fees. with the director, the annual report coming later on in the evening, we probably have got timing. what did the other commissioners think about that? >> there is only one exception, which is for financial hardship. president goh: i say. if anything is going to happen to this building. mr. sanchez, maybe we can hear from you. halbur and some would that be to your department? >> scott sanchez, planning department. so if i understand, there would be a 90-day notification if this were to be removed? or --

president goh: it was in the third option. the second paragraph from the end. director goldstein: president goh, that looks like that is 90 days for something that comes before the board. president goh: thank you. vice president garcia: where do we stand on this? if we were vote to uphold, we are allowed to adopt language

that is in the green star. i am particularly interested in number two on that, having to deal with the nsr, so how do i get there? >> it would be placing a condition that would require a four you are votes, and if you are inclined to do that, i would point out one concern is the end of the green star version, at the end of this paragraph about a 12-year moratorium, not allowing the parties -- and the release modification. if he was willingly consented to that, that would be all right, but that seems like something that would deprive the between two parties, not the city. vice president garcia: actually, i would stop that paragraph. right.

president goh: so this nsr would not have an expiration. does that paragraph not give it one? commissioner fung: i think it only talks about the elimination. >> if i could ask for clarification? with the board be up holding the release of suspension, allowing the permit to move on, and acknowledging that separately an agreement would be recorded, or would you be conditioning the release of suspension based upon this actually being recorded it, and so an action of this board to force or to require the recording of the nsr. whether or not you are acknowledging the private agreement, that would be handled between the parties probably, or if you're taking action and requiring -- president goh: i do not think we

have gotten there yet. vice president garcia: that is what my motion was. >> so if they wanted to remove this in the future, i guess the process for them would be to request a letter of determination. we would say no, we cannot remove the nsr because the board has required this. president goh: that is right, so if we remove that paragraph, it would be in perpetuity. >> yes, and then someone could appeal that, and it would come back before this board. >> and the poor forma, -- vice president garcia: in the pro forma, there is nothing unusual about having this nsr? president goh: vice president garcia, you are deleting that last paragraph? vice president garcia: yes, it

would and at the end of paragraph number two. not paragraph number two, paragraph enumerated as number two. president goh: understood. director goldstein: that was a motion, right? so we need to have their way to identify this document. we really cannot identify it by the green starts. mr. it as submitted, but i believe it is number two? vice president garcia: with city planner, scott sanchez. secretary pacheco: so we can go by that. president goh: september 30,

2011. mr. sanchez appears to have a comment. >> to include in a language that the board of appeals is requiring it. otherwise, in the future, this will appear on the record, but nobody will have an idea how it got there, so this would be to make sure that their action is noted here. in kind of typical format for a notice of special restriction. >> mr. sanchez, normally are notice is also recorded, and would that not serve the same purpose? >> i think we would want to be clear that we are recording both. usually, the nsr is included.

president goh: we're talking about this actual nsr. director goldstein: ok, so if you are in agreement with adding that, vice president garcia, we would have the board -- board vote on your motion, which is to grant the appeal, uphold the release of the suspension on condition that an nsr against its property be imposed, with language that it will be by this board and that it contained the language on this document dated 9/30/11, no. 2, submitted tonight, the extent that we reach through item number two on the document, so it contains everything up and throw item number two. vice president garcia: i agree with everything was said, but i do not know where the date came

from. director goldstein: at the very top. vice president garcia: ok, i did not see that. thank you. director goldstein: we can call the roll on that motion. secretary pacheco: 7, just to be clear, the paragraph that deals with the deference, that whole paragraph is being deleted. director goldstein: correct. secretary pacheco: so, again, we have a motion from the vice president, to grant the appeal, with the request for release of suspension on condition that a notice of a special restrictions be recorded on the land records with a note that the board is imposing this record nation -- recordation, and that that

paragraph is being struck, the last paragraph. director goldstein: and i would also add that the parties have agreed to the key terms. vice president garcia: thank you. secretary pacheco: and with that they have agreed to the key terms of the nsr. on that motion what all of those conditions and that basis, commissioner fung, president goh: , commissioner peterson, and commissioner hwang is absent. thank you, the vote is 4-0, and this is up held with that condition and that basis. thank you. president goh: great. we are going to take a short break. [gavel]

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.