consultant in to come up with some additional measures and then having us look back is the most productive way to do this. Commissioner richards i support this business. I support drinking on patios. I hope that we can understand what the mitigations are, not just to get you the approval, but for us to understand what it takes so when we have these in the future were more versed. I dont think weve had many of these. I would like to understand what were approving. I would like to make a motion that we approve this along with the condition that was outlined that it that staff work with the project sponsor to put together a sound mitigation plan that is professional and passes our standard. And theres a report back in one year. Is that what you said . Yes. Yes. Second. Just to chime in. This is also an enforcement action. The sponsor has been good about coming in to get the patio legalized and we want to be sure that we can do as much as we can to support the efforts. And i would like to just encourage or require that as part of you working with the project sponsor, its also the residents of the adjacent buildings are included in that and have a chance to review, you know, what the mitigation measures are and give feedback. One quick note. On the oneyear lookback, would that be from the approval or the completion of construction . I would say implementation of improvements. Yeah, theres significant construction that has to be done. And i recommend that during that phase, you are implementing additional measures, obviously, take extra precautions to reduce noise. Commissioner moore . Commissioner moore is this what you wanted or do you want the report first . I would be fine with a memo with the report saying this is what weve done, no hearing. Its approved, but i would like to have a hearing in a year, just an informal hearing, where neighbors can come and talk, rather than a note in our file. We would get the report. Correct. Is that okay with the motionmaker and seconder . Let me repeat what i understand, so were clear. So were going to require sound mitigation plan to be implemented by a qualified professional. The project sponsor shall work with staff to implement that plan and include the neighbors within the discussion of the or the review of the sound mitigation plan and then subsequently within one year of the implementation you would give us a memo on the report and what you did. Correct. So include a memo to document what weve done. And upon implementation, the project sponsor with come back for an informational hearing at the oneyear mark. I would like to ask the applicant to develop a more proactive engagement with your neighbors. I mean, you have significant support, but in the end, the people that live next to you, they should be brought into your approval and supporting each other. I understand. I dont think i spoke exactly correctly. What i meant by complaintdriven, i didnt understand that people had an issue because i all we had heard was specific issues going on, that foosball table is loud, hot dog vendor is bad, so we addressed them. We thought we were and this is what i do at all the other places and i have a lot of neighbor relations, but, yes, i totally understand. Commissioners, a motion has been seconded to approve this project with conditions as am d amended for the project sponsor to continue to work with staff to develop a sound mitigation plan to be submitted to the Planning Commission with a oneyear informational hearing report back from the state of implementation of the noisereduction members. Commissioner fong aye. Commissioner johnson aye. Commissioner moore aye. Commissioner koppel aye. Commissioner melger aye. President hillis aye. Motions passes. Items 24ag. For case numbers 2015017751drp. 1824 jennings, 1083 hollister, 1395 shafter, 1050 gilman, and 1656 newcombe. All filed by the same party, discretionary reviews, concerning the same issue. Through the chair, were going to provide the requester 5 minutes to collectively comment on all of the properties. And then the sponsor will have a 5minute time period with their respective 2minute rebuttals. Correct. And well hear from staff first and then also, if the City Attorney can give us a quick overview of what is happening in regards to these properties, and if the mayors housing can give us an update on where they are with some of the issues in this case. That would be helpful and then well take the d. R. Requesters testimony. Im joined by ellis zamonski, planning staff, and various city agencies. The items before you are a series of discretionary review on seven properties owned by a husband and wife team. The Building Permits have a dwelling unit loss for a total of 12 units lost. In all, 14 households are impacted and i will explain the difference between units and households later. This is a comprehensive presentation for a discretionary review hearing. Given the nature and number of the projects, we think its property to have a full background. I will give an overview on timeline and how we plan to move forward before turning it over to our fellow city Staff Members from the department of homelessness and the City Attorney. Permits are for illegal construction exceeding the maximum allowable density. The properties are either rh1 or rh2, which allow for 1 to 2 units respectively. In july, 2015, Planning Department was informed of a series of complaints alleging that they had been converted to apartmentstyle buildings. September, 2015, the joint inspections were conducted by Planning Department, building inspection, Fire Department, police department, office supervisor, malia cohen, and City Attorneys office. At this time the city found 49 units across 12 properties where city records indicated there should be 15 units. The majority are part of the housing and urban development, veteran affairs, supportive affairs program. Following the inspection, Planning Department initiated proceedings against all properties with each found to be in violation of planning code section 171 for the unauthorized conversion for uses. At the conclusion of the enforcement process, notices of violations were issued. Building permit applications were filed to legalize the number of units permitted at each property, as well as one additional unit through the program 207. 3. Additional aa aal units would b proposed to be removed. The filing of the d. R. S that are now before you. The removal of the unit requires traditional youth authorization. 317c4, when there is no path for legalization, conditional use authorization is not required. In october, 2016, mr. Frederick bryant filed applications on all projects. The stated reasons for filing were to prevent any tenant displacement that would result from the removal of the units. In order to reduce the adverse effects, mr. Bryant requested that all sinks and doors be removed, only removing the kitchens. In response, the department sought to maximize the units retained, being done in two methods. 22 units will be legalized, bringing the units of the 12 properties up to 37. 207. 3 contains one unauthorized unit per lot to be granted legal status. Theyre allowed to exceed the permitted density and they do not have to meet usable open space or parking requirements of the planning code. The Second Program is the accessory dwelling unit in code 207. There are two variations of this program in 207. The first, 207c4 is designed for multifamily dwellings or singlefamily that doesnt meet the requirements of the Second Program. For density and parking and open space are granted as needed. The Second Program, 207c6, only for Single Family homes and the units must be code complaint. 180u is permitted in the property. The next slide details all 12 properties investigated by the city. In yellow, the items before you today for d. R. It should be noted that the time of the notification, it was not yet available for all properties. Due to the application of current controls, we have retained additional units. Department staff has communicated to the sponsor which are eligible. In the cases of all existing units eligible to be retained. Mr. Bryant withdrew the d. R. The remaining units proposed for removal have no path to legalization. With that in mind, these are staff recommendations for the remaining d. R. S. Staff recommends taking discretionary review and approving projects that they had an adu, but not on 1656 newcombe avenue. Theyre not eligible to add an adu because it would be on the second or third floor. Based on previous comments regarding the projects, the commission expressed concerns that there would not be the time to relocate the households. If a motion is passed today, two actions would follow. The first would be to work with the project applicant to ensure that the permits are complete and code complaint. It would likely take 2 to 3 months because it should be noted that staff has worked with the project sponsor to correct and sort code issues and revisions have come at a slow, unreliable pace. If the Commission Takes action today to require adus at all properties, a separate permit is required, as adus must have their own, dedicated permits. Typical timeline from submittal to approval is 3 to 6 months. The department is cognizant of the fact that it will cause displacement and is working to identify which households are at risk. There are 11 occupied 1bedroom units proposed to merger to 2plus bedroom units. Current tenants will mostly not be able to occupy the new units as its a subsidy based on size of household. A voucher older in a 2bedroom unit would probably not be able to occupy a 3bedroom unit. It will create a small number of 2bedroom units that would allow tenants to shift from one unit to another 2bedroom unit. This is, of course, dependent on the tenants finding the new units desirable and being willing to rehouse tenants it. Could reduce the households affected to 10. For clarity it, i would like to note that the number of households is 14 and unit loss is 12. When two units are merged, theres a net loss of one unit. However, both households need to be rehoused. So thats where the discrepancy comes. If there is confusion, were available to provide clarity on the households and units, etc. The remaining affected households will find housing with the help of two avenues. Mr. Buckley and ms. Cohen will provide more information on brilliant corners. The tenants may find housing independent of the Property Owners or brilliant corners. Lastly, all affected households are provided and find longterm housing. To that end, well work with the mayors office, City Attorneys office and homelessness and Supportive Housing to sequence the projects and construction negating harmful impacts. This will route back to Planning Department prior to issuance. Once its complete, will be routed to the other agencies for review without Planning Department approval. Once they retain the approval, they will be sent back to planning. Planning will coordinate with the agencies present to ensure that the households have been offered comparable housing. At that time, it will be routed back to dvi for issuance. The Property Owner created 34 illegal units at 12 different properties, more than triple the number of legal units. The city is able to legalize 22 units in addition to the 15, but that leaves 12 units that cannot be legalized under the planning code. This concludes my brief presentation. Also on hand for the city, jeff buckley from the mayors office, emily cohen, department of homelessness and housing. And office of the City Attorney. I will turn it over to mr. Buckley now and Planning Department is available for any questions you may have. Im nick cola. Im assigned to the case. Our lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial on february 25, 2018. During my presentation, i want to address three subjects. First, the Code Violations at the 12 properties including their pattern of deceiving the planning and building departments. I want to provide information that weve discovered. And also i want to reiterate what matt said previously about all city departments working collectively in helping the victims, their tenants, and seeking to recover all the costs providing help to the tenants. Because this is an open session, i cannot discuss legal strategy or give legal advice. I can only discuss the evidence that i have thus far. My ability to take questions will be limited and i apologize for that. Judy wu and trent zu used the following m. O. First, they purchase singlefamily homes. And then they obtain permits to add laundry rooms. Through deposition testimony, the advantage is having gas and water hookups. Once they get signoff, they use the gas and water hookups to install kitchens, kitchen sink and a stove. They then dont get any permits after that and they erect drywall, create entrances and pass them off as units. Then they go through the process of applying for approval to house section 8 recipients. We conducted task force inspection. And we discovered numerous Code Violations regarding unauthorized building, electrical plumbing and ventilation issues throughout the properties. The inspections revealed that there was cheap and substandard building materials, like thin drywall where sound can pass through, unpermitted electrical wiring. And haphazardly installed heaters the departments rent the units out to veterans, many of whom were formerly homeless. They were less likely to complain about the substandard conditions in their units and vouchers also allow for higher rental paument payments. According to document weve obtained, the defendants generate 100,000 per month from the 12 properties that contain 49 unlawful units. The negative impact includes tenants not getting fair value for their vouchers, paying way more than fair market value for units that in reality are illegally divided singlefamily homes. Theres unsafe, uninspected occupancy. The buildings only have one mailbox. Thats problem at ic for those that complain about lost or stolen mail, especially for tenants that receive medications via mail delivery. And installing multiple mailboxes would have raised red flags, so the defendants refused to do so when tenants requested that. Tenants have sold us when they complain about problems, 1 3 been threatened by judy wu that they would went up back in an s. R. O. Neighbors have complained of problems from suddenly living near what was once a single have family home, that now is a multiunit Apartment Building. These homes often have trash service as if theyre singlefamily homes, so trash will be strewn about the block and garages are converted to units, so there is no offstreet parking, where the parking was designed to be for singlefamily, there are multiple cars parked on sidewalks or blocking driveways the price of Single Family homes in the neighborhood has been driven up because of buyers like these defendants. Because they tend to recoup money illegally, theyre in a position to outbid middle class, and firsttime homebuyers. Secondly, i will address the defendants manipulation of the discretionary review process. Defendants filed an application for unit removal to reduce the units from 49 to the maximum amount that planning would allow, which as matt dito stated was 37. This request for d. R. Was then filed in october, 2016. The d. R. Req d. R. Hearing a tene of the properties signed all nine discretionary review applications, each included a 578 application fee. They wrote a check for 700 towards the fee and the remainder of the fees were paid by a third party, who is trent zus coworker. We took deposition of the tenant that signed them as well as the coworker. In the tenant deposition, he testified that he was asked to accompany him to the Planning Department to represent the tenants. When they arrived, he was asked to sign signature pages of nine discretionary review pages the applicant said that he did not prepare the d. R. S and he didnt know what it meant. He then was asked to pay for it because i forgot his checkbook. The coworker that wrote the remainder of the fees, he forgot his c