Slide 3 should be the handwritten one where people had signed in support of my tenancy and continued. This is slide 2. Actually, maybe if its all right, i would like to proceed without the slides. It doesnt seem like its quite functional. Either it was a mistake on my part or it didnt transfer over correctly. Maybe if i could just speak, it would make it easier to understand. Absolutely. Please proceed. If you could start the time again ab alex. I guess. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. So one of the pieces of evidence of my part that is, in fact, part of the two separate apartments is a db. I. Permit that is on record in the d. B. I. Archives, thos that there are two legal units in the property, that there are three storeys, that it is an i3 property and that is evidence that this property has had two units going since at least that job card was completed in 2000. Another piece of evidence, that there are two illegal units on the property. There is a letter of support that i supplied. This is a letter of support of another unit who occupied the third unit independently for three years. I wanted to include that because it seems that with the december 8 removal of the second floor department, the city and the Department Planning was unclear about whether the second floor was, in fact, a separate and discrete unit from my third floor apartment. I feel like that letter from a former tenant indicating that the second floor apartment didnt have a front locking door, that the unit was separate and discrete from the third floor apartment that i rent would be an important piece of evidence. Thats exhibit u. I just wanted to share in addition to that that in a more general sense, since the beginning of my tenancy, i have only occupied my third floor unit and never used the second floor apartment or had any access to it at any time. There was a physical barrier, a front locking door on the second floor apartment. I have an image of it. That would be in one of the slides, but there is actual evidence that the door was once there. Even without the front door, however, its very clear that if you look at the drawing of the apartment on the third floor and the drawing of the apartment on the second floor. This would be in exhibit m of my brief, you can clearly identify that these are two discrete apartments. Even without the second floor apartment front door, theres no connection visual or spatial between the two units. There is direct street access to both the separate second floor apartment and my third floor apartment. While this is something that is clearly decided by the experts, i do feel it is important to say there is direct access from my apartment and access from the second floor apartment independent of a third floor. I would request the board consider reversing the respondents permit on the grounds that they are procedurally and substantively flawed. The apartment that i lease is not a room or rooms, it is a singlefamily home. They are two separate units in a twofamily building that has been a twofamily unit for over 20 years. Additionally, i would hope the board would consider reversing the permit and would evict the current resident. And while all these entitles 30 seconds. Are something up for a discussion, i do feel that if the landlord does not have possession of the third floor kitchen and the third floor apartment is in my possession and the lease hold rights are in my possession, the landlord should call for removing of the kitchen according to the rent ordinance, which has not happened. Time. I would ask the board to reverse. Thank you. Thank you. Now were going to take time for the interpreter to provide a summary to the permit holder, ms. Mah. Lets take you off of mute. One moment. We cant hear you. Please go ahead. [speaking foreign languag language] the interpreter has finished interpreting. Thank you. We will now hear from the attorney for the permit holder, mr. Ryan patterson. If the interpreter can again listen and prepare to interpret afterwards a summary. Will do. Thank you. Thank you. Im here. Can you hear me . Yes, welcome. Thank you. Im Ryan Patterson on behalf of the permit holder lillian lee. The subject property is one legal dwelling unit on the second and third floors above one unauthorized dwelling unit in the basement. The owner is legalizing the basement under a separate application process. This all came about because the appellant apparently filed a complaint with the Planning Department, alleging that the third floor where her bedroom is located contains an unauthorized dwelling unit, essentially, that the second and third floors are separate units under planning code 317. The Planning Department made a site visit to investigate and the planner and Zoning Administrator determined that it is not, in fact, an unauthorized dwelling unit. The reason is that the third floor has no independent access from the second floor. I will try to share my screen so you can see what im talking about. Are you able to see . Is the photo on currently . Yes. That is the front of the house and i will go to the plans. There is a single front door which hopefully you can see my cursor moving. The front door is here. While there was previously an interior door at the second door, even then you had to cross through the vestibule and straight to the open thirdfloor staircase to get to that floor. There is no separation between the floors. You will see the appellant has included a letter from a former cotenant, both exhibit o and u, saying he did not have access to the third floor and she didnt have access to the second floor. This proves the opposite point. Ill go to the better. To quote, there is an outside front door that only allows access to my front door and the stairs that lead to the upper unit. The second and third floors have a common front door and that runs up straight to the failured floor. The failured floor has no separation. You can see in this photo, this is looking down the stairs from the third floor to the second floor. The front door is here. If you were to go through that front door, its into the second door. If someone were to come out of the second door and go outside the building, theyre crossing through what is here, open to the stairs with the third floor. Also, there is no independent access from the rear either because the basement u. D. U. Blocks any access from the rear yard. The permit backs this up. To show here there are a couple of permits saying the property consists of a twounit dwelling and there are also permits that say it is a oneunit dwelling. The assessment records say it is one unit. Presumably the records saying it is two units are referencing the unauthorized unit on the basement level. The Planning Department determined that the third floor is not an unauthorized permit. But they did find an extra syrianing on the third floor which violates the matrix and they were told to remove it. This is what this is actually about, not to remove a unit or to evict a tenant. It is to comply with the Planning Departments tenant that an illegal thing can be removed. The appellant says, great, this is my kitchen. You cant remove my kitchen sink. Shes included in her brief a photo showing this space, which looks in some ways like a kitchen. There is no stove there, but here is a sink that looks like a kitchen sink. There is a kitchen setup there and a kitchen hood. The fact, however, is she neglects to show you that this is actually her bathroom. If you were to pan the camera to the right, you see this is inside the bathroom. Whether this sliding door blocking off the toilet that you see here renders that a second bathroom or not, this is all one room, one bathroom that were talking about, with an illegal third sink in the bathroom, where the appellant has apparently been preparing food. The stuff about the owner adding and removing features doesnt make a lot of sense, but it also doesnt affect the existence of a u. D. U. And the existence or lack thereof of her turning in her unit to the Planning Department doesnt make a lot of sense. The parties in this case have had a lot of access to the planning laws. My client does not speak good english. The appellants underlying complaints are really about her tenancy, about services and Construction Services and the like and those are complaints to go to the rent board. To use this permit as leverage for the rent board would be wrong. The permit holder has to comply with the Planning Departments directives. Even if this board were to say, whats the big deal, leave the sink there, you would be sanctioning using the bathroom as a kitchen and there are Health Concerns about that. Ill respond to a couple of other points she made in her description. She showed a copy of the lease referencing the third floor, which she did not reference this is noted as sharing that space. Its not the entire unit to herself. Although shes made some allegations and assertions about how landlordtenant law works, the fact is if the cotenant vacates, the possession reverts to the landlord. The remainder of the space does not go back to the tenant. Its noted she is not losing her unit and there is still a full kitchen on the second floor which she will be able and welcome to use. We expect them to deny this appeal, allow the landlord to comply with the directive. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Ms. Mah, if you could im going to unmute you now and if you could provide a summary to the permit holder, that would be appreciated. [speaking foreign languag language] ive finished summarizing. Thank you. Thank you. We now have a question from Vice President honda. Vice president honda, if you could ask your question and well have the interpreter interpret it. After reviewing the brief, the appellant supplies a large brief, including a divorce settlement. I didnt notice or see that there was a brief prepared by the permit holder. Is there a reason why . We had a brief. Really . Yes. Did i mix it well, let me go to my second question. Who did those improvements on the third level as far as the kitchen is concerned . Who are so youre asking this question to mr. Patterson . Or to his counsellor or the permit holder. Im going to unmute you and well have the interpreter interpret that question. [speaking foreign language]. So i need to find out. Im looking into it right now. I think some of these may be fairly long standing, but bear with me for just a moment and i should have an answer for you. And then okay. Ill wait. I can respond to that during rebuttal, if thats all right. Okay. So my understanding and lillian, please correct me if im wrong, my understanding is the permit holders made at least some of these improvements. [speaking foreign language]. Julia, i have a question, please. Yes, i see that. So was there going to be a response . We have a question now from commissioner swig. Just dovetailing the question. The fly in the ointment is above the alleged stove, there is venting for a stove. I never saw a stove hood in a bathroom before. What seems to be missing is the wall between the alleged kitchen and the bathroom. The hood for a stove is kind of the giveaway, mr. Patterson. I would like to know who put that in. What was the intent of putting a hood stove in something that was supposed to be a wet bar . Its kind of a contradiction or an enigma, shall we say. Okay. So well have the interpreter interpret that question. [speaking foreign language]. My understanding is that the hood and sink were installed in approximately 2013. The term wet bar is its thrown around and used for different things. Sometimes thats meant to include some people think of it as a full kitchen and some people think of it as what we have here, a sink with no stove. Wet bars are only allowed in certain circumstances. This one does not meet the route dominitrix requirements. I think the answer is this was installed without the benefit of a permit. The exact reasons for that i couldnt say, but what i can say is thats not a criterion for the existence or not existence of an unauthorized dwelling unit. There are plenty of spaces with wet bars that are not free to use and there are other spaces that do not have cooking spaces that are not e. D. U. S. It would seem to me thank you for that date. Thats very important. It would seem to me that your client had intent possibly to rent that space as a freestanding lodging unit, given that in 2013 they put in a stove hood and what seemed to be the intent to put in a stove. Was there intent to put in a legal unit is the question and what do we do with that is something i will ask of mr. Sanchez, most likely, or d. B. I. So we will now hear from Vice President honda. The question to counselor. Its a singlefamily home with an illegal dwelling downstairs and an illegal dwelling upstairs. If youre trying to legalize, what was the purpose of this . If we could have the interpreter to interpret. [speaking foreign language]. So clarify, this is an unauthorized dwelling unit in the basement level. That is correct. But there is not an unauthorized dwelling unit in the third floor, as determined by the Planning Department. There is a sink there along with two other sinks, but no stove, nor would the stove or lack thereof make it a u. D. U. Or not a u. D. U. The basement unit is more of a true unit. It does have a stove, my understanding, and is in the process of being legalized. The upstairs cannot be feasibly legalized as a separate unit because there is no independent access to the street. The third floor exit through this entry vestibule, which the second floor has to pass through as well and there is no separation there. So if you were to call this an unauthorized dwelling unit on the third floor, you would have to be People Living on the second floor to pass through a separate unit to get out. They would have no privacy there. It does meet the criteria to be deemed a separate dwelling unit and there is not independent access to make it one, including through the rear, even going out the rear stairs to the backyard, they cant go in through the basement ask to the street because of the basement u. D. U. That blocks a path. There is no way to walk through there. And the second question, on the illegal unit downstairs, did your client construct that without permit as well or was that there previously . I will check on that and try to have an answer for you. Can you translate to your client because shes listening. [speaking foreign language]. Is it possible to unmute ms. Lee . Absolutely. One moment. Okay. Im sorry. I see her. Unmute. Ms. Lee, please go ahead. [speaking foreign language]. [speaking foreign language]. When i bought this house, there was a unit in the basement. All i did was to remodel it. Thank you. Thank you. If there are no other commissioner questions at this time, we will move on to the Planning Department. We will hear from mr. Sanchez. Thank you. The subject property at 1364 17 avenue is located in an rh2 zoning district. It is a singlefamily dwelling. There is a history of complaints on the property, both planning and building related, some for shortterm rental use or illegal ground floor units. I think some of those go back to 2011 or 2012. I think the main issue is the third floor and whether that accounts for dwelling units. If so, it would require a legalization. Based upon the staff site visit and the plans, it was determined by the Zoning Administrator that there was no dwein