d.r. request. in response to the d.r. request, we modified the plans so that we will no longer be expanding that unit. instead, we are expanding units 202 and 203, both of which tenants have expressed enthusiastic support of the project and their support letters are included in your packets. we have gone to great lengths to accommodate the needs of the tenants and the concerns brought up in the d.r. we absolutely know how important the issues are and as the tenant is against changes to the unit, then we are happy to do our very best to accommodate. we went through several brainstorming sessions in consultations with professionals to come up with a different solution. we reworked the entire building plan so that we will no longer expand unit 201. we absolutely respect the tenants' desire to stay in their home as is, even as grease expense this late in planning, we want to build this project responsibly and are happy making the changes. there are numerous, very serious and very false allegations made by the san francisco ten

d.r. request. in response to the d.r. request, we modified the plans so that we will no longer be

d.r. requesters. miss efkehtari, she's appealing the permit issuance regarding the shoring plans, once the different type of foundation design is requesting to have additional documents reviewed by a licensed surveyor. we have several experts on the project, but to this day, she -- regardless of eight e-mails and responses to her, she has not responded to any of our requests to be able to come on her property to document, perher request, absolutely zero response. the land surveyor has been retained for the project to do a site sentiment survey. this was requested, no request. a civil sections 832 notification, notifying her of excavation was sent over 60 days ago, and the shoring plans were sent to her, which she acknowledged, but with no response. so we're at little bit at a loss. she has not shared her engineer's contact information, so there's no way for us to even have a reasonable dialogue to resolve the issues that are of concern to her. so i think there's a lot of possible resolution there, but

d.r. requester. [ inaudible ] >> president hillis: sure. if you just leave them right there, we'll get them. [ inaudible ] >> president hillis: great. thank you very much. [ inaudible ] >> president hillis: all right. go ahead. go ahead. we'll set the timer. you've got five minutes. >> okay. thank you. my name is nina

d.r. requesters. miss efkehtari, she's appealing the permit issuance regarding the shoring plans, once the different type of foundation design is requesting to have additional documents reviewed by a licensed surveyor. we have several experts on the project, but to this day, she -- regardless of eight e-mails and responses to her, she has not responded to any of our requests to be able to come on her property to document, perher request, absolutely zero response. the land surveyor has been retained for the project to do a site sentiment survey. this was requested, no request. a civil sections

d.r. requester. >> i just want to confirm we're preserving the notch shown in the plan, so it's articulated on our side of the property, on our side of the wall. >> president hillis: it's already set back on a sidewall? >> that's correct. that's this right here, this is a notch. >> president hillis: can you show it in planning because it's not clear. >> sheet a-1.4 shows that notch. >> president hillis: so the notch presumably goes back more than 4 feet. >> you can have the overhead. it's this area here. we'll keep it -- it's essentially the project as approved previously. >> president hillis: right, with that rear wall set back 'cause the notch is only -- >> yeah. >> president hillis: all right. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? commission commission commissioner koppel? >> i make a motion to take d.c. and move the wall back. >> is there a second? >> second. >> clerk: thank you. to take the modification as modified, bringing in the wall 4 feet and preserving the notch. [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that mot

d.r. requesters, this project raises huge questions for me, and at this moment, i am not prepared to support it. >> president hillis: thanks. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so people, there'll be people that will be throwing rocks and mud and saying oh, this is about parking versus people, houses versus cars, i can hear it now. the two words that, you know, the two things that we're trying to balance here is stablization of increasing communities along with the existing housing supply. there's our rub, so to say. the problem with this project is it proposes to increase the housing supply, and proposes to stablize the existing residents. this reminds me of 505 -- it just smacks of it. it's -- at the expense of the existing tenants, we're going to upgrade the building, and we're going to get rid of them because we're not going to be able to have this works done within three months, and we'll be back. i didn't need to see the existing drawings. we -- adu's are not supposed to be carved out of existing tenant amenities. if the tenant has five square feet or ten square feet in t

d.r. requesters. are you presenting together or have you got separate presentations? all right. you can go first here. we have five minutes for each of you, then we'll take public testimony. >> jennifer fever with the tenants' union. so in 2014 the owners purchased this building for 1,425,000. most of the households are gone and very fresh tenants have moved in who are on the support side

d.r. request to planning that she was living at the page street address. they even submitted a picture of her in 2014. so again, you know, we need to take from this that we have to send a message, do not reward this type of behavior, don't -- you know, don't -- do likewise and deny this. i implore you, board of supervisors, to do this, to deny it as it is the right thing to do. >> clerk: thank you. thank you for your testimony. next speaker, please. >> i volunteer at the san francisco tenants' union, and i would like to ask the board to please not approve the condo conversion, and i would like to say to peter owens, jeff pierce and everyone else, even the deep pockets eventually are empty. please do not reward that behavior. >> clerk: thank you for your testimony. next speaker, please. >> hello, supervisors. i'm from the san francisco tenants' union. this characterization that the t.i.c. owners were doing a nice thing by allowing miss canada to stay for her life is simply not true. this whole thing began when they brought an ellis eviction against that bui

requested this continuance. so in august 2017, the ordinance 162-17 passed, and on september 7 at our continuance hearing, d.r. was taken with conditions, including the installation of a new adu on the partial first and basement levels. we submitted revised plans and were issued a demolition and building site permit which are subject of this appeal. so at the first year hearing, the planning commissioners requested us to follow a special residential design guidelines. one was to reduce the mass of the house. this was accomplished again by demolishing the building, lowering the building further to just under the 30 feet height limit, remove 160 square feet from the habitable space and also shrink the main unit to just over 2500 square feet. we set the building to reflect the hillside. third floor deck was removed in the front of the building, and rereplaced with a sloping roof that relates to the sloping topo graphy and the adjacent neighbor's house. we moved the front back 15 feet. we also addressed potential privacy impacts to the roof deck by reducing it in size by 38% to 482 square feet, and the roof deck w