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 clearly said 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 notice states that no documents have been issued. so, we wonder what was the public able to review and what documents was the planning department able to review at the time? if there were any environmental analysis, it happened after public notice. additionally, a new review of emissions generated by the proposed mechanical systems for the next year construction has been done because the air quality screening analysis states that no exterior changes are proposed. this air quality report was based on plans that are now outdated. the school applied for an

exemption from environmental review which is not subject to neighbor notification or public comment. the only plants are a set of drawings dated july 8th, 2011. these to not indicate any proposed changes to the roof and show the mechanical systems on the first floor. the planning department granted an exemption from environmental review. the document describes the roof deck and an elevator penthouse that is not mention mechanical systems or an outdoor roof impact. the public was not notified of this decision because it is not required. and no significant environmental analysis with public review has been done to reflect the current

plans for the roof. neither the lab or the mechanical systems are mentioned in the document. we feel that in advance of any conditional use authorization decision that cdc should be compelled to have a full impact review. thank you. >> hello, my name is peter good. i live directly across from 601 delores. this is considered a historically significant buildings. it is a beautiful landmark in

the neighborhood and we are glad that it will have a new use. as part of the environmental exemption review process, a historical evaluation was required. the consultants and completed their final evaluation in 2011. the stair elevator penthouse will not be visible from the public street. this is inaccurate. the changes to the roof are so significant that they will be viewable from the park and beyond, as well as being visible to neighbors. additionally, the historic response from the city's preservation office states in part two that the response is based on plans submitted on july 8th, 2011. they show no changes to the building.

the response is based on outdated and inaccurate plans. the senior preservation planner signed the document in march. the preservation department should be compelled to complete a new historical review based on current and accurate plans. we feel that they should be required to return to the july, 2011 plans, that they submitted. mainly, moving the mechanical systems back to the first floor where they were when they applied for the environmental evaluation an example -- exemption. no structures should be put on the roof and in no roof deck should be built. thank you.

>> neighbors are concerned about be parking plan. on 19th street, they plan to remove several parking spaces, including a handicapped space. the school would have a loading zone at 85 feet. it should be 50 feet in length. it is claimed that only fifth graders will be dropped off in the mornings. although they say that they will have a crossing guard and staff to monitor this, we feel that the traffic congestion will still be increased and caused significant impact. we also have concern about car exhaust fumes 6028 graders are supposed to walk or bike -- the line we also have concern about

car exhaust. 6 to 8 graders are supposed to walk or bike. we do not feel that cdc as realistically strutted this. they did not look at afternoon impact. the intersection is already dangerous at almost any hour. there is no stop sign at dolores street. for years, the mta has denied the request for stop signs or traffic signals at this busy intersection. the presence of a school adds new urgency to this request.

any increase in traffic or to- drink ingestion for the congestion at this intersection should be carefully scrutinized by city agencies. this is a dense and pocket the neighborhood and we oppose the loss of any parking spaces. planning and the mta should recommend where a new handicapped parking space can be placed in the immediate area to replace the one that was moved. we feel that the planning commission should not make a ruling on this request until a full and accurate traffic study has been completed. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners.

i am here to talk about the lack of transparency in consideration that the neighbors have demonstrated. the school has a great reputation and claims to be a great neighbor. i am a neighbor and all of us tonight who were here talking about this, they have not made any outreach to us at all. they are asking you to come into my backyard and turn what is currently a single-family home into an outdoor classroom and mechanical storage area. they have not talked to me about that. they have sought to minimize and they ignore the formal input. they had a few feel good social events to which many neighbors were not invited or notified. i never heard of these meetings. furthermore, only partial plans

were ever visible for those neighbors that were fortunate to know someone to get invited or able to review. only this past monday, after a neighbor literally went out and let us know about this meeting did we provide some feedback to the school. they did not pay as any mind. at the meeting, we asked them to continue into considered the one-month continuous- continuation said that they could meet with the neighbors. this would have been a gesture of good faith. we only receive notice and the opposite plan to continue and we hear tonight. as we have described, there has been a pattern of incomplete plants and getting incomplete information. as mentioned, in july, the

drives that were submitted to planning to not include elevation of dryness. those that actually show the height in the three-d perspective or the things that were omitted by cb -- cds to you. they're asking for the notification requirements and based on their lack of transparency and lack of to medication, we are very concerned that should it be granted, we have no faith that this will continue to make any at reached to the plans.

>> this is the former church. this is about 10 feet from my home. i heard many this is a concrete slab. we are fine with this, this is the way that it is. i would like to talk about the planning department. the people of san francisco rely on our planning department to guard against projects that negatively impact neighborhoods and residences or that altered buildings of historical significance. we hold the planning department responsible for ensuring that these projects follow the review to the letter and played by all of the rules. unfortunately, we believe that they hoped that the public would not notice their plan and that the bureaucracy and the planning codes that are complex and

opaque would provide a clear and accurate understanding of the plan. we understand their plan and we understand the negative impact they would have on our homes, our neighborhood, our home businesses, and are generous welfare. if they want to be a great neighbor, then they should revise their plans to sister the address our concerns. our request are reasonable. we ask that you did not make a decision today regarding this conditional use authorization request. we asked for this denial of because the new structure, mechanical systems clearly intensified the use of the building when compared to plans from july, 2011. we feel that the schools should return to those original plans. those plans are acceptable to us as they had no ext. three

changes. if they insist on the changes come to a full environmental review, historical review should be submitted. those documents should be open to a neighbor notification and public comment. we ask that the planning commission carefully considers the many neighborhood concerns in this matter. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. i am speaking on behalf of myself and the five adults in our buildings and neighborhoods that were not able to make it. i am really amazed how many people were able to come out on such short notice. we literally did not know about his plans.

they celebrate diversity, promote justice and respect for all people, and aspire always to act with these -- i would encourage them to live up to their values in dealing with the neighborhood.

this is our block. along here is dolores street, 19th street. we love it because it is residential. for a different perspective,

this is a view from the deck. that is the equivalent over six vehicles backed up on that roof. this is a tar paper roof. that would not make any sense. just for comparison, just try to combine the two. the view from the street, we talked earlier about dangerous traffic conditions.

>> we have seen many positive changes in the neighborhood. my issue concerns congestion and safety. regarding congestion, understand that they have to have loading and unloading its own. i suggest the lower st. is a better solution. other trafford could much more easily it pass the loading zone

-- other trafford could more easily pass the loading zone. dangerous behavior by children running into the street can be avoided but does happen sometimes. get around 8:00 a.m. in the morning, people need to leave by car, and the street is already very crowded. although they say they will monitor, it is difficult to control behavior sometimes, and i think with 25 cars coming in the morning, you would have a real firestorm, so we would be looking at more traffic, and i want to give kudos for not having a drop off at the end of today, but