. >> caller: my name is sonia renner and i live on the same block as the subject property.i'm calling to oppose this appeal. the zoning administrator was right in denying the variance applications because they do not meet requirements. they would result in re-zoning and would also create two substandard lots. if all the variances were granted in our neighborhoods, most likely because they met the proper criteria. without looking at thiscontext it makes no sense to establish any precedent . more than 200neighbors opposed the project as currently designed and so do the san francisco land-use coalition . pleaseuphold the zoning administrator's decision and denied this appeal . thank you very much. >> thank you. we will now hear from the next caller whose phonenumber ends in 7246 . you may need to press ... there's a little feedback. can you turn the volume on your tv down or your computer because there wasan echo . >> caller: is there still an? >> know, it's perfect. >> caller: my name is greg rando, i am casey's husband. we do live right next door to it and i'd like to speak

. >> caller: my name is sonia renner and i live on the same block as the subject property.e colorbecause i think it's been skipped over in the process . in april 2020 the planning department soundly rejected this proposal. and instead of taking that input and changing the proposal, the developer marched on and in november 2020 and before the planning commissioner and zoning administrator and lost and lost badly. as referenced before he was askedto bring back a code compliance proposition . that never happened. one year later november 2021 revised proposal was submitted with minor changes and once again it was voted down bythe planning commission and zoning administrator this is not a new dance . this has been going on. it sucked up a tremendous amount of city resources and local resources you should consider turning this proposal down and i want to add one more reference and that was to the reference that this year we had 202 objectors that are on file with the city. the year before there were 43 so this is going bad to worse relative to the community so i would reject it v