larson and mrs. snider we intend to keep our efforts on carolina street. i ask that the board present with mrs. larson and snider and as my other neighbors. i concern with their appeal, please respect and consider what your long-term citizens have to say, we have put our hearts and souls into this neighborhood, thank you for your consideration. >> i have a question. have you had any contact -- sorry, i have a question. have you had any contact with the project sponsors? >> no. >>-okay, thank you. >> next speaker please. >> hi i am cathy quadros, that was my mother she owns the apartment at 934 carolina street. i lived on this block on carolina in my childhood and as an adult. as with my parent's tradition, i am now the hands on manager of their apartment building and come up to potrero hill on a weekly basis. i am deeply concerned about the trend of monster homes. i continue to see small charming homes replaced with massive homes. please note that three of the neighboring buildings, my mothers and mrs. sniders and mrs. larsons have a multi-generational hist

mrs. snider. >> okay overhead projector -- sorry. i just put something on the overhead projector. hello, i am peggy snider, i filed this appeal for two reasons. first the planning department to relay the design issue -- am i talking to loadud? >> no we were having a problem with the screen. >> and for inaccracy of the city policy and secondly that my neighbors and i didn't have a fair hearing and denied our due process. let me first describe the procedural errors in the planning commission hearing. neighbors were given a date to provide written material and provided it by that date. i personally had several conversations with staff before delivering my letter eight days before the deadline. and there was a statement that one neighbor submitted a letter and because nine other neighbors were not presented in the packet. i watched the video, and staff in two sentences said that neighbors addressed concerns about size and height and privacy, as our letters were passed out. and immediately went on to say how the processor had dealt with the project as if our concerns were dealt with. n

those are the responses from the rdt on that and in response to some concerns and mrs. snider sent e-mail about the code compliance. and they are compliant in reviewing the rear-yard requirement, i did determine and apologies i didn't have time to make this determination until late yesterday. they did not correctly use the rear-yard averaging method and underestimated the rear yard and the rear building wall and the plans submitted today. increased rear yard and the main building wall is 3 feet-3 inches from the property line. and the pop-out is the same extent it was. it had gone as far as it could under the previous calculations. but you can go up to 12 feet in the required rear yard but not the last 25%. they are able to keep that to the extent because they were at the 25%. that 12-foot pop-out to the rear and that relationship to the adjacent property remains the same and it's the rear building wall that moves out further. that is not sufficient to address the concerns raised by the appellants, but i wanted to note that. and with that i am available for any questions. >> w