see reflected in the plans before you, which preserves most of the interior surfaces with minimal intervention. making the building and not accessible involved all four levels. this elevator could not have been put up the facades of 19th and the laura's. the leaves the south and east the side. we put it as far from the neighbor to the south as possible and close to the entry along 19th. the of grades involved two new exit stairs, or one inside the existing tower and one of the opposite of the building adjacent to the entry. we have worked to pursue a very

sustainable, natural ventilation and heating solution. and the direct result is we will not need to put air handlers on the roof. finally, what will the project look like when it is complete? mostly like today. the only change is the replacement of an existing garage door with a new entry door and the rooftop building, and we are proposing a rooftop garden. the penthouse will come through the roof, and there will be a mechanical room for the boilers. we have heard some concerns from some of the neighbors, and we have tried to address them.

we have heard concerns about noise, height, and facilities. i already mentioned the boilers will not have the noise we usually associate with rooftop units. we also decided to put this in a fully enclosed structure. previously we just had a screen. they can be fully enclosed. we have lowered the stare in the elevator room to the minimum possible face on the equipment that is going in there. from the standpoint of proximity, we moved the mechanical units -- the mechanical unit away from the elevator. i want to emphasize we have been working for a close to a year with a group of consultants who have a very thoughtful and sensitive response to code

issues. it is important to get all the details right, but the bigger picture and the reason we are here today, this is a wonderful opportunity to get a new life to a beautiful and building. occupancy and youth will benefit the building, the students, the neighborhood, and the city as a whole. thank you very much. >> thank you. by fellow, i am on behalf of children's day school. there are other issues that have been raised. i will not raise those, but you

may be hearing something about that. cds has been a sensitive neighbor for a long time. it is the reason why different neighborhood organizations have supported this move. we have heard comments from an adjacent neighborhood. i was concerned about his view being blocked, and we did everything we could to move that further away, and you have just heard about where that was. we are also moving those elements into a structure, so we

believe we have addressed the issue as well as we can. you will also hear concerns about the white zone. we have very little control over that period. the school has had considerable experience moving children, and we are confident the system in place will satisfy the neighbors, and we will deal with any issues with regard to the pickup and drop off issues. good eveninwe do not anticipatey problems at all. some of these issues have been

expanded, and you might hear other comments about the historic nature of the ruleoof. i think the only way you can see that is if you are flying over it. for a think it is not something worth mentioning, and i would also point out some one mason just because it is ia school, it cannot be supported seismically without significant amount, and it would destroy historic features.

there is no way we are going to do that, and if anything occurred to the, it would have to come back to this commission. this provides quality education to students so their families can stay in san francisco and be an asset to the community. that is why so many people support it. i urge you to approve a conditional use to reject taking the loss of conditional units, and finally, to approve. right there is no further testimony. and we are trying to keep it

short because of how late it is, and i would like to ask those in support suzanne. -- to stand. there are a few people who are not her parents, so we are trying to limit it. i have a bunch of speaker cards. i will call them, and if you find yourself repeating, feel free to, what ever. [list of names ] is the podium is free, and work

your way to the podium. >> good evening, commissioners. i was driving down. ibarra was talking to the lawyer about what issues are. i want to give you a little history. in 1930 california experienced two major earthquakes. the state banned her buildings in 1930 because four schools collapsed. the required all public schools to be retrofitted. gooa created a special structurl engineering license, which i have. until 1980, the state retrofited

all the public schools. in 1985 the state decided to go after the privately owned rental buildings, because we all know how hazardous they were a. they collapsed, so they require these to be retrofitted. in 1986, the state to another action, which said, when you are retrofitting a private school, you must provide the same level of safety to the kids in a public school, and that level has been well-defined by the building department, and by me, because i wrote the sanction -- i wrote a section that affiant's what must be done. -- who finds -- definies what

must be done. i was in asking for permission to tear it down -- pair it down. i said how improper it was to put kids in a brick building. what it requires is you have to build a complete new steel frame inside this building or a concrete frame, so what we end up with is a good year, -- a

veneer. you do not but dominion and nitric buildings. we did you do not put this on a brick buildings. the only thing left in this building will bee veneer. thank you very much. >> i am an attorney, and i am representing two homeowners next door. i would like to bring to the attention of the board that i did request a cequa appeal, and i requested it based on the facts that this is presented as categorical exemption your your

-- exemption. i submit that people will be installed in a building that has approved use of single family home. it suggests we need to look at ceqa. we need to analyze the environmental impact of this proposed use, the categorical exemption is not appropriate, and that pursuant to this package for approval, the historical report indicates this is a historical building. historical buildings are considered a historical research and aren't accepted, not allowed. i submit a project sponsor has not submitted necessary

information to appropriately analyze the entire project. assuming they did, we still do not understand pursuant to an analysis that the noise affects, the water affects, and the air affects, and the quality has not been analyzed. i suggest we ask the project sponsor and confirm what kind of noise is going to be generated, based on the roof, which i believe is a significant affect on the exterior of the property.

there is extensive exterior remodel on the roof, and i suggest the staff had an opportunity to fully analyze. thank you, commissioners. >> good evening. i am a parent of a child in the middle school, and i am here to speak to you tonight as a neighbor and a member of the community. i live just around the corner of the church, and i have been living there 20 years. it has not always been that way. there have been a lot of changes over the next couple decades.

the proposal to use his church, which has been vacant for years, having them come in and use the facilities would be a good change for this neighborhood. i think these years will be unfounded thank you very much. good >> i will ask the next speaker to come up, and i will call some names. [list of names]

if you are ready, next speaker. >> good evening, commissioners. i look down on to the roof and over the roof of that property. we will be reading a statement sequentially. we live in the community. we all love our neighborhood. we welcomed the news regarding

the children's day school purchase of the former church and we believe that this building could potentially be a wonderful facility. we have no opposition to the school in that building and no hostility towards the students or education in general. cdc has not been following the rules. none of our neighbor's had been notified of the input. we got quite a shock when a neighbor found out about the change and we are now rushing and our response. we are united in our concerns and there are many issues to be addressed and many valid neighbor concerns. more than 20 neighbors have sent letters in this week to the planning department. we would like to describe the and exterior changes for the

building, the environmental issues, such as noise, light, and air quality. the historic review, parking, traffic, and the lack of transparency and consideration of the children's day school. our group of neighbors has come together in just six days through a committed effort. when we learned of the changes that are planned and how different they were from last year's plan, we knew we had to speak out. we had a simple request, we ask that you did not make a decision today regarding this conditional use authorization request and that you continue this meeting at a later date. we request that the changes proposed are too significant to rush this decision.

we asked that the notification requirements be denied. we ask that the school returns to the original plan which has no a exterior changes. thank you for your consideration. >> i am a home owner residing next to the church. one of our major concerns is the exterior plan for the building. cdc said, "we will not change the exterior of the building, but we will build classrooms inside." they clearlysaid no exterior changes were planned. an architect submitted plans that showed no changes and the

building's mechanical systems are shown. as recently as march, 2012, the project manager and sponsor told neighbors that plans for the rooftop were uncertain and that they will discuss the plans with the neighbors. however, we know that by march, they knew that they wanted to do to the roof, they did not want to share these plans. in april, the neighborhood notification was sent out the. most of us saw it and we knew it was going to be a school. the project description said there would be minor exterior improvements. this sounded like a change. on the april 11th. this is not a we had expected to

see based on discussions with the school. we wondered how tall these new structures would be, there is no way to know because the school has not submitted any elevations dryness. they had not noticed that the drawings were missing. mr. smith did receive the final plans the next day. unsurprisingly, they never went by. we went back to obtain them. we look at the intentions and looked for this hearing. they described the changes as minor improvements. when you look at a complete set of the plans, it is that the changes are significant.

>> these are not used for the california environmental quality act. the plans show a new stucco structure on the east side of the roof. there are three new systems on the roof. there is no documentation. the structures were a stairwell and an elevator. these were 34 feet wide. the structures rise approximately 9 feet above the existing paroquet. the elevator penthouse tower rises approximately 16 feet. this is significantly taller than the rooftop. these will be clearly visible from across the street. we do not consider these to be changes.

according to the planning code which specifies that this meets the criteria. the proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of those working in the vicinity. these new structures and mechanical systems of the roof, the inclusion of a chemist the classroom have the ability to generate noise, to reduce flight and privacy, and to potentially cause air privacy issues. the new structure is inappropriate for such a historic building. >> good evening. i am here to welcome the school.

i would like to simply reconsider some of the changes they're making and how it will impact the community. i will talk about the proposed exterior changes. many people have expressed support for the project. these are not impacted as negatively by norris. let's talk about the noise first parent to no noise studies have been done on the impact of children gathering on the roof or on the mechanical system. the proposed roof deck will be a popular spot for the students. the school will hold classes on the roof and would likely allow access during the day. the school may hold social events on the roof at night or on weekends.

the planning commission should understand that this is a dense residential area and that this will have very close proximity to many neighbors. the backyards of the residence and 19th street and cumberland st. from a canyon where any and all noise carries far and bounces around. many of the neighbors work from home as i do. they need and desire peace full treatment. we feel that the students use of social event would impact our quality of life and general welfare and we are strongly opposed to the roof deck. this shows boxes around the perimeter. this would be completely able to be climbed by students of middle school age.

we feel that this is unsay for students. we are unaware of any light studies or the timing department to show what the impact of these new subjects would be on the neighbors. these are likely to be detrimental to the amount of light on a nearby property we object to this and we ask that the light and some study completed before the planning commission makes a ruling. >> good evening, commissioners. i would like to thank you for

your attention and i would encourage you to adopt the recommendations. the school has done everything we can to cooperate with the neighbors. we're always available by phone and e-mail. there is open transparency with the neighbors. we have done everything we can in terms of submitting material when they have asked for it. we have gone back and forth and follow the procedures in place, the ordinance is in place, to be in full compliance. those that have not follow the regulations are unsupported. i encourage you to think about this roof garden that we will put on their roof. this is an ugly concrete slab. this generates heat. this is part of our sustainable agricultural program. any allegations of unruly

children and bushes are unfounded. that is not how our school operates and not how our children act. i would like to thank and reiterate what was said and thank mr. smith and his colleagues for their work on this project. >> next speaker, please. >> you might have noticed that the last speaker was not part of the opposition. i will be talking about some environmental issues. we feel that the evaluation has been in complete based on inaccurate information and has had no meaningful public review. there was a time for public review. the not