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 supp
The third floor primarily because of the fact that you had to walk through the lower floor unit to get to the third floor unit. There is no access to that unit. In regards to other issues raised by the appellant, i think those are primarily rent board issues for the rent board to properly adjudicate. One thing i will notice, maybe perhaps the appellant will enlighten us and maybe i missed this earlier. In the photos that are in the appellants brief, it showed the hood above that kitchen nook area where the wet bar is. Its my understanding from staff that when they did a site visit in december, that hood was not there. Perhaps the board might be interested in finding out who removed that vent hood, but that was not there when staff visited the site. I dont know the dates of their photo, but my assumption is that it was proved prior to our staff visit. It wouldnt make a difference on whether its an unauthorized dwelling unit because that see relying on the access. Our determination is al
The board requests that you turn off or silence all phones or other Electronic Devices so they will not disturb the meetings. Parties are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttals. Members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. For jurisdiction and rehearing requests, the parties shaf three minutes to present their case with no rebuttal. Four votes are required to grant an appeal or modify a permit. If you have questions about requesting a rehearing, please email board staff. This is broadcast on sfgov tv on channel 26. The video is also available on our website. Now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. Please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath. If you intend to testify at any of tonights proceedings and wish the board to give you evidentiary right. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will
Was 616 carolina street had not been twooieded. So no building in particular according to San Francisco has the 616 as the actual address. So the law firm felt that was appropriate to use this numbering when we went through the condominium process. Mr. Apalos purchased the front house in 2018, signed the t. H. C. Agreement. We assumed all along that this would be the street driveways numbering, but a couple of months ago when mr. Apalos went to the d. B. I. , we were informed that because you cannot have a new street address for a new building you cant have a new address for an existing building that the 616 would go to the front building. My feeling was that was a misinterpretation of the guidelines from the d. B. I. It says exactly that, you cannot reassign a new address to an existing building, but we were subdividing the property which had an address, but none of the individual buildings had an address. This has been my property for almost 30 years. This is where i vote, its my pas
Tenant. We are going to fulfill whatever agreement we did with the tenant. We are not thinking of doing any unlawful things. I dont think there is a landlordtenant situation. This is a situation where we want to work with the city to be granted permits to enhance the property. We have been following all the guidelines and all the rules and regulations. We know that we can have an access into the property. Because all the homes in this district are available to add one extra dwelling to the property per ordinance 1917 and this puts San Francisco in compliance with californias state law. So we made some changes on the plan. They addressed that we were missing something on the lower level. We corrected that. We think that we are in compliance with all the rules and regulations to expand the property and make a good property. We even when we paint the property we tried to match to the opera house that is like two blocks away. You have pictures. I think the property looks beautiful now comp