>> joe duffy, d.b.i. just on the ground floor, it might be better to add common space, nonhabitable area, so you can't be living there. sort of might clarify that. the roof deck, and i wouldn't mind going to d.b.i. with the plan check -- senior plan checkers just to review those pavers. because if you're going to be out there doing gardening, it's occupied. it's just an extension of your garden deck. that's my opinion. i certainly -- i'm a little bit wary of the size of that area and it not being labelled property. instead of it's going to be a nonoccupied roof, it's going to be a roof garden. if it's a roof deck, they need to treat it as a roof deck, and then, the gated access, so it probably needs a short time just to clarify a few things from my end any way. that would be appreciated. and i don't want to hold it up, either. that's the last thing i want to do. thank you. >> okay. so commissioners, the matter's submitted. >> you seem to have a handle on this, and you heard my thoughts, so i'll let you go

>> joe duffy, d.b.i. the permit under appeal was approved by d.b.i., plan checked, went through building department review. as you can see from the plans, it's only for work on the ground floor, and to provide that second means of egress. i actually was at this property maybe three years ago on this issue. i believe i met that gentleman, yeah, just as a -- they wanted me -- some advice on this issue, and i advised them that on the ground floor, you would have to provide a second means of egress. i wasn't brought up stairs to the second floor. i came to see that as a separate issue, even though it's -- it's connected a little bit, and in my opinion -- and i spoke to mr. boskovic at the building, if someone thinks there's an error of an exit in the building, contact d.b.i. we certainly don't want anyone with unsafe exiting. so that would be my opinion on that. this is ground floor work, and of course, there is a floor above it, but that could be treated as a separate issue. and unless -- and i didn't know t

joe duffy, d.b.i. yeah just on a couple of the points that mr. brought up are concerns of mine, as well. just reviewing the plans this morning at the office, some of the labelling of the areas are something that i wouldn't be used to seeing. i know it's been approved by d.b.i., but i never got a chance today to speak to the plan checker. if you look at the grand floor plan on a-100, they're labelling these areas as common space on the ground floor behind the garage. i'm not used to seeing common space. you know, we normally have storage. there is one storage room on the existing plan, but they're showing this common space. i'm not sure what common space means on the ground floor of a building. i'd prefer to see that labelled as storage or whatever it's going to be used for. the occupant load factor, i don't even know if we have something in the code for that. common areas of buildings are generally lobbies, hallways, corridors, stuff like that, but this seems to be some sort of a room that's going to be used for something, but common space doesn'

. >> commissioners, joe duffy d. b.i. i don't have too much to say. just could confirm there's a notice of violation for the work that was done without a permit. as you know, the permit good filed and subsequently denied. the case is currently been referred to code enforcement division for a hearing. that will be probably coming up soon on the directors hearing which could end up with an order of abatement for the building. i don't really have much to add. the notes of violation was in the brief. it's lengthy. i don't think you need me to read it out. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? any public comment? how many people? if you can please get close. can you come down to the front and have a seat, thank you. >> director green. >> i'm doing well, thank you. for the record, chairman, commissioners, staff, my name is gerald green. i am here to support the appellant. as previously been exhibited by your problem-solving skills, my intent is to first of all try to at least contribute some means of a compromise, some means of

. >> good evening, commissioners, joe duffy, d.b.i. the building permit under appeal was filed on the 11th of february 2014. issued on the first of august 2018. subsequently suspended because of the appeal on august 10th, 2018. it is a site permit. the approval was just for site permit as you know the addenda still has to come into d.b.i. for review and building code and structural review title 24 and anything else that's part of that package. the building was to convert the single family residents to a two-unit residents with a horizontal and vertical addition. they're going to add fire sprinkler system throughout the whole building under a separate permit. as you know, the family in the building code is an r-3 occupancy. it's till an r3 under the california building code. it's going from three-storeys to four-storeys. most of the discussion was about the planning department and the planning codes and the objections. there was one building code issue that has been brought up and i think the architect addressed it and his comments and