furthermore, if d.b.i. and fire management disagreed with the findings, it could happen corrected and appealed. this was not the case. thank you. >> commissioners, i am happy to answer any questions. this is an issue that may have been missed in the last hearing. the binding nature of ab 28 and the preapplication decision which decided the subject matter of this appeal. thank you very much. >> thank you. we will now here from mr sanchez and the planning commission. >> hello. d.b.i. i would like to welcome commissioner tanner on behalf of ddf -- d.b.i. i am looking forward to working with you. on this case, i was not here for the original hearing. although i am very familiar with him. mr patterson, this is the third law form now dealing with this case and probably over the last couple of years i have been involved with dealing with a number of dwelling units in this in the dwelling units. we do deal with a lot of d.b.i., , it seems more than ever we have a process called a unit clarification which has worked

if i was -- if d.b.i. were informed of that that this wasn't right, as i said, that is why i stated that. if the attention is drawn to us that there is a discrepancy, we have the right to rescind what we signed off on go back and say , hey, are you sure about this? is this right? if it is not right, then we would refer that another revision be

if i was -- if d.b.i. were informed of that that this wasn't right, as i said, that is why i stated that. if the attention is drawn to us that there is a discrepancy, we have the right to rescind what we signed off on go back and say , hey, are you sure about this? is this right? if it is not right, then we would refer that another revision be submitted so our engineers would have the ability to review that. i didn't bring an engineer with me tonight. a kind of is all engineering but i did not bring a d.b.i. engineer with me. the question is an engineering question and i would not be qualified to answer that question. >> the thing that is riding is that there is a claim that there was, a long time ago, and far far away, a set of plans that people relied upon for these two buildings and then, as the appellant states, there suddenly is a new set of plans which differs from the original set of plans that was submitted. so this is the only thing that is concerning. and it would be, seemingly, again speaking fro

well, the use cases, if you were to uncover some of the cases in the d.b.i. division, if it was central plan review, their main charter review is getting applications in, getting them through reviews and getting permit cases, so their use cases are all centered around their processes. in terms of the failures, these use cases are a series of steps basically going through a process from start to finish that's within their job role, and so as they were going through each of those steps, there's steps that are not working. to characterize those in a blanket statement is difficult because they vary, but it's -- it really cancered around discreet function points, you know, not meeting the requirements, and there are issues that are involved with -- with work flow is one of our items. we're moving from a platform, the p.t.s. legacy platform that really does not have -- there's a concept of, of course, tracking the status as they go through permit reviews, but it's not exactly a work flow structure. but we're migrating that status into accela, so it has to mold itsel

if this has been contemplated. >> we have something on our website to file a complaint for vacant buildings and we know that d.b.i. and inspection services are proactive and providing us properties when they go out into the field. but we do have that on our website. >> right. i am wondering how often, or if ever we are telling the public that it is on the website. [laughter] >> good morning. i'm a communications director for d.b.i. i wanted to respond to your question, commissioner. it is something that we are developing right now. the website is definitely something that we have had online. i do think, is more focus and -- this has been since beginning of this year, more focus has been on vacant storefronts with supervisor fewer, supervisor ye, there is also some legislation that is looking into possibly providing stricter adherence to the registration requirements for vacant storefronts. we will be doing a number of outreach and marketing efforts on that. whether it is notifying businesses along the corridors. we are trying to figure out with invest the neighborhoods also in how to best do outreach. we unfortun

d.b.i. and all parties but there is as of yet nothing. if you can continue your diligence to try to get some dates as to when we anticipate this really coming up, it is one of the most important pieces that we need to stage our next joint commission meeting with the planning commission, and so any of your efforts to give us better insights in that so we can plan. >> sure. i'll be happy to check with his office on that. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner walker, please. >> i'm -- want to update on tang's -- the multiuse retail. >> oh, okay. >> it looks like it's coming through, and is there anything that we need to do as our -- it's right at the bottom of page 1. >> well, i know the board did amend it on november 13 and voted to approve that, but i think they have postponed the final reading, the second reading, until after the thanksgiving holiday. i don't believe there's anything specific to the building code in that, you know, that's planning code amendments essentially to enable uses to be a little more flexible so that it would be faste

d.b.i. inspector under this would have to verify complaints if there had been a violation and someone took corrective action. >> right. there would be a follow-up inspection to see that the corrective action was carried out. >> supervisor k. tang: okay. supervisor safai? >> supervisor a. safai: one of the things we added, if you look on page 3 of the ordinance. it says the n.o.v. shall require the owner or owner's authorized representative have to apply for a permit to bring the existing service back into the area of compliance with the code. so not only do they have to, administrative fine, they actually as part of n.o.v. have to apply for, we added that language, they actually have to go through the process of applying for a permit. they can't just pay the fine and make it go away. that's another tool that both planning and building can work together on this issue. that was one of the major changes we added. >> supervisor k. tang: okay, and then also however, the regular trigger still apply. if paving over 200 square feet or new construction for expansion? >> yes. those are the same triggers, yes.

if someone has an issue with a fence or something, file a complaint with d.b.i. or planning and we'll look into it. it happens a lot. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> you just missed us so much you came in an off night. >> i'm skipping a date to be here. >> welcome. >> ryan patterson. i'm the land use attorney in the city. my private capacity not invited by any party. i wanted to speak to you because i do on a weekly basis i watch your agenda and this case stuck out at me. part because of the number of appeals and also because it seems that this case falls squarely into the housing accountability ability. california government code section 65589.5 often called the anti nimby law. this law requires essentially that if a housing development project meets all applicable objective standards and criteria, such as zoning and building codes, the city has to approve it. unless there is a severe and specific health or safety impact they cannot did he mitigate it. the city has to approve it. it seems to me the standard

d.b.i. i'm sure mr. duffy will address that. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner lazarus do you have a question? if the building on the corner didn't exist, would the setback be adequate? would you see that this project would be approved? >> so if the building on the corner did not exist, you would basically take the rear yard based on the other building on the other side. it would align to the other building. >> so, you are not given the opportunity to do weeks of analysis on this. would you bird dog this a little bit and if that corner project wasn't there and you were looking on the back of a match book, would it get approved? >> likely, yes. if it's in the current condition. as i said, we did quite a long review process between 2014 and 2017, we worked on several iterations with the architect and if the proposal before us was to come forward in its current state, we would likely would approve it. >> on the issue of previous council, they spent a lot of time on the non compliance of the corner building. he showed us the picture over and over again. i saw a non-paved road and probably something t

d.b.i. just added to this ordinance all projects of new buildings 240 feet or taller located in the city's office. >> he has been working on this for years, if you have any questions. >> i have a few quick questions on projects. we don't have the data, that is fine. obviously, we had last week where we had fleet week and i had the privilege and honour to go and talk at fleet week where we had a building and safety strategy program. you were there and i appreciate it. i thought it was interesting the level of conversation as to the different changes that are coming down the pipeline. well if you think, as a city, we are based on your years and years of constantly evolving on this, where do you think we are compared to other cities and how far are we advanced in this arena right now, as best we can be? >> we are at a point that this is the ten year anniversary of this administrative bulletin. the first was developed ten years ago. requiring more scrutiny by the engineer professionals and more. right now we are at the point where we expand from the structure. we have more scrutiny on the geotech issue. >> in that arena, compared to other cities