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 action the bo. gmajority of appeals where land use. permits were the next largest categories. you of held half of those -- the remaining matters were pending by the end of the year or withdrawn and.

you can have a map of both property appeals throughout the city, and i think the map shows a fairly disperse area. in addition, the board spent a good chunk of time on revision. i want to thank you for when you contributed on that. the board passed those and helped to fine-tune and create efficiencies. we also tried to reduce and the issues. there were 38. we have eliminated about a third of those. there is some work needed by

other departments and some of the project sponsors need to take action, and most of the others were which pending -- with pending issues. the board undertook a variety of issues to improve access to members of the public who have limited english speaking capabilities. we also have an organization but provides over the phone who translations. i feel we are capable of coverihelping just about anyoneo walks through gone doris. -- walks through the doors.

we have been continuing to work on a database that will report on cases and also to create electronic notices on the board's decisions. gooi am hoping to have been bacd up and available to the public. moving on to the budget, the board did face another challenging year. wheat ended with a deficit in -- we ended with the deficit. we did generate a surplus in our filing fees, but that is a small portion of the budget, and while

a 6% revenue shortfall is not wonderful news, it is an improvement over prior years. i hope we continue to move in this direction and find the ability to generate revenue and this year and going forward. it was pretty clear early on we needed to take some measures to reduce expenditures. we cut salary. we also were able to reduce some costs of processing of appeals, and we were also able to increase utilization of the work

order. the board reduced expenditures by 13%. the current budget, we generated just over 30% of projected revenues so far. it is still difficult to see how this will carry us through the rest of the year, and we are aware of how to limit expenditures where we stand. we will continue to develop electronic methods of tracking and sharing the board's work and to continue to review and updates all of the resource materials to provide as much service to the public as possible.

>> i have an interesting note as far as when you were going over the 10-year cycle. good reason look at when filing fee increases occur and whether that impacted the number of cases. -- we should look at the number of filing fee increases the darker and whether they impact the number of cases. i believe there were two increases in those years. >> i know since i have been on the board there was one increase, and most of those have not been increased for well over a dozen years.

the surcharges have been adjusted on a more regular basis. >> this is very well done, but i am curious. this is a map of the city, and it states that fewer of appeals are filed in the southwest of the city. does that area happen to appeal less? >> i do not know where it is spread out through the city, and i can certainly look into it. >> this is well done. thank you. >> i just wanted to commands director gold seen on thispreset illustrates a well-run agency,

and you are doing a great job. i am particularly happy to hear about the increase in accessibility with translation services and website organizations. it is great news and a great way to help us help the public, and you have done a fantastic job. it was challenging to try to revise some of our rules. i thank you for your patience with the process as well. we need to ask if there is any public comment. simenon, we need a motion to a except its.

-- seeing none, we need a motion to accept it. >> so moved zeroth. it is such a fabulous report, we all would like to make the motion. >> on that motion to except the report for fiscal year 2010- 2011. [calling votes] of the vote is 4-0. the annual report is accepted. >> there is no further business. we are adjourned.