director goldstein: the board of appeals. we are calling item number eight. this is protesting the issuance of 2011, a permit to alter a building, expand the parking garage at ground floor, in large garage door, structural strengthening under a separate permit, provide sound insulation between units. this matter was heard on october

12, 2011, and continued for further consideration today and also continued for them to a settlement negotiations. my understanding is that there is no settlement at the moment. is that correct >> -- is that correct? >> thank you, ms. goldstein. commissioner fung: just to hold for a moment, i did review the tapes with the stops in -- -- with the stoppage, and i know the issues. director goldstein: thank you, commissioner. >> my understanding is that the permit holder is willing to agree to have a condition placed on the permit that the tenants do not have to vacate, and it is not contingent to the tenants agreeing anything, so we do not oppose that.

president goh: so that does sound like a settlement. let's hear from the other side. >> so you want to hear from us? commissioner hwang had stated that she had resided in her home during a similar project, and there were other statements that the tenants could reside in the unit. the permit holders are anxious to begin, and the permit holders have agreed to pay the additional expenses it will take to do the work with the tenants in the building, and we just ask that you remove the suspension of a permit and allow the work to continue with the tenants in occupancy, and if you have any questions, i have all of the permit holders and owners of the building here as well, and the contractor and the engineer. vice president garcia: i am confused. you want us to grant the appeal?

>> a condition on the permit that the tenants get to remain in occupancy during the work. that is my understanding of the appeal, and i think we will go along with that. vice president garcia: thank you. commissioner fung: i think that is correct. director goldstein: any department or comments? ok, any comment on this item? so, commissioners, the matter is yours. vice president garcia: i guess they motion would be to grant the appeal -- thank you -- and place a restriction that, because i think there were other elements to the appeal, or was that pretty much it, that they be allowed to stay there? is that the entire scope of the appeal? director goldstein: i think there was our -- there were

questions about the scope of work, but we have heard from the attorney about them not raising other concerns. vice president garcia: so we uphold or grant the appeal on the condition that the tenants do not have to vacate their units during construction. commissioner peterson: and that would be based on them voluntarily reaching that conclusion. vice president garcia: right, and the tenants who were affected by the work. director goldstein: ok, mr. pacheco, when you are ready, you can call the roll, please. secretary pacheco: so, again, the motion is from the vice president to grant the appeal and appalled apartment on the condition that all tenants do

not have to vacate their units, and this is on the basis on a voluntary agreement between the permit holder and the appellant. on that motion, commissioner fung, president goh, commissioner peterson, commissioner hwang is absent, so the permit is upheld with that condition and on that basis. the vote is 4-0. thank you. director goldstein: we can call the next item, item number seven, appeal number 11-100. 1500 francisco street. unit no. 10. protesting the issuance on august 31, 2011, to martin beresford, a permit to alter a building, replace the existing roof deck, like for like.

the matter is on for hearing today, and we will start with the appellant. you have seven minutes. >> good evening, madam president and commissioners. my name is right stern, and i am currently the president of the 1500 francisco street homeowners association. appeal number 11-100 was filed against the application 201 1/8/02 2/2 nine four seven, on -- 2011 application -- application 2011/08/22/2947. there was an issue in pacific heights where several people were injured and one individual

was killed. a number of homeowners residing at 1500 francisco street were and continue to be concerned about the safety of the supporting restructure which is directly below the proposed replacement rooftop deck. as president of the 1500 francisco's streets hoa, i filed the appeal, taking my position seriously. the application which is under appeal was for a replacement deck, which was to be built after the re-roofing of the common area roof. they were to provide a replacement rooftop deck which would meet current code and safety requirements and which

could be submitted to dbi for a permit application. mr. weisberg did so, and mr. michael white, of michael white general contractors, submitted the plans to dbi for a permit, which was granted on august 31, 2011. the appeal is aimed at assuring the safety of the supporting roof structure directly below the rooftop deck. the permit holder, mr. baristas, has responded to the appeal and has hired a civil engineer, mr. paul cox, of wje associates to take the steps in the appeal, including making copulations to determine the adequacy of the supporting work structure and it necessary to provide a strengthening scheme to ensure of the safety of the supporting work structure to allow the

construction of a rooftop deck that does comply with current code and safety requirements. mr. paul cox, the civil engineer, upon investigation of the supporting were structure directly below the deck found the rooftop -- found the roof support structure inadequate. mr. cox has subsequently prepared a strengthening scheme, including drawings that the permit holder has submitted to the hoa and i understand to the board of appeals but not to the department of building inspection and planning. as agent for the appellant, i respectfully request, 1, the permit holder be required to obtain a permit approval from the san francisco county department of building inspection of mr. cox'

strengthening scheme, and, two, the supporting restructured directly below the rooftop deck be strengthened and inspected by the department of building inspection prior to the construction of the replacement rooftop deck. in essence, we have no problem with the debt itself. we have got a problem -- with the debt -- deck itself. we have a problem with the structure. this is for the strengthening of the supporting structure into have it inspected, and then in essence, we would either withdraw or whenever the proper terminology is so that he can go, the permit holder can go forward with this deck. thank you. director goldstein: thank you. mr. beresford.

you also have seven minutes. >> i am martin beresford, and as was said, i am the permit holder for the deck, which is part of my unit no. 10. i respectfully request that the border of the appeals uphold the permit, which was granted on august 31. he has stolen much of my thunder, and we are in agreement on most of a point. i will try to keep this brief. the main points were in my brief submitted last week, so if i may just recap a little of the background just to make sure it is well understood. in january 2010, the hoa, the homeowners association, commissioned steven weisberg to look at the situation in the whole building and to recommend

how to fix them and to act as the overall project manager for getting it all done, and in april of last year, 2010, weisberg recommended that we repair or replace four main areas in the building. the entire roof, that sighting in serious locations, leaky windows, and then finally the deck, which is the issue at the moment. i paid his retainer. the deck has been in place for 30 years exactly as it is. it was deeded to my unit no. 10 in exactly its current form when the whole building was legally made into condominiums and approved by the building department in 1981-1982.

the details are in an exhibit 1 in the package that i submitted last week. at that time, offered to provide mr. weisberg with any historical details he might require a regarding historical permissions and permits, but he wrote to me on july 27 last year saying, "we do not have any need for past permits," so that is where that one went. so i have to say that i think any claim that mr. weisberg was somehow mislaid on that subject is clearly inaccurate. so moving forward, in july of this year, one year after the contract was signed, mr. weisberg produced the design and construction drawings for the new deck, and it retains exactly the same footprint as the existing 30-year-old orson deck, but it rests on pedestals rather than joint to distribute the

weight more effectively and also to allow a free flow of water. details are in the exhibit two of the package. at our board of directors meeting this past july, mr. stern approached that we program -- we approve mr. weisberg is designed, and it was passed unanimously by the board, and he assured us that he expected of a difficult and obtaining a permit. actually, at that time, i was quite reluctant to remove the existing debt until we get a permit in place for replacing it. however, once the permit was issued at the end of august, the contractor was authorized to start removing the deck, and he started doing that on september 7, said moving forward, on september 15, just s soon as the existing debt had been partly removed, mr. stern appealed to suspend the permit on september

15. he took this action unfortunately without consulting the homeowners' association board and despite his earlier support for mr. weisberg's designed . however, as he said, and a quote, he since stated that, quote, if proper drawings and proper documentation is produced to demonstrate that the support structure of the roof is safe and will support the new deck, the association board will withdraw a permit appeal. now, obviously, my primary concern as the owner of the deck, like all of us, is to make sure that the support structure of the room is safe and compliance with code, so after discussing it with mr. stern, i commissioned wje, who mr. stern just mentioned, to do three things. first, to measure the joint

group size, spacing, and support between the roof and ceiling of his unit. secondly, to calculate the load carrying capacity of the existing joists compared with code, and thirdly to produce designs that would strengthen the joists if necessary so we can be sure that the new deck is safe and that it meets with code. mr. cox, who mr. stern just mentioned, is a very, very experienced civil engineer, and his designs and calculations and construction drawings are, again, they are included in the same package from last week. they are designed to strengthen the roof and the support structure by adding 2"x2" joists, spaced 16 inches apart under the entire area where the neudecker will rest, and i emphasize again, the new debt will have exactly the same

footprint as the existing debt, which we are in the process now of dismantling. mr. cox' weight bearing calculations, which also included in here under item number four shows that what is being recommended will safely support the new debt in accordance with building code. finally, in all other respects, mr. weisberg's designs for the neudecker are not change, as already approved by the building department, so his concerns -- they will assure the work is done, and i would therefore like to respectfully request that the board of appeals upholds a permit. commissioner fung: you did not say whether you were filing for a permit.

>> i am very sorry. i am a bit death. -- deaf. commissioner fung: you did not specify if you were filing a permit. >> if that is what is desired, i will do that. commissioner fung: this could be to uphold on the condition that the second permit for the structural upgrade be applied for. >> right, i would have no objection to that. director goldstein: thank you. >> thank you. mr. duffy? >> did evening, commissioners. the only thing -- the approved

drawings would be brief, i do not know what we approved. i cannot get them from microfilm. they are not there yet. they are between microfilm and the department. they are just hard to track, depending on when the permit was issued, so i do not know what we originally approved on drawings, but i am happy to hear that there is a we strengthening being done, and, of course, a building permit would be required on that, and that would be inspected before going on with the roof deck, so if you want to improve conditions -- and there is a photograph on exhibit 1. obviously, i have some concerns about the height of the railing, but that would all be covered under inspections for the building department. i am not really sure how that will work. i am available for any

questions. commissioner fung: mr. duffy, has the department heard of large, flatbed scanners? sorry. this is a traditional issue. it takes months sometimes to go through. >> yes, in limbo over there. they are not on microfilm. they are just hard to find. president goh: are those different plans that we have in our path that -- packet? i see, ok. >> they may be the same as approved, or not exactly. president goh: some kind of modification, when you have not seen it? >> i have seen the plans, which is what i think he is showing us, the plans that you have

there for the proposed. that has not been approved yet, as far as i can see. president goh: so can you tell me how this goes on in the field? they removed the joists, then replace those, and then the specter comes before it is closed up and ensures that those additional joists were put in properly. >> everything you said is correct. that is right. it would be closed up and re- roofed. at that point, the building would be watertight before you do the deck, and then you would put the deck on top of the new roof. president goh: and at what point is someone from your department there to oversee? >> the inspector would be there

before the plywood is put on the main structural roof, which is the joist, the 2"x12" joist, so the inspector would be there before it is covered up, so that would be part of the process. and then we would go back probably once or twice more during the construction of the deck, for the framing of the roof deck, and then we would do a final inspection. probably three or four times, because there are going to be two permits. and the other 14 this roof deck. -- the other one for this route deck. president goh: great, thank you. director goldstein: is there any public comment? seeing none, we will move into

rebuttal. the appellant has three minutes of revival. -- rebuttal. >> i do not want to question any of the points that mr. beresford made, other than to say he has followed the directions he had been given, and if the board sees fit to insist that he seek a permit for strengthening the substructure, and that it be inspected, i think we are completely in agreement with going forward. we did see his deck design. as far as i understand, that design was submitted by the contractor for a permit.

a permit was issued on august 31 for the new design, and we do not have a problem with that. ok. director goldstein: mr. beresford, anything further? >> no, thank you. director goldstein: then i believe the matter is submitted. commissioners? commissioner fung: i would move to grant the appeal, with a condition that the permit holder apply and procure a permit for the structural upgrade of the roof structure. vice president garcia: can we request that it be expedited? we are moving into hopefully a rainy season. director goldstein: commissioner fung, would that be on the basis

if the permit is co-compliant? commissioner fung: yes. director goldstein: mr. pacheco, would you call the world? it does not look like there is any additionthis. is this correct? secretary pacheco: again, we have a motion from commissioner fung, that he applied for and procure a new building permit for structural upgrade of the roof structure and on the basis that this permit is code compliance. on that motion, president goh, vice president garcia, commissioner peterson, commissioner hwang is absent, the boat is four-zero. the appeal is upheld with that condition and on that basis. director goldstein: ok, thank

you. we will move into the last item on our calendar, which is item number eight, a discussion and possible adoption of the department's annual report. commissioners, we repaired -- prepared this report as part of the city charter, as all do, and it is also to inform the public. this covers the fiscal year 2010-2011, from july 1, 2010, to june 30, 2011, and what i thought i would do is touch on some of the highlights, and that i would be happy to answer any questions you might have. during that fiscal year, you have heard 151 matters, a 13% increase from the prior year. however, it also reflects that appeal volume was down significantly if we look at the 10-year average. it was down from the -- for the third year in a row, and i took a look at this trend.

at least 45% of the appeals stemmed from dbi issues, and it might begin to look at what the volume has been over at dbi over that same 10-year period, and i did notice some similarities. in 2008, when the economy started to go south, it went down 12% at dbi, and building permit volume went down about 16%, so that is similar to what we experienced, and the terrible part of volume continued to stay down -- the total volume went down. it has stayed relatively constant in the past year, so although our appeal volume tends to be willing to building permits, we are not seeing that same increase in our appeals. i am not quite sure why that is. i think it is possible that the nature of the building permits being issued are perhaps for

smaller projects or things that people are doing, interior remodeling, and it could be that the resources necessary for people to file appeals with the board are just too precious right now given the economic situation that a lot of people find themselves in. i am not really sure, but i thought it was good to take a look at the history. year to date, the trend for the appeal volume continues to be below average. we have received 48 new appeals since the beginning of this fiscal year, and if this trend continues, then we will and the year again with below-average numbers of appeals. i would have to say it is a little too soon to know. so the report breaks down the appeals, looking at issuing departments, where do these appeals come from, the nature of the appeals, whether it is a protest,also what