there could be a resolution from this commission recommending legalization, especially since you are on record asking there be no cap in the john avalos bill two years ago and that's keeping units from being legalized. being realistic, if displacement is going to happen, then we want more than verbal assurances from the city that no permits will ever be issued until all of the tenants are housed. need i remind you that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and i believe the city has good intensions. but wear only hearing this verbally. i would like to see something in writing from the city, something in writing to the tenants, that states exactly what the city is going to do and what the timeline is here and the fact that no one will be displaced until there is a suitable and

comparable replacement unit. that's vital. i would hope that you as commissioners would demand that of the city, that there be something in writing or something that we can, you know, take, count on, that we can use, if the city doesn't come through. my organization does plan to keep -- to make sure that the city is accountable and that the city does come through with what they're saying that they're going to do. so i would hope that this commission also will be making that same demand of the city. i think the main point is to reiterate, if there will be displacements, we want a solid, written assurance that no permit will ever be issued until there is comparable replacement housing found for every single tenant. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good evening. i stay in one of the units, but i'm not a veteran. i came from a different program. it's like, if you take these housing away from us, what happens to people in programs like me? where do i get place ed? where do i get housed? i came from a program where i was on probation and i got housing probation. when i got in the program, i had no on. i have two jobs now. i stay in a nice unit. when i had a problem, she always fixed it. i never had a problem with the unit i stayed in. and this seems to me like instead of just trying to replace us, they should invest in her fixing it. it's more than just veterans that are suffering. you have other people that are suffering. if i get put out my place, where do i go? i'm not a veteran.

what options do i have? so i'm in support if you can just give her time to try to fix the units or come up with a better solution. that's all i wanted to say. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please? >> commissioners. i'm tony robles. i represent senior and disability action. we'd like to see the units legalized. we don't want to see any of the tenants have their homes in jeopardy. very much concerned because many of them are veterans, not all, but many are veterans, who have been through a lot and have fought for a lot and, you know, this is one thing they shouldn't have to be fighting tooth and nail for. this should be a right. they should have a home. they're entitled to that.

they've earned that. we want to see the units legalized. the way things are in the city. the way things are run, it's goofy. what assurances, if tenants have to move, are there? we know that in the current housing landscape, people are on patienting lists for a very long, long time. we would like to see some assurances if they do have to move and there is displacement that they will be moving and we would like to see the plans specific -- the specifics of those plans, again, like other people have stated, in writing. i think the gentleman who spoke earlier -- i don't think there's anything we could add. he spoke very, very eloquently

about the needs of the tenants there and how we don't want to see tenants move to a part of town that will put them at risk. they can come and go as please. they can thrive. they have community and we would like to see that maintained and remain undisturbed. thank you. [please sta

times a week and i think this could be solved without -- i mean, if they want to punish judy woo, they can do it without putting housing at risk. thank you. >> how is everybody doing up there today? >> great. how are you? >> i'm hanging in there. i'm john talbot, i'm a navy veteran, i live at 1290 shafter, along with fred over there.

and i'm hearing some bad things about judy i don't like, not only do i not like it, i'm very worried about what judy's going to do. the reason i'm saying that, most of the veterans that saying good things about judy, me also. if you look up the word compassion in the dictionary, i wouldn't be surprised if you see judy's picture in it. she's always around and helps everybody who has a problem in their place. that's not why we're here today. we're here today because some veterans have to -- have to move. the reason they have to move is because judy has a shopping list of violations she has to take care of and she can't take care of it while the veterans are living there, for example, i stay in a three unit house on the bottom floor, frank's up stairs in a single unit in the

back and joe's up stairs in a single unit in the front. judy wants to turn these two single units into one two bedrooms so joe's kitchen and his bathroom have to go. so how is joe going to live down there while they tear down the kitchen and bathroom. judy wants to take care of the violations. she's good woman. she doesn't have a problem taking care of the violations but she's stuck between a rock and a hard place because she can't fix any of the violations until the people living there move. i'm hearing these thrones thrown at judy -- >> thank you sir. that's your time. >> i didn't know i had a time. >> you have three minutes. >> there's some things you don't know about.

hud inspects all the units before we move in. why let veterans move into a place before -- >> we may have questions about that. >> people don't want to talk about that. >> okay. we've got to move on. everybody has equal time. we appreciate it. thank you. thank you sir. we appreciate it. >> put homeless veterans in. -- >> sir, if everybody did this, we'll be very long -- sir, everybody has three minutes. we want to keep it fair. next speaker please. >> i'm michelle and i live on the 1700 block of newcomb avenue and i'm a part of the member of

the model block program and we're supporting illegal units be terminated, to whatever extent needs to happen, my dad is a veteran. he lives in the providence senior housing, a legal unit. and i think it is wrong that veterans would be in a unit that is not properly staffed, that's not safe. that there's possibility of fire from electrical things and also to the neighbors that live in the vicinity of the apartments. while the apartment i'm speaking about is not currently on the list, it's owned by judy woo and we have had a steady stream of problems as tenants. and you say walls go up in the middle of the living room to the wiring that's possibly there. in san francisco, the houses are very close together and short or fire could ruin a whole block.

no landlord should collect $3,100 for a property and not provide basic services. that's what's happening. i think it's right that homeless vets and everybody who is homeless should find a place and people currently residing in the apartments that are referred to in this discretionary review hearing should be kept up to code and perhaps the people who don't have residence as a result of the stuff being illegally manufactured and deceitfully put forth through the planning

committee by the landlord are not the big honest people. they're making quite a profit. in one case in the examiner, there was $11,000 a month for one particular property. that's not being helpful. that's a problem. that's a crime. i feel maybe judy should be on the hook, judy and her husband be on the hook for helping to place these people monetarily. getting back to the property at 1750 newcomb avenue, which is not included in the things but owned by judy woo and i guess her husband, is that this -- there's ongoing problems for us as residents here. we're taxpayers and we have guns shot -- >> thank you ma'am.

>> when you hear the chime you have 30 seconds left and there's a clock there. >> how you doing? i'm a veteran. i just come off being on the street -- >> sir if you can speak -- there you go. >> for seven years i was on the street until i found judy's apartment. i've been there four and a half years, the place is beautiful. i never had a complaint, if i did, she was on it when i said something about it. i don't see after four and a half years, the place is inspected. it was inspected by people and now all of a sudden now it's not up to code. where does that come from? i don't understand. thank you. >> next speaker please.

>> good evening commissioners, i also stay in one of the units of judy woo's, from what i understand, mainly the reason it's illegal, there's too many of them. these are not slum units, they're not falling down, they're not infested or any of those things. judy is a very receptive landlord. you call, she answers. now, apparently something went on because all of us are on some kind of subsidy. all those places get inspected every year. now -- yeah, we can't even move in without an inspection. they can't be that bad. and i -- >> excuse me, you're out of order and disrupting the hearing. >> i'm sorry? >> i'm speaking to the gentleman interrupting you. >> i don't understand. we're being put in a position

where we may all end up on the street because basically because she tried to give more people housing than she was a lotted to do. you know, i understand laws were broken and fines will be levied and what have you, that's fine. but that shouldn't affect us. and i know you have the power to let this -- to legalize the units without them becoming -- you have to take someone's one bedroom -- take two one bedrooms for two people's housing and make it bigger so the few of us can stay there. i don't understand. i'm just -- i don't get it. i know i have more time but i'm not a public speaker but i felt the need to say something and thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> my name is tya, i have been

renting from judy woo for six years. i came off a hood bash program on treasure island. i stayed there 14 months, i was homeless. i completed the program. i met judy woo. she showed me a unit, but it wasn't ready. it was currently being constructed and she told me it would be available in two weeks. after two weeks went by, i came back, i met with her and saw the place, it was a new place essentially. i'm still there.

i'm still happy. now, housing authority, they come by and certify the place annually. they all tell me it's a great place, you know. mr. boris from the district attorney office, he came by and saw my place. he thought it was great. he couldn't believe i was homeless before. i needed a break, i got a break thanks to judy woo. i greatly appreciate her and her efforts. i only have one thing that i would call a complaint and i didn't make it, the housing made it. one of my owls was not working on the stove. she went out and bought a new one the same day, had a

maintenance man put it in. i haven't had a problem since. one day i actually created a problem for her by stopping up the toilet. she replaced it, a brand new toilet. as far as i know, judy has been outstanding. out here helping people and she told me i would have a place to live as long as i pay my rent. i do it. i'm currently -- my rent is due is -- on this coming first of the month, i have a zero balance due and i like it like that. i pay my rent on time and as far as delapidated apartments, i don't know anything about it.

i have a picture here, a short video if you care to look at it, of my place. >> we may call you up sir but your time is up. i appreciate it. next speaker please. >> good evening. i'm mardina graham, i live about five doors from one of judy's apartments. and i'm sorry about the veterans but i feel that san francisco has a responsibility to all residents. when we allow someone to do something like that, it affects the neighbors in the neighborhood. what i feel the problem is is

that it's money. it's all about money. hopefully the veterans, hopefully you can find places for them. i don't want anybody to be misplaced. i'm not looking at anybody as being better than them, but i pay taxes, i pay my house note and i don't like living next to a place where the people and the trash -- because, well, actually we have been contacting judy woo. we talk to her by e-mail and we've asked her to come out so we could show her some of the problems we're having, she hasn't showed up yet. so i know she's taking care of those people paying her, she's getting a check from every month, but when it comes to the

people living in the area that she has places, she's not responding to us. so i think the city of san francisco or the commission should respond to her. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment? we've kind of taken those both in support and against the dr. the project sponsor, do you want to make comment? you have five minutes. thank you. ryan patterson, the attorney for the property owner. commissioners, this is a hard case. this saturday was veterans day and i think we're all in agreement today that if there is a way to legally save these units, that that should happen. no matter what we think of what

judy woo did. we're effectively dring staff's request along side with the tenants. we're on the same page as the tenants. we're trying to save the housing units. as it turns out, there is a way to save these homes. legally. if you remove the extra stoves, the only issue, the reason staff

says it can't be done is because of the rooms down matrix, places can't be independently accessible and have sinks. it's a policy interpretation. it's not law, it's not code. you have the authority not to apply it. it's just the guideline for staff and the commission is not bound by it. i want to thank you forgiving time for our experts to do the property by property analysis. they have developed a list of code upgrades for each property to ensure safe quality housing. >> jeremy shaw, i'll go over one of the subject properties right now. if i can get the overhead. this is 1083 hollister. right now we're using the plans that the department has requested that we submit. so existing on the left, proposed on the right.

the main idea at least on the ground floor for the planning proposal, there are two legal units combined into one. we want them to remain separate, and the way we do that is by removing the stove in one. we would go through convert a portion of the garage into living space so it could have appropriate egress. we would go through all the electrical systems and upgrade all the fire separations and sound proving between the units. in this particular case, we would be looking at lowering the rear grade in the backyard to have appropriate space for each unit. we can add mailboxes for all the units. and then fully repaint the

interior, exterior. as pat i think wants to talk about, it's a good value. >> we can do it together. i'm not here for judy woo. i'm here for vets. these units can be saved for $40,000 per unit. it's up to you to decide if you want to deal with no kitchen, you get to stay. i hope the city is good enough to say that. i hope we're big enough to say that. go ahead. >> anyway, these are decent

units. i have gone through every one of them. there's two issues, exiting through the garage, easily addressed with sprinklers, administrative bolt and that can be solved and one building in the back that needs to be torn down. it is being torn down. everything else is solvable. >> i'll save comments for rebuttal. >> i don't think we're doing rebuttal. i think we have given ample time to both on this. given that you're not -- this is not really rebutting anything. >> may i have 30 seconds to finish? >> sure. >> thank you. i just want to make clear that there are two options before the commission today.

one is to deny them, or remove the extra stoves and the tenants can stay. i thank you for your time today. we do believe a cu is required for the process under ordinance 33-16. i want to tell you we are in early stages of discussions with the city attorney's office to reach a settlement. >> thank you mr. patterson. >> we will close this portion of the hearing and open it to commissioner comments and questions. >> why do i have such a bad feeling about all this. quotes from a city and county deputy city attorney, illegal

construction, litigation, intentionally deceiving, substandard building materials, manipulation of dr process and uninspected housing. those are a lot of red flags to me. i haven't heard from the actual owner to dispute these. my thoughts are leaning toward staff recommendation, none of us up here are trying to displace anybody. that's probably one of the most important thing every one of us up here every thursday. if anybody thinks we're trying to displace people, that's not the case. >> commissioner melgar. >> so like commissioner kroppel, i feel there's no good options in this situation. i heard from the owner's

representative a new suggestion that i hadn't heard from anyone before, which is to remove the stoves, which is creative. and that also makes me think that very valuable vouchers will buy even less for the tenants because they won't have a stove. and that just kills me. this landlord, to me, has taken advantage of the tenants, the city, our code and the folks most impacted are the tenants. so i did have a question for mr.

buckley, we did have, you know, one of the commenters who mentioned he was not a veteran. he does not have a voucher. i want to hear from you -- he said he wasn't the only one. we heard from miss cowen, but the flash vouchers are pretty valuable and feels confident we can find comparable housing and it can be the case, but what about the folks without vouchers, are they included in the relocation plan and what are we going to do about that? >> so commissioner melgar, i'm going to defer to staff on some of the questions. i'm going to let matt take most of it and then finish on the other issues. >> thank you. >> i'll just comment on the speaker, i went out and talked to him in the hall before he left. he's occupying a unit that we were under the belief was vacant.

so when this whole process started, we worked with the property owner and a handful of tenants moved to different cities and found something they wanted to do. we had come to an understanding we thought with the property owner to not fill those units when they became vacant, we knew what we were facing. so i've got his information to talk to him in further detail. he had to go to work. that's the explanation i have at the moment. sorry. >> so, the question was about the value of the vouchers, the section 8 vouchers compared to the -- >> does he have a section 8 voucher? he didn't say that. my question is what about folks who don't have a voucher? are we extending the plan to them? do we have assurance that the

housing and they're going to work with those folks to help them find a new unit? >> so it's my understanding there's basically 10 households that need to move as a result of the decision if the commission takes it. those residents are all vash voucher holders. that's the scope of work we have given to brilliant corners and the homeless department to work with the households. the other households, as far as i understand, there are no other households that will be impacted besides the temporary, if there's construction to get the existing units up to code, there may require temporary relocation. it is our contention that it's the property owner's requirement to deal with and their responsibility. we're focused on the 10 people who have to move.

i think that's the scope of work we put forward. i want to speak to the difference in the vouchers that are being provided. so a one bedroom under hud's standards is basically 2,610. if you look up the average median rent, it's $2,600. and i would contend that judy woo has done a good job of inflating the rent rates out in bayview as a result of what she has done in the units. right now, that's the average rental amount, which leads me to believe those residents have a good opportunity to find units on the market with their vouchers. >> follow up on the voucher versus non voucher holder. i would say at least from the

planning department's point of view, our statement about approving permits, making sure people were offered comparable housing rings true regardless of if they're a voucher holder. they can make sure the city has worked with them, whether we have financial assistance to offer, i can't say. that's more jeff and emily's expertise. but we can make sure we're working with them and we're not going to throw them on the street cold. so the promise we made to ensure that people are getting comparable housing prior to approval rings true whether or not they have a voucher. >> so what you're saying is we will not issue a permit for legalization unless there is a plan in place for the tenant to go to another unit. >> the department of building inspection is the primary one,

planning goes first, i'll let the zoning administrator talk more about issuing from dbi. >> thank you. one important clarification first. we are committed to through this process with what we have termed as sequencing. we would allow the permit to be routed to other agencies, as matt noted, the permit holder hasn't been good at getting back to us. it would come back to us before final issuance and at that point there would not be an issuance without comparable housing for the tenants. one clarification on that, that is for tenants who have been in place as of the start of this. we will not accept judy woo stuffing the units that may have been vacated with new tenants. we'll be in close communication

with them, don't know if mr. patterson has anything to add, but they cannot repopulate the units once people have been moved out. they cannot move someone in hoping to delay the enforcement effort. but for the tenants who have been in there since the process started, since informing judy woo of the violations which is more than two years now, we would work to have the tenants, options for relocation before issuing the permits and of course upon permit issuance, there's 15 days to appeal that to the board of appeals. >> just on that point, mr. buckley and miss cowen, can you give us the assurances that people won't be displaced until we have somewhere -- for the tenants who have to move, there will be somewhere for them to go

before the unit is merged or moved or shifted? >> yeah, i can state we are -- the tenants will not be relocated until we find a comparable unit for them to move into. there are two important components to this, i know are nuances but i think everybody needs to know. there is the period kind of before this -- before judy woo and the city go to trial, they're scheduled on february 5th i believe. and so there's that period and then the period post trial and i don't want to speak for nick or the city attorney, but the trial date also allows for a potential settlement period, which would generally start after the commission takes action and you can get closer to the date. it is highly unlikely based on

the information da and staff have presented to you that the permits will be issued prior to the date of february 5th. highly unlikely. if they are, then we will have brilliant corners ready to go to work with the residents to make sure there's ample amount of time for them to search. you have our commitment on that both now and in the future to make sure that works. >> great, thank you. i think we have always stated in this case and this has been hard for us to deal with, our concerns with the people, the tenants in the units and making sure they're not displaced and i mean, it's a little disheartening to see miss woo's representatives give -- i think it's more manipulation of the process. it's the city who has tried to figure out how to maximize how many legal units are in these and i appreciate the work that the city has done and kind of come up and give some hope that

somehow more units can be legalized when they can't and we know there's no path to legalization beyond the 37 units, whether you want to call them no stoves or what not, we can legalize 37 units. and it's kind of the department and staff that have come up with that route to try to maximize legalization. i think you all have done a good job at stalling and kind of muddying that process but i think we're trying to help people who live there and maximize the number of units. it would be great if you could all participate in that also. i think if you're true to your word that you want to help the tenants, that's what you would be doing. so, again, i appreciate what staff has done to try to maximize and commit to tenants will be either allowed to stay in the buildings or placed somewhere else and maximize the number of units. i'm very supportive of the

recommendation made by the -- commissioner richards. >> what is your understanding of how many people have on their own accord since this started? >> i don't have the chart in front of me. i believe five. five units, i can count, i have the units and what should be vacant. we have one, two, three, four, five. there is one not under dr that had a vacant unit. >> does that jive with your numbers? >> yes. >> okay, thank you. so, you know, i sit up here and my heart goes out to everybody here who spoke. my father was a veteran from world war ii. he's no longer with us. i know what he went through and

he gave to the country and it affected him for the rest of his life, too. i know judy woo helped you and gave you hope and kept her word and that's what you're telling us. two things though, i'm looking through the lens of she did all this with the goal of financial gain. so she was making $100,000 a month doing these things. i also look it through the lens of there were many legal ways judy woo could have helped you, she could have bought a building with 30 units or a warehouse or legalized some other space in the dog patch or somewhere but she chose not to. she chose to game the system. and what sowed it for me, there

were lots that were illegally added, there was a dr where i think there were 12 units and as a trust had, we had no choice in the end but to demolish two or three of the 27 units. i felt horrible because we had no placement plan for the people in the units. here we have a placement plan and it comes down to me, with -- i have hope that mr. buckley and mr. cole and the city family are going to give you hope and keep their word and help you. i don't have that hope with miss woo after i heard she put another person at risk in a unit we thought was vacant. the plan around let's spend 200 k to "make them legal" because there's no stove, after hearing that doesn't hold water with me. i couldn't trust judy woo as far as i can throw her. i would trust the city and trust

the fact that we have your interests in mind and you're going to get comparable units and i would support the staff recommendation and again, hearing it was another person put at risk when she knew they were being put at risk sealed the deal for me. >> commissioner moore. >> this is not only heartwrenching but probably the most difficult thing we have ever did. there's the human side, which all of us are 500% on target, but then there's the reality. and in addition to what commissioner richards eloquently summarized, there's the others. i did not expect to hear other neighbors talking about what is basically a primary rh1, get along with each other without

causing nuisance and stress. hearing that was not necessarily finger pointing and loud shouting but very calm and convincing presentation that there are already others who are affected by what is basically the self-focused operation of personal gain, aside from the niceness and i appreciate that she is humanly friendly, accessible and caring, but the other side, she's not caring enough to deal with those impacted by it. the trash, the excessive number of cars and that's all part of getting along in a neighborhood no matter where you live. i think that makes me support and be convinced that the summary is on target and i have to stand with what the

department and city attorney's office are proposing as being the one and only way to get us out of this. i do have to put my trust somewhere and i have to say that the additional work and by which everybody has taken a responsibility to chip in and create what i believe is a pretty seamless strategy for help in moving forward is the only way i can support at this moment. >> commissioner richards. >> so i move to -- how do we want to do this, a-q. >> can we just take staff's recommendation. >> enmass? >> yeah. >> i take staff's recommendation on all the items. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. on that motion then commissioners, to take dr and

approve the matters -- >> we're not -- >> i'm not arguing the case, i just want to point out a technical issue in the motion. revered, if you can make sure the unit count is correct, i think there's a discrepancy. >> i think that technical issue can be resolved by staff. >> we're allowing four units in the building, four units in that property? >> that's correct. that's what the chart says. >> it is four units. >> that one -- let's see -- 1351 revered, seven units currently. >> yes, there are seven units and there are four -- we're going to legalize up to four

units, so it would be a loss of three units. >> so we're taking dr and adding the adu on that property. >> yes, the original building permit did not have the adu. that's included in the four. >> okay. >> so commissioners there's a motion seconded to take dr and approve with conditions items 24a through c, not take dr and approve 24d and g. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> that motion passes anonymously 6-0. >> is there general public comment? oh, we don't have any. ♪

>> good evening, everyone, welcome to the medal of valor ceremony. i ask you that remain standing by the san francisco color guard and the singing of the national anthem by officer kyle church.

♪ o say can you see ♪ by the dawn's early light ♪ what so proudly we hailed ♪ at the twilight's ♪ last gleaming ♪ whose broad stripes ♪ and bright stars ♪ through the perilous fight ♪ o'er the ramparts we watched ♪ were so gallantly streaming ♪ and the rockets' red glare ♪ the bombs bursting in air

♪ gave proof through the night ♪ that our flag ♪ was still there ♪ o say does that ♪ star-spangled banner ♪ yet wave ♪ o'er the land of the free ♪ and the home of the brave