|
YUEN:You know, can I just -?
<br />ALAMEDA:Director.
<br />YUEN:I think Ive been failing to really concretely explain what the problem is
<br />here. Let me give you a different, let me give you an example say from the building permit side.
<br />Lets say for example that the Building Code says that dimensions of doorway shall be shown on
<br />the building maps. All right? And lets say that for whatever reason the building permit gets
<br />approved without the dimensions of the doorway being shown. And lets say your neighbor sees
<br />your house going up and doesnt like it; and then the neighbor goes down and look at your
<br />building map thats at the Department of Public Works and finds that the building permit, the
<br />dimensions of the door on your house were not shown. Okay? And then your neighbor says
<br />Notice that it says shall be shown on the building plans, therefore your building permit is no
<br />good; and then they take it to, and this is the Kiilae decision . The information, it was not
<br />there,allright,ontheinitialapplication.Right?Andsothecourtsays,oh,itshall-.Andyou
<br />say, But wait, my doors actually meet Code. All right? Actually, they are the same. So the
<br />court says, No, it says shall be on the building permit application, so go submit your building
<br />permit application again. Thats exactly what were talking about here. And what this says is
<br />that no, you dont have to submit your building permit application again. Thats all it says.
<br />ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita?
<br />IWASHITA:I understand the example. You know, in the building permit example, the
<br />owner would go back to the Building Department, the Building Department may or may not
<br />charge a second fee or a double fee; and it will be taken care of for a 30-inch door. What were
<br />talking about are requirements for easement descriptions, legal title, all of these things which are
<br />not 30-inch doors and which the Director is suggesting that thats okay, if thats left out thats
<br />okay; and its still legal. It is not okay, not on final plat, not when the developer stands to make
<br />whatever amount of money the developer stands to make, you know, in taking care of these
<br />things. Like its the developers responsibility. Its not the Departments responsibility to meet
<br />those requirements. And if the developer messes up a plan or hires a surveyor that is negligent in
<br />messing up the plan, let him deal with the surveyor, let him deal with his professional. But its
<br />not, as far as public policy is concerned the requirement is a requirement, and failure to meet the
<br />requirement should not, you know, should not validate it in any way. To me its not a real
<br />technical thing. Its conveying a right to transfer title to, you know, different lots in the
<br />subdivision. Its a substantial right; and these requirements are not over burdensome as they
<br />stand right now in the final plat. I have no problems really with the preliminary, the language on
<br />the preliminary plat approval and taking care of that part of it. I do have some, you know, when
<br />we get there, I do have some suggestions on how to change that. But on the final approval, on
<br />the final plat, I dont think there should be any inoculation, none at all.
<br />ALAMEDA:Commissioner McCall?
<br />MCALL:Yeah. Let me see if I, Im going to try bring something a little closer to
<br />where -. Okay, we have a subdivision, the surveyor screwed up and didnt put some line in or
<br />something on it; and so when the house is built it is built within the setbacks. Its supposed to be
<br />a 20-foot setback and its put 15 feet from the setback. Im not sure if this is, you know -. And
<br />somebody goes back and looks and says, okay, this is -. You know, when the surveyor finds out
<br />24EXHIBIT D
<br />
<br />
|