22 and others. How much concrete would we need to pour . Im not an engineer but my friends came back and said, well , based on the foundation alone, you would need 1308 cubic yards. The reports that you handed in only have 150. D. B. I. Handed in 150. That doesnt include any of the walls. Im wondering, where is the rest of the special report . The engineer has the report. Wouldnt they be handed in by d. B. I. . Im not sure why they are not there was geotechnical observations during the excavation and per the permits we pulled, that was reviewed by d. B. I. Thank you. I appreciate it. I look at this and i go, you know, this was supposed to answer all the questions i had last go around and it didnt. It actually raises more questions. You know, you look at the sidewall and you look at the back walls, you are about 100 cubic feet short on the tests. The fire issues and im just like, well, im overwhelmed. I would love to see a summary on everything not just handing all the reports and raw data. This doesnt make any sense. It doesnt. I like where it is going, im just not prepared to prove this today because it is not enough we are not there yet. Commissioner fong . Question for staff. The bigger issue from that last discussion here at the commission was changing a two unit building to three units, admittedly it didnt quite happen in terms of replication of the original flats. Staff has not given the recommendation, but in staffs opinion, there is a creation of three viable units that occurred here. That is correct. The creation of three units that are presented before you that meet planning code. We are not charged with enforcing all of the Building Code, but, yes, we have a code compliant three unit building with seeking a variance for some features. Right. In terms of two points for variance. Correct. There is an expansion within the front setback and the rear yard. Okay. Commissioner hillis . Can you talk can you shed any insight into the exiting . I cant because im not charged with that and i would be speaking if i said something and it was taken as testimony, i am not authorized. But what is before us now that complies with the planning code . We need a variance. Yes. What is before you now, the original proposal provided a variance. They have done significant work into the rear. That is all being maintained in the proposal that you have in front of you tonight, with an addition of the stairway and the rear to allow the upper unit to be split. The most upper unit needs access to the rear yard and open space otherwise it would trigger a new variance for the open space, so there is an addition to the rear yard variance requirement, but the work in the rear does require a variance. But otherwise all three units meet exposure requirements is adequate open spaces. All right. Even with the first plan we had this year, i think commissioner milgaard talked about, can we convert this to three units, and theres a lot of humming and hauling about whether that was feasible to do, or financially feasible. We will see if it is financially feasible and this gets to be a three unit building, but i think we should move this along. It is what this commission asked for a while i wasnt here. I agree we should make this a three unit building. Unfortunately, we cant have an a. D. U. Here because it would be a cave, but i think it is a good it is the best outcome we can hope for for an extremely unfortunate situation. If we want to canadian notified from d. B. I. About how this is working its way through their code approval if we want to continue to get notified from d. B. I. About how this is working its way through their code approval process, i think we did move this nightmare forward and get housing and approve three units here in the process take its course. Before you have spoken already. Before i agree with you that we need a solution and a path forward. I think my issue here is that this project sponsor went through our process and then broke it broke out of the process. It went on to the d. B. I. Process and also broke out of that process. By approving a project that is consistent with what we have talked about, but we know is not consistent with building and fire codes, we are then trusting that d. B. I. Is going to do what they are supposed to do in the projects that they have already failed to do what they are supposed to do. It gives me pause, you know, that we are saying we will just trust our system, which we know had failed us egregiously in those instances and we are trusting it to, you know, have a path forward. I just want to sit with this for a minute. Commissioner moore . Would you mind, in layman his terms, very simply explaining to the commission wide, from your perspective, and as a lice licensed and Structural Engineer , you could build this building and design this building within the purview of your license . Could you please explain of how you as an engineer, interpret how the building fails to meet the fire code. At this point, it would be considered under Building Code a new structure. It would not she would not be able to argue any of these units are grandfathered in as nonconformity. That was never legal. On a very similar case, when youre putting someone back or reconfiguring it, the building point of view would be these are three new units, and you have to comply with the Building Code to construct a three units building and that would require sprinkling, exiting, the fire department, in particular would be very concerned, with the exiting of the second unit and the rescue window. A project that has gotten this far is a little shocking to me. They havent got it all worked out with fire and building in a preapplication, so they are in front of you ones. This is not the first time they are here. They should have had this answer down pat before they showed up. Thank you. As i said earlier, i think the adjustment to the drawings were not made with a thorough review of how this building really becomes a different kind of building. It is for that reason that we and other cases have called on buildings not conforming. Mr. Fong actually did that on one of his earlier reviews with us, that that building was not conforming to the fire code when you have three units in need. You need to make special exiting requirements. I would like to toss you one more time the question as to whether or not you consider the lower unit being compliant with respect to the exposure requirements for the belt it for the bedroom of the lower part of the building. Sure. The planning code does not have any exposure requirements for bedrooms. It has exposure requirements for the unit itself. There are minimum requirements for sleeping room and housing code and there are various issues there that we need to address as to whether or not that proposed bedroom meets those requirements. On top of that, my understanding is the building is fully sprinklered on that perspective. I dont think that is an issue, but obviously we could have the project sponsor speak to the exiting issue grade of the issues that have been raised to see if that has been considered by them and if they think it meets that are wet thought they put towards that issue, but my understanding is the building is fully compliant. Thank you. Commissioner richards . I agree with commissioner milgaard. This is so many things that have come before us. Today was particularly painful for me. I dont want to have this approved until i know that it is buildable. I dont want to rely on d. B. I. , im sorry, i have lost faith in them. Mr. Best noia, you please come up . You were doing this in the back as i was rattling off my numbers for the cubic yards, what did you come up with . North of 100 yards minimum. Once you get into the foundation ties, it is pretty straightforward. How many yards do they say they poured . 150. It is a three figure number. Okay. My friends who are the engineers said five walls would have been about 50 and back walls would have been 60. It depends on how tall the back wall is and how you tear it up. If this comes back, i want to make sure we see the geotech report, and i want to understand if it wouldnt require a cat ask and a more intensive look, what does that mean . Should we have done a cat ask intensive look . Where is our obligation, given all of this stuff . This has more hair on it then a furby. Staff may address what we did exactly, but we had this issue when ceqa can only analyse what the existing conditions are. If work is done without permit, there is a challenge there under ceqa. That doesnt sit well with me you say, that is existing condition, when truly, it was with 800 units are no longer there. That boggles my mind. That is common sense. Im sorry, im cranky, its late , this makes no sense to me. Commissioner fong . It has happened twice now when i brought forward what was basically a building condition, excuse me, a Building Code issue , and i was reminded that, you know, this is a planning code issue, and Building Code issues are going to go through their own course and their own views as to what will be required. In my mind, what is before us is basically three levels of residence in three separate units. One in the basement, one at the ground floor, and one in the second and third floors. Should one want to have all that additional information, im not sure what that does to our decision as to whether these three units, on the a on a landuse basis, conforms to what this commission asked them to do im not prepared to let this drag on unless, of course, i only have one vote. [laughter] the fact is, im ready to act on it tonight. Director ram, did you want to Say Something . If i may on the comment about d. B. I. And their role here, no matter what happens with this project, d. B. I. Will have to review the drawings. I would just offer that i understand theres frustration about the process, but no matter what you approve or dont approve or whatever happens with this site, d. B. I. Will have to approve the drawings and approve the permit. We have to rely on that system to a certain extent to move forward with any project. Commissioner moore . Were falling into a grey zone where our responsibility to make the right lane use and Planning Decisions have an overlap with codes that we are not really obligated to adhere to, but where we were well know that a building could be significantly altered and should not achieve the lane use objectives and other objectives we have is Planning Commissioners. That is the reason why we have taken careful pause on other projects where we came into that grey zone. I believe that commissioner richards, inc. Losing present melgars questions, full well knowing this project could go a very different way saying, lets cancel those questions and have a building that meets at least the interpretation of those minimum requirements such as exposure for the lower unit, as well as the fire exiting, and if we know that even in a proverbial way, we have the ability to support a building because we are sitting here trying to make it work, but i do not want to be pulled over the barrel and ultimately having to hear the higher ups in d. B. I. Telling us what they should have been telling us all along. They have not offered any help and have basically put it to us to resolve issues that are significantly frustrating for all of us. We are just sitting here trying to do the right thing without having the support of the right tools. Nobody from d. B. I. Is here and i am just seeing we have the right to know the proper answers to the questions we are asking. Commissioner richards. I moved to continue. Second. With the buildable building brought back to us with the geotech report, with the summary of everything, we understand this building is fully baked. I understand theres also a hitch a whole issue with removing dirt on a now existing condition. I really would like to have you please give that to us, mr. Zoning administrator. Commissioner hillis . I think it is better to move this project along and ask director ram. If we think there is something, you know, wrong with the process , which i think we have sought today that theres something wrong with the process , lets use this case and asked people in the audience and director ram, in the City Attorney to use this as an investigative an investigation of what went wrong , you know, who made errors in judgement, but i think asking d. B. I. To come back here and tell us this is fine from a fire standpoint, but we dont think d. B. I. Is going to give us the straight answer, then do want to hire someone else to do that . If they come back and say, this is compliant, or would be compliant if you made these changes, which arent necessarily relevant to this planning approval, you are good to go, are we comfortable with that . Or can we not then trust d. B. I. And say, well, we would like someone else to review that and tell us it is okay. We are not experts on the planning code. Thats why i think lets move this. If we want to use this case with others to appropriately allocate time of the department and the City Attorney to look into this case, im fine with that. Lets also try to get what we have asked for, which is the maximum number of Housing Units here, which is three. I have questions whether this actually will get built, given what we know what this project looks like today. It is going to take a lot to go through that process and rebuild that. People will have to apply for permits to do it. This is just the first step. We want to investigate and fix our process with d. B. I. And we can also do that. I think i dont want to continue this. I think that what will happen here is that we will title this for three units, which is what we want, and i think the project sponsor will try to sell this, you know, i think that is what will happen. I think that given the press that this project has got in and the conversation that we have had here and the relationship with d. B. I. , and everything that has happened, i dont thank you youre likely to get the money that you were hoping you are going to get selling it as a singlefamily house. I do think for that, this has worked. I also dont know that this project is buildable as you have presented it. I am not asking you. I dont think it is buildable, but i do think that whoever, you know, buys this is going to have to go through this process. The thing about going and doing the geotechnical is still a question. I dont think that a new owner will have to go through that because, as you say, this has already been, if this is already the existing condition, im not sure that we can require at this point. So that is kind of moot. I think the process of going through fire, going through the Building Code to get a permit to make this happen, the owner will have to do it anyway, so i am still on the fence about this, but i dont want this to drug on commissioner fung . There is an option to condition our action and say this is the basic premise what were proving. You have the unit any, if that changes, it will have to come back if the conditions are not meant. That would be only if somebody complained. No, it could be that they make a change. It is still going to be reviewed by planning when they go through their full permit. This is one of the points i was going to bring up. When you consider a discretionary review, you can take d. R. And approve the project exactly as proposed with no extra conditions. If it moved forward and for some reason it could not be approved as proposed because of some Building Code or fire code requirement that was required to be a major reconfiguration or some change in the stairs, if it is anything more than just minor stuff, it has to come back to you guys anyway. You approved one thing, and now it is something else. It would have to come back to you in that case. The other option is to approve it as is with some marginal conditions to allow for a certain amount of change within certain parameters, if you wanted to two allowed to move forward. There maybe there right to be other moving around, but you still want to keep the three units, the same configuration, all that stuff. You have options there, but the point is, if you approve as is today and it needs to change significantly, it would have to come back to the planning code anyway through another d. R. Process for you to approve a new condition. Okay. Commissioner richards . One second. I have a thought and it just left me. Im sorry, it has been a long day. I will pick up on what commissioner hillis said. I think the City Attorney should do an investigation. Regardless of what we do. I think that is a really good idea and i commend you for that. I think we have a lot of questions up here, we dont know what the hell happened, and theres all these warrants down to nowhere. I would like to see the City Attorney get involved and understand the principles of the project. I would like to have a vote on the continuance. The only reason is, lets vote on the continuance. The egress and all that stuff actually put stuff back into the rear yard and we are back with, you know, we are taking d. R. , we are now administering it as the v. A. Would be administering it. I want to understand what i am administering. I would like to get a fully big project here and we can actually say, you are this much into the rear yard, this is what it looks like, this is a good project. Lets take a look and do a continuance, if not, lets discuss something else. I respectfully request we take a look. How long would you like to continue this to . Four weeks. I strongly recommend we do not continue this. That would be subtended 26th, october, is already full, october 10th is full, october 17th, if youre going to continue this, go to october 24 th. On that motion to continue this matter to october 24th im sorry, i want to clarification from the motion maker. So continue it. October 24th, what do you want to see coming back . The geotechnical report, the fire everything that will make it a fully big project. Fire rated walls need to be here and here, everything that would actually affect the building so we dont have a situation where mr. Teague says, oh, we have to come back because theres a change in his tolerance. Lets just deal with it here and approve the project next time. Okay. This could be done on a significantly simpler set of drawings because all we have been seeing, the drawings are very cluttered, they very hard to read. It could be a very simple set of diagrams explaining how this all works. At the moment there are cabinets and furniture which dont even belong to the room. This set needs to be cleaned up and answer the questions we have been asking. There is a motion that has been seconded. Would you like me to call the question . On that motion to continue this matter. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes 42. October 24th. We will close public hearing on the variance and continue to october 24th. That will place us on