friendliness that does exist between me and my neighbors he is the beneficiary of my wife's homemade hola which is delicious and he never disagreed about that. i too have these laminated signs ready to go up throughout the whole boundary of the yard to remind children but mainly the adults who the emphasis of the noise has been on the adults as well to remind to keep the noise down. i too aspire to be a mench and my wife agrees that i achieve that. i stand here before this commission to pledge my 100 percent commitment to being a good neighbor and to a mench

and it is not someone who is perfect but someone who is willing to address the concerns as they arise. i have always done so and i will continue to do so. and i ask you please, to approve this continual use request so that we can continue to build community that we can educate our children in their very own neighborhoods and the community members young and old can come to learn and play and pray at their local synagog, thank you. >> i am here in support of goi noey and both of my children graduated and i own and run a business just blocks away. we sadly have no more children young enough to interpreschool so you can say that i don't have a kid in this fight, but

my experience was positive that i felt compelled to here, the education that my children received was outstanding, i wish that i had more children to send to this school full of love and amazing teachers. i cannot imagine where in the city you could have a daycare where no one will hear the children and truly sorry that some will be bothered by the noise of children laughing and playing, i live next to a playground and so i am familiar with the noise of children doing so, i hope that the compromise with be found. i wish that i could take you on the walk through the garden as i took my children every day, it set the tone for our day and it is a magical and beautiful transition to preschool, i would be heart broken if it was removed. it is so easy to stop something but this a wonderful school and it should not be stopped it should be encouraged and continued please approve this request.

thank you. >> steven sloan and i am a physician in san francisco and i have been a resident of san francisco since 1994, and i am a home owner and i live in the valley for 7 years. i now live in the richmond district. when i first learned of potash moving to san francisco i became a member of their community. and they have enriched my life along with the life of my wife and my three children. they are truly an invaluable asset to this community. they embody all of the values and traditions that have made san francisco a great city. a city that is diverse, and a city that is tolerant, and a

city that has a spiritual core, and i truly feel that preventing their approving this plan would really be harmful to the fabric of this city. families need a place like guy noey to educate the children and see them develop. we live in a congested city and a noisy city and that is just the nature of life in san francisco and i feel for all of the neighbors but the reality is that they are such honest and ethical, and honorable people that they will... that i know deep in my heart that they will do what they need to do to compromise to raise a consensus and to work with the neighbors and make this work for everybody in the neighborhood.

thanks for listening. >> good evening, my name is gidion roth child and i am a scientist at ucsf and my wife is a scientist at stanford university and we have two sons. that we both have been in guy noey and one is currently still there and very briefly, we cannot thank guy noey enough for the education and love and taking such good care of our kids and during the times that i have been there and i think to me the question here is not about the high quality of the preschool which is basically no one questions, but about the priorities. and for me comes down to do we want to have kids in the city? wherever the kids are going to be they are going to make a bit of noise they want to drive out the families with young kids to

places where they don't make any noise other kinds of people will not be as convenient as your ordinary neighbor but this is something that in my opinion that we should invest in as a community to have places in or for our kids within the community especially if they are such high quality as guy noey and so i ask you from the bottom of my heart to approve this. thank you. >> is there any more public comment? >> sir? >> okay. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini? >> thank you, all for testifying very interesting. and it was interesting to me that none of the parents were concerned about the traffic but the opponents were all concerned about the traffic it was almost as if we were talking about two different places and i am sure that there is traffic, it comes with the

city. and this is some what analagous to my situation, a religious school and an elementary school of a different denomination but a lot of traffic there but we deal with it and a lot of noise from the children in the neighborhood. but the neighborhood accepts it. and it is all about the community. the community supports each other, and the peer support often times some of the teachers are also parents and the children do very well. and they test very well and they get into the best secondary schools because of the community has helped them and this is a different situation with the preschool. and everybody wants good daycare and preschools in san francisco but nobody wants it near their residences so it is sort of, you know, something has to give. i think that there were some comments made by some of the opponents that were positive and they asked a few things to

be done. and one was that it sounds like this application for 42 children and so that would seem like that is what we are opening not-to-exceed that number as part of our approval. and another neighbor said respectfully they did not want the ten foot fence, and they showed their existing fence that they were happy with and it seems like it would only effect them and certainly the existing fence would be fine if they are fine with it and then there is also the 11 items that were given to us as conditions for approval that the school is or would be acceptable with and i think that it would help with some of the concerns that were voiced by the opponents. but i think that it is a good project and i am in favor of it. >> commissioner wu? >> thanks. >> could i ask the zoning administrator to speak to the permitting issues that were brought up by opponents?

>> thank you. >> the two issues regarding violations, one was the issue under the planning code and it is my understanding that they had and mr. smith may want to add to this, and that they have already converted the single family dwelling and that there was a total of 22 and actually in violation of the code currently and; is that correct?? >> and there is an alleged violation that they had more than they were permitted to have. and that violation was never investigated by this department. and hence this application was brought forth to you. and that according to the licenses thatvy seen, they are incompliance, which is a one property is for 14 children and the other one is for 8 and the code permits up to 14 per property. >> which address is for which

number? >> so 3771 which is the turn of the century looking structure with the roof is entitled for 14 kids. and the other one is for 8. >> thank you. >> and then i wanted to ask then and i know that it is not necessarily our jurisdiction but about the licensing and who name was on the license, i don't know if you have any more information about the history of that? >> i think that was the license that was a different property. >> yes. i spoke to folks down who license the facility and there are three facilities that i am aware of, the one over in vernal heights and i forget the name of the street and it has since closed but there was a another person's name on that one and they were actually living at the residence as well. it is my understanding. and once they stopped living at that residence, they did not no longer qualified as a home

daycare center and so it technically had to close. >> and then the two at the chavez sight are they under their names for permitting? >> the only one that is under the name to my knowledge is 3771. which is the gable roof building and the one next door was licensed similarly to the one over in vernal heights which was someone else was living there and their name was on the license. >> okay >> that is what my understanding is that person no longer live there. and that license is no longer valid. >> thank you. >> that would be a violation of the code. >> if there is no one living there and not being used as a dwelling and just as child care you are allowed to have the conversion of the dwelling that would have been a concern there. but this permit would address those issues. >> okay. >> if i could ask the project

sponsor, to respond to where you are in the permitting process and what happened a brief overview. >> thank you, jeremy paul on behalf of the project sponsor, you heard from a home daycare provider about the difficulty of maintaining that as a residence, the one in vernal heights is not before you. they did have a daycare the licensee did move, and they did not have time to get a new licensee while there are still families being served there and so it took the transition time right now, there is a... the program is quite different during the summer months and they do not require the home daycare licensing. there is a very different program that the state has for summer care providing. and so right now, there is not

a home daycare license at 3781, one is not required for the activities that are going on there. okay, thank you. >> so i am interested in the discussion among the commissioners around maybe the different kind of conditions that we could put on the project to make it work? it is a little bit more clear to me the permitting situation, i think of course we would love to see the permits as soon as possible. the traffic monitor is in the conditions and keeping it to 42 students is in the motion. and sometimes thatvy questions about is whether we can do anything around hours of operation or noise. limiting it through the hours of operations. >> the hours of operation is something that we would have the ability to restrict as condition of approval. for the child care. the preschool use, you would be limiting the hours of operation for that. >> not for the religious uses. >> right. >> thank you.

>> commissioner sugaya? >> yeah, i have a question, it is not just for the daycare? it is also for the religious facility? >> yes. >> and also for the loss of the dwelling unit. >> yes. >> under institutions and religious facility it says that it will operate a number of weekly programs with 12 or fewer attendties at any given time. is that a condition? that we are imposing, i don't remember if that is part of the motion or not. >> at this point, it is not a condition, so if you would like to see that as a condition you could add that. >> we can talk about it or not. and then it goes on and it says, large gathers would include you know, the traditional holidays and whatnot. so assume that means that it is going to be more than 12. so 12 is not a blanket statement that all events are going to be limited to 12. >> that is correct.

>> the larger events will be more than 12. >> we don't know what is going to be 12 or not 12 at this point? >> outside of those four large events, all of rest of them will be 12 or fewer. >> thank you. >> also, to the gentleman who provided the other initial information about these state alleged violations and and is it that just from your perspective and you can we can ask the project sponsor also. and you ar ledging that there are these five type a violation and that they happened at least on two different sites. and that is the correction to what i make to commissioner sugaya is that these were not allegations they were demonstrated and founded violation and that is what in,

and i gave you the documents from the enforement file. and i know that i encourage you to read those documents and i encourage you to contact ccld and i know there are confidential files that we were not able to get. >> all right. thank you. >> in terms of to the project sponsor, mr. paul, or whoever. is it the case that because of these violations there is no current license for these facilities? >> no that is not the case, 2781 is operating under the summer program that does not require the license and the license for 3771 is to potash and that is a valid license. >> and that one was never challenged by the state. >> not to my knowledge but i

know that it is current. >> and to your knowledge, or someone who from your side of the fence, so to speak, could you step away, sir? >> thank you. >> is it likely that these violations could result in a non-licensing situation? >> and i believe that these facilities will meet all of the minimum requirements and meet and exceed for licensing and it will not open if it does not have the proper licensing. thank you. >> one other question, to the staff, and religious facilities is that there is no parking requirement. and the parking requirement for the religious facilities is

based upon seats and i don't remember exactly what the number was but it is quite high and this does not have the number of seats to it and that is threshold. okay, thank you. >> commissioner borden. >> i have a couple of questions. obviously it is the home and the preschool and obviously the other code as your personal home you could have it as, with it being also a preschool it would not be a regulation. i am trying to understand the delineation between the preschool building and one that they actually live in and the religious facility and is that the other building? >> so they are asking for 14 of the 42 children would be at the existing home and according to cclv, they would need to stay on that particular property. and they could not commingle

and the remainder will be in the other facility which is a more modern building at the front of the lot. >> and then, obviously when you have a home that operates the daycare how you choose to do your home time is not like right now, do they currently have events right now at the facilities? >> yeah and that was something that we discussed internally, like if you are a rabi in this instance, how many events can you hole at your house or even at your daycare facility underneath normal regulation and that requires additional entitlements to do so. and i don't think that we really landed on a particular number. >> all right. >> it is sticky because it is his house as well as a preschool. i don't know how that works. >> given the variety of events that we had from the different

programs that they offered to the religious celebrations we thought that would be best to also pursue, i think that this came in for the child care only and then we had the addition of the religious facility that it would accommodate the uses that they were seeking and so the entitlements around what they were actually doing rather than just having going for the one entitle and that is why we have the ad dish of the facility in the application. >> great. >> and obviously this is a unique situation for us and we have issues every time that a preschool is suggested or an expansion comes before us because a lot of people don't want the noise and traffic related to it. obviously when you add on the additional use and other traffic and it creates an issue that could be a problem in the neighborhood. there seems to be a break down in communication with some of

the neighbors, obviously there is a great community at the school and there is no denying that. it provides a great service and there are a needed service and that a lot of people benefiting. but there is a lot of issues, there are a lot of issues with the neighbors as well. and you know, i think that everyone here wants to support this and figure out how we can support this. but at the same time you know, once we open up the religious facility aspect you know we don't want to see a greater impact on the neighbors beyond just you know school hours, and in terms of traffic and noise and that is one of the things that we want to think about how we deal with that adequately and that is of a concern. obviously it is concerning, we don't deal with it with licensing just to be clear it really is just the day cares and so that would be a licensing issue and that would be decided by elsewhere and

although it is concerning when there are issues with the licensing, i know that whether it is a health department or a licensee walks through there are small that i thinks can trigger a violation and so i am not saying that i don't know the nature of the violation and the concerns and whether or not they are valid, it is unfortunate when someone occupying a use that has been vacated by someone who was living there and there is confusion, that is never a good thing and it was helpful for someone earlier to explain, i didn't realize, i should have realized you have to live in a daycare. it is helpful to understand how those rules work, but it is something that is beyond our area of expertise. >> i would be enclined to support this and put in the conditions that we have here and limiting the number maybe

in looking at how we put some sort of conditions around the events and how those are handled. and maybe we can even have a report back in like staff prepare something for us then and like a year so that we know how things are moving smoothly, because we obviously need preschools and obviously we need this facility is already some what of a religious facility, but we want at the same time to make sure that the neighbors and their issues are dealt with and respected. so, i guess that i will make a motion to approve with the limit of 42 students total. and the conditions on this there are eleven different conditions. >> if i may suggest. >> i don't think that all of those would be appropriately enforced by our department and i would suggest of the eleven here that item number five which is to poperly store the children's parts would not be

enforced by the department and will not be sure that the kids are putting away their toys. item 6 and 7, deal with the adjacent property. it is not to say that they cannot or should not do this. and did it work to the adjacent property and it is in 5, 6, 7 and item number eleven where it says give advanced notice to the celebrations. and the length of time and so seven-day notice and 14 day notice and where the commission may feel appropriate for the pending holiday celebrations item 10, i have a question exactly about replacing the fiber glass back board with heavier materials, that is getting to the level of regulating the materials for the back boards. >> i think that we do want to put up a fence which is not on here >> item one is replace the

fence with a 6 foot tall fence. and that would be a solid fence with a gap in between the that would be for noise and it is 6 feet tall and there were concerns about the size of the fence. >> i think that this is the existing fence... >> the existing fence. >> the neighbors wanted a lower fence, on the property line. maybe the sponsor wants to address the fence locations? >> thank you, if i could quickly comment on this. >> the existing fence that you saw with the lattice above it could be replaced keeping it at 6 feet we do not want to create a fence that the neighbor on that side experiences badly, but the fence that is there is in poor condition and actually has no sound resistant quality at all.

we will put up solid material with sound resistant barrier and it would improve the situation that is what the engineer told us. and we are willing to make that investment. but we will not exceed a height that is not acceptable to the neighbor on that side. >> thank you. >> and i guess maybe i could just ask one of the neighbors if there was not a major issue anouning that was most important that we had forgotten on this list? like i said i don't want a long. >> i never seen the eleven list. >> i have never seen it. and you got it when? >> just before the hearing. >> okay. so i am sorry, did you strike item 6 and 7. >> yes, item 5, 6, 7. >> 6 and 7, were actually to address a very specific issue related to our home >> it is not to say that it

can't be done, it does... it is not a condition of approval. it is on a property that is not subject, it is on your property not on the subject property and it is not appropriate to have that. if they are willing to do that. and said that and on record as a good faith effort there, in terms of enforcebility in being a violation of a condition approval we don't know if there are building code issues with the work here and so we will let the parties. >> we can't basically put in conditions of things that we can't afford. >> may i comment? >> i didn't mean to imply that we definitely didn't want a ten foot fence in my presentation i mean to imply that i thought there was a better solution, better mitigate the noise and be aesthetically more pleasing. i understand the neighbor who does not want a ten foot fence, there is no reason for us not

to have a ten foot fence if that is the best noise mitigation that is offered and so we would very much like to have a ten foot fence if that is the best that can be done. >> i guess the other thing was the dark it would be and did you have an id about another kind of ten foot fence. i am confused. >> the slot in the garden area with the current play area. and then put in a ten foot fence between 3771 and 3781. that will provide very good noise mitigation for everyone. and most consistent with the play grounds around town public and private. but again, if i think that charles and associates did a wonderful analysis given the constraints that they were put under and that ten foot fence

would solve everyone's problems but ours. >> i think that your question was there are different properties and >> the owner does not want the ten foot fence on her part. >> but i do have to say for our part and your part. >> their part and the neighbor who is 99 years old so she was not able to come. >> they are next to the lattice fence and you are on the other side. >> they are on a far corner. >> actually you have that garden plan and you will see. >> the neighbor who did not want the fence.

3771, excuse me, 1371, she did not want the fence. i believe all of the neighbors here, here, and here, here. would want the fence. and would provide very good for them. and given the fact that we are literally right on top of the play area that fence is not going to do much for us. we will accept it, for the better for our neighbors, and i mean,... >> yeah, okay, thanks i appreciate that. and i will make hold off on making a motion unless other people rule on the fence situation. we are trying to come up with the best solution for everyone, not everyone can be happy at the end. i think that we need to discuss it further. >> commissioner antonini? >> well, i am going to make a motion so we can get this thing moving hopefully. i will approve with the restrictions that