First Notice has not been responded to.

Attached modified IFC comments to plans. Occupancy for the "A" area reduced to 186.

Architect Duane Marler & owner of RAFIKI - Childrens indoor play area, Robere Kazadi, made a written request, accompanied by furniture and fixture layout within the large children's play area, to reduce the occupant load within the play area by applying an occupant load factor of 35 rather than the 15 originally used. The original occupant load of 352 (15 factor) would overcrowd the space such that children could play. Use of the 35 factor changed the A3 assembly occupant load portion to 186. This factor, 35, is used for daycare play areas. This space is similar to a Pojo's or Chucky Cheese but without all the game machines. The building permit, building permit plan review and the fire code plan review have been modified to reflect the change in occupant load. A copy of modified reports & permits have been attached to the office set of plans and Mr. Kazadi is bringing his approved plan set and attachment to a meeting at 10 a.m. today so the same notes and documentation will be attached to his filed set of plans to match the office set.

Robere ###-####
on site conf only,, need trades 1st

I returned a phone message from Rober on Friday, 6/20 (###-####) and spoke with him regarding the fire alarm system requirement. He indicated George Slane had agreed to approve a TOC, subject to Fire approval, while Rober tries to obtain a reduction in O/L from the Buidling dept, and that George had suggested he call me to discuss further.
He asked for a TOC until he could get the O/L reduced below 300, because he was sure he would not have that large of groups there. I explained he could not get the number reduced on that basis but that Dan Stuart had sent his architect a written explanation of the procedure required to get the number reduced.
I suggested that leaving it at the current number over 300 would give him greater long-term flexibility to use the space for similar but larger functions. He then agreed and said he wasn't trying to avoid installing a fire alarm system but wanted the TOC because this requirement was just brought up at the last step in his permit inspection process. I pointed his application showed $3000 to install a new system and the requirement to obtain a fire alarm permit was included in our Fire plan review report.
He then said he would readily accept responsibility for any oversights on his part but still wanted a TOC to give him time to get the system installed. I told him the Fire Marshal had indicated he would accept a fire watch by a licensed security firm, as an acceptable alternative for a TOC during the interim until an alarm system could be installed. He replied that he definitely would not use that option, as it was simply a bureaucratic technicality and it wouldn't be financially justifiable; and that he would just postpone his planned opening date.
I also explained that the alarm system requirement was for the A3 occupancy fire area, which in this case included the adjacent, non-fire separated Zamzow space. He immediately began to berate that requirement, but I explained that the fire marshal would be willing to consider a written request to "defer" installation of the visual alarm devices in Zamzow's, until a stipulated implementation date. If approved, this deferral could enable him to get occupancy sooner and at less initial expense. I explained the proposal would also need to be signed by Zamzow's. He indicated he understood but seemed to brush it off without further discussion.

telcon from "Robear" (spelling?) "General Contractor" questioning the need for fire alarm permit for installing an existing duct smoke detector into a newly created return air plenum created to serve three newly installed air handling units. I confirmed the need to obtain a Fire alarm permit to approve the modification. I indicated this could be handled with a Quick permit which has a 2-day review time, assuming all information is properly submitted. I suggested he engage a fire alarm contractor to ensure all information was properly included with the application and that the installation was done properly, as well as to be present to conduct the testing at the final insepction.

Two copies of each of mechancial sheets with the architects stamp, signature and date have been provided. Routing to permit desk to issue.

called Robere and left voice messgae permit is ready, fee, need GC, RCE, ACHD

per plans and 2003 upc

Resubmittals required were incomplete. Inserted new plan sheets and reviewed for corrections. E-mail to Duane Marler & Roere Kazadi of remaining items needing to be submitted.Routing back to fire code analyst for re-review.

Faxed and emailed resubmittal items to architect.

Copy of plan review to architect and tenant.

Dave Moser failed the plan because the 10 day appeal period has not ended yet. The 10 day appeal period for CUP08-00006 ends on 3/20/08.

3/11/2008 14:33:12 MYS - activity updated through activity BLDA168 from case BLD07-03243.

need elec, plm, and mech sheets prior to begin routing