childhood development, the location is great for the wife and die. and we simply think that there is a strong need for child care. the owners here have done everything they need to do to comply with city requirements. there are other retail space is available, so if there were some silver bullet retail business that was going to come men and revitalize twentieth street, i'm not sure it hasn't happened up until now. a i am quite certain the owners want to act in their own interests to establish a successful business so that if there were a great opportunity to develop a thriving business, i am certain they will do that. the suitability of the location, i saw the properties throughout construction and i worked in risk-management consulting and i assure you that i wouldn't put

my two and a half year-old in a facility that was unsafe or appropriate. liberal hidesvernal heights, wed [unintelligible] >> any comment? seeing none, d.r. requester rebuttal. two minutes. >>eve i will try to recover 6.12

minutes. there is no compromise allowed. you either allow it or you don't. if there is any choice between the vacant space and something in and, there is a choice between no child care at all or this. we think there should be a better use of the space, that is why we have zoning, and we mentioned other facilities opening up including the much larger one just as the street. i would suggest that if the sponsor is really concerned about passing for child care, consider working with the department of children, youth, and families. it will serve a greater number of children. this isn't about that, they want to run something themselves and their own space. the licensing of find interesting because the licenses are given, i have seen the letter.

in trying to finish the point, i mentioned about the volume. even if is 1/3 of that, it is still more people in a day than the maximum we will get from this site in a week. we are moving this space from the public realm. those families will have to be the hardest working customers ever to get the kind of increase in business that we would get from having a retail establishment there. kimberly set herself that folks in were beating down their doors, and that is a quote. i don't know why they are changing the story now.

gos>> project sponsor, two minue rebuttal. >> there are a number of issues that keep rising over and over again. the ventilation system that he explained, it has to be three feet. in order to do the ventilation system, her engineers designed a tower that would reach 30 feet

in height and would trigger a number 311-312 notification pierr. that is linking youth and their community, she had been working haul doing the community fact building that she decided, why not put it here if the state will license its and the state said that this was an adequate as long as certain variables are met, which weren' met. we feel that the d.r. is a community unaware of the legal entanglements between retail owner they had to upgraded to

current standards. the ventilation was inadequate. dodge the public hearing on this item is closed. commissioner miguel: yes. first, an explanation of why i did not ask to be recused even though i am a 37-year resident of patero hill. i live far enough away from this establishment that it was not necessary. i understand child care. i should hope i do with seven grandchildren and great- grandchildren. i may move around a bit on this. the number of applicants of child care openings is a flawed statistics. every person i know of

including family and friends that apply for child care applies to a number of child care facilities. anywhere from 5 to perhaps 25. the number of openings to applicants is a totally skewed figure. to me, it cannot even be considered because it doesn't make a statistical sense whatsoever. i have looked at the property, i will be truthful. i would not put any of my grandchildren or my great- grandchildren with seven kids and a teacher inside that very, very, very limited spot.

aside from that, it's not up to this commission, it is up to this day. i will not go any further into that. and don't forget that it includes such things as realtors who, as we know, nearly don't qualify. how many people walking into a realtor firm a day? other than the owners? perhaps one. there are two child care facilities that are in the process of opening in the general neighborhood.

28 families is what is mentioned. those that walk and particularly those that drive, again, my knowledge of child care and school in general, often they do not do so individually. you will pick up your neighbor'' kids and bring them. the next week they pick up your kids and bring them. the statistics are totally skewed on that one. i disagree with the department's analysis on this one, but i know they are going by the book. i guess if one goes by the buck, and this is a principally permitted business, you can't use the same criteria that you

would if it came to us as a conditional use. if it did, i think the discussion would be -- i know the discussion would be totally different. yes, there is a great deal of the skeleton to it. there is no question about it. even personally in that regard, when i go out to visit the place at the airport, i always patronize them. however, what came in after words and was operated by these people went out of business because they did not know how operate a business in my estimation. in my estimation. i am not anyone who has ever run one. but i have patronized many of them.

it was not well thought out in the neighborhood. people would go there once or twice, i may have gone there three times. i never bothered to go back. i just didn't care for the way the business was rotten. the only other business and generators in the neighborhood actually is the library. they do a beautiful job with that one. this is a very fragile key block commercial district. extremely fragile because, and i have no question, i did another survey when i stopped at the library the other day. it probably is 25% if you start

eliminating realtors of a viable business space in the neighborhood. i don't want to see child care there. i want to see a retail store for the viability of the neighborhood. i would have no problem at all if this was a conditional use, but i can't support it in any case. i don't think it is good for the neighborhood. i know there is a dearth of child care, i don't think this is the proper location. commissioner borden: i understand completely what the neighborhood is talking about. i have been at the delhi before -- eaten at the deli before. i went to the nail salon, a gift card i never used. and something else, it was a

cool name. i cna'n't reme -- can't remembe. i am sympathetic to the situation, but i struggle with a couple of things. it is not a conditional use. to me, it would be for the most part, and no-printebrainer. not 100% no-brainer. but this is a permitted use. the other thing i struggle with is that most of my friends are now having children and i know that first hand, how incredibly horrible it is to get in the preschool. it really is the joke of the cocktail party that if you are pregnant you need to get your kid on the waitlists. it is pretty unbelievable. quite striking it is a difficult thing.

other people have gotten lucky with places like a kid gloves. it was happening, it was pretty astonishing. two very important needs, child care, put up against another important need for this business district as well. it was a very unfortunate circumstance. the other thing that i think is missing, even if we were to deny the project, the project sponsor owns the building, and one of the most interesting things, the owner wants to open a business in their own space. it is not an unreasonable request. i understand there is a lot of bad blood, but in reality, that is not an unusual proposition for someone to want to do that. and even if we deny the d.r., they can choose another

permitted use that might not be a use the neighborhood. you are not opposing it, you are opposing the property owner. you can't guarantee the outcome you wanted, to be a restaurant. they can choose a book-binding business. part of the problem is that the issue doesn't solve the larger problem about how this space will be utilized, because the discussion for how that spaces utilize halls with the property owner. because it is principally permitted, i just -- i would hav e a hard time denying the project.

i wish there could be something to be done to change the situation. it is a really unfortunate one. i stood outside the deli when it was there, i like the amenity there. i think it was a great aspect of the community, but i can't make it be there just because i wanted to be there. it is often that you like to see a different use, but it is not how it works. it pains me because i completely understand the neighborhood concerns. i know there is a critical need for child care. taking the d.r. may not change of the loaner -- how the owner wants to use the space. >> this is one of the strangest d.r.'s i've ever seen.

somebody wants to open a principally permitted hot business in the space they own. we really want a hardware store in our neighborhood, but that is not what you're going to get. there doesn't seem to be a viable option to have a deli there. things change. the more important thing is the compelling factors that support what they want to do. we have heard about weightle -- wait lists. i know what is going on the. they have 25 applicants already for this school. i can't believe there won't be some improvement in the retail by these families coming. many of them will walk because almost all of them are residents. one would think that they might get to patronize the grocery a

little bit more. certainly more than a vacant store. there is a zone for drop-off for those using cars. they made the effort. i know about her establishments , rosa's cafe. she may have another one. they are good places engine might have tried another one that did not match up. maybe at some times, the client was extremely successful. it is difficult, retail and a short commercial strip, more difficult than when the strip as a little bit longer. there are probably some other vacancies in that area. there would be a place where a deli or grocery -- not a grocery, they have that. but perhaps a restaurant

could locate. it seems likely affect on the grocery store would come more from the presence of wholefoods down the hill and it is from this child care being there or the loss of the deli across the street. it seems counterintuitive the u.s. deli and -- that you have a deli and grocery store. they might help each other out. the families that testified, one has to take their children, one of them apparently moved away. families can't get into others. the owners have shown a lot of community involvement as was testified to. and finally there was an argument about being other child-care places that were available.

those people also sometimes are looking for something closer to them. maybe they feel more comfortable with it because there is possibly child care available some place. i am not in favor of taking the d.r. i will make a motion to ntoot approve it. i'll make the motion. >> second. commissioner sugaya: i will be direct and short. an empty storefront, there was opportunity for a business or any one of you to make a change in the neighborhood. no offense, but it may not be the chosen retail destination that you think it is. i know that the patrick -- there

are some great changes going on. when you look at destinations, they have retail and did usually involves after a neighborhood has been developed and well- formed, including kids and families. i think what you are witnessing in front of us is the generational change of the neighborhood, and i am in favor of letting the neighborhood change on its own by its own forces. i cannot be supportive of taking the d.r. commissioner sugaya: this seems like an instance where the zoning doesn't fit the neighborhood commercial. i think it is taking a hammer, cackling the whole issue, because of the fragmentation of the zoning code, to handle

this kind of neighborhood situation. i don't think he cares about use. i will get to that later. but it is allowed use and that is where one of the issues is, that we have applied zoning classification. i don't know if it is two blocks. i think you have the nail place at one end that stretches it out. >> a lot of residential in between, as it is. it is fragmented from that standpoint, and on the street you hear, there is a real-estate office on the corner and an insurance office next to that. you have a number of uses that are not generating what you

really want in terms of foot traffic. i am sure those are all principally allow uses. i just have one quick question. he we were handed a letter addressed to kimberly, dated 1- 31-12. is that the last letter you received? i think in reviewing that, i can't find where this has been approved. sorry, it doesn't say that here. the want me to read it? it doesn't say approved, i'm sorry. he says, your reward for keeping me informed is that i will make special arrangements so that you are given priority to get a

license. it doesn't say you have a licence. thank you. but i think the turning point for me is that we have to make a finding that this is extraordinary and exceptional. it comes close, but not to the standard under the conditional use the people are talking about that is necessary and desirable. i don't like it, but given that standard, i can't vote to overturn. commissioner wu: i would echo commissioner sugaya's comments. in my day job, i'm focused on the chinatown neighborhood. we would work together to create the kind of neighborhoods we want to see and work together to get the businesses to our neighborhood that make us like a

whole community. it is really disappointing to see how contentious the site has become. it is very difficult because it is principally permitted. it seems like a restaurant or some other kind of retail would bring more foot traffic. i want to reiterate that this is a d.r. and not a c.u. commissioner moore: picking up where commissioner wu and commissioner sugaya just left, reading the letter, it's only done if it's done. the inspection, given the limitations we are under, the inspection itself will say whether or not the space is outfitting its safety.

the provisions are falling under the state of california requirement for child care. whatever office is involved hasn't been done, not that i am commenting on it. there is nothing in this letter that says that it is done. it is only done when it is done. commissioner miguel: i know that we are coming up to a vote, and the exceptional and extraordinary is a very high fence to jump over on this one. i think people will understand if my vote is more in protest than actually to the code. >> and the motion before you is

to not take discretionary review end take the project as a closed. [roll call vote] that motion passed 6-1 with commissioner miguel voting against. you are on item number 12a and b. for 147 andover street. as you consider the request for the discretionary review, the staff will consider the request for the rear yard variants. -- variance. >> good afternoon, i'm ben fu. planning department staff. the project is a proposal to

remodel the interior, and raised the roof by 3 feet in height and to legalize the reconstruction of the 8 feet of existing buildings and construct a single-family dwelling with approximately 5 feet above grade. -- of upgrade. the requirement of set in the permitted coverage, has a variance is going to be considered by the zoning administrator. the department believes that the request does not demonstrate to the project contains or creates an exceptional were extraordinary circumstances. the project maintains the conditions are legal. the last legal structure for the height increase of 3 feet, they are compatible with the buildings and respect the photography of the site and the

stepping of the roof line established by the bloc base. the existing south side set back is maintained. the rear building wall is approximately 2.5 feet deeper than the building. the structure is also noncompliant as the existing -- [unintelligible] therefore, the department recommends not to take the discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. >>requester? >> good evening, commissioners. i