Department of Building Inspection

Building Inspection Commission

BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)
Department of Building Inspection (DBI)

Wednesday, February 5, 2003
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 408
Adopted March 5, 2003

MINUTES

The meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 1:15 p.m. by President Fillon.

1. Call to Order and Roll Call - Roll call was taken and a quorum was certified.

2. Election of BIC President and Vice-President.

Commissioner Hood made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane that Commissioner Fillon continue as President of the Commission for the year 2003.

Commissioner Hood said that she thought that President Fillon has been very helpful in what could have been a very divisive Commission in establishing a high level of collegiality and respect for everyone on the Commission. Commissioner Hood stated that President Fillon's leadership would be helpful to have on a continuing basis. President Fillon accepted the nomination.

A roll call vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 003-03

Commissioner Guinnane made a motion, seconded by President Fillon that Commissioner Hood continue as Vice-President of the Commission for the year 2003. A roll call vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 004-03

3. President's Announcements.

President Fillon had no Announcements.

President Fillon said that the Commission was waiting for Director Ed Lee of the Department of Public Works and Executive Management from DBI. President Fillon said that Assistant Director Amy Lee was present and would be able to fill in for Director Chiu.

4. Director's Report. [Director Chiu]

Assistant Director Lee apologized for being late and reported that she and the Director were in negotiations with another issue and were a little bit overwhelmed.

Ms. Lee stated that DBI had previously presented a status report to the Commission on the draft of the Professional Conduct Guidelines that had been distributed to staff last year. Ms. Lee said that there is no enforcement of these guidelines, but the Department has asked the employees to adhere to the guidelines, as most of the guidelines are based upon City policies that all employees must adhere to anyway. Ms. Lee stated that the Controller's Office have recommended, and what the Department is trying to do is, to put some sort of enforcement mechanism with this Code of Professional Conduct. Ms. Lee said that initially DBI was told that this was a meet and confer issue and would have to be discussed with the unions. Ms. Lee said that she and the Director met with the unions last week to let them know that this is a big issue for the Department and that the Department was moving forward to implement this Code of Professional Conduct. Ms. Lee said that at that time the unions said that they believed this to be a bargainable issue and because this week union negotiations are taking place, the unions wanted this issue to be delayed and dealt with in the ongoing months of negotiations. Ms. Lee said that she has received subsequent City Attorney opinion that it may not be a bargainable issue so right now the Department is working with the City Attorney's Office, as well as the unions, to determine to what extent the Department could implement and enforce this Code of Professional Conduct.

Ms. Lee said that she believed that the Director wanted to provide the Commission with a status report because the Department provides premium salaries, which are additional, pay for employees who stand by on an emergency basis. Ms. Lee stated that when there is an emergency on the weekends or the evenings these employees are on-call and are subsequently given a small salary stipend because of their status of standby availability. Ms. Lee said that there has been different criteria set as to whether there is a residential requirement of living in the City and ideally the Director had wanted this to be the case, but the Department has been informed that the union is now going to grieve this issue regarding the criteria set for which employees can serve on standby pay.

There was no public comment on items #4a or 4b.

5. APPEAL PURSUANT TO SECTION D3.750-4 OF THE CITY CHARTER:

Appeal of Mr. Christopher James, property owner of 1573 Shotwell Street (Block 5545/Lot13), of the determination by Barbara Moy, Bureau Manager of Street Use and Mapping at the Department of Public Works (DPW) to deny applications for Street Improvements and Minor Encroachment Permits to construct a privately maintained concrete driveway, with low retaining walls and sub-drainage system, within an unimproved portion of Shotwell Street. (DPW Order No. 173627)

c. Deliberation and possible decision by the Building Inspection Commission.

President Fillon Announced that the representative from DPW would make his presentation first and would be allowed seven minutes.

Mr. Ed Lee introduced himself as the Director of Public Works for the City and County of San Francisco and said that he was present on this appeal from DPW's denial of the use of DPW's public right away relative to 1573 Shotwell Street. Mr. Lee stated that he would be very succinct in presenting a few points of the Department's consideration when this application was denied. Mr. Lee said that the Department of Public Works is the proper jurisdiction for this permit and is in charge of the public right of way for the end of Shotwell, and at that very end the number of residences that that currently exists beyond which the proposed development requested that DPW consider allowing them to build a very steep vehicular passageway. Mr. Lee stated that DPW's position is that the Department should be avoiding the construction of such a steep vehicular pathway. Mr. Lee said that DPW's engineers and the applicant's paperwork reveals that this would be in excess of 30 degrees grade and DPW thought that this posed a very dangerous situation for automobiles. Mr. Lee said that there are only two or three of these 30-degree type of grades that exist in the City and the Department is trying to avoid them because they are quite dangerous particularly for vehicles. Mr. Lee said that he personally visited the site with City Engineer Harlan Kelly and DPW's Deputy Director of Operations Mr. Mohammed Nuru as well as with the Director of Recreation and Parks. Mr. Lee stated that within the Department of Public Works there are several functions as the Department also looks at, not only the road, but at the existing use of that right of way. Mr. Lee said that there is a heavy amount of vegetation and eucalyptus trees that exist that the Department believes would be destroyed, as well as the large and very old eucalyptus trees that would be weakened severely by the construction. Mr. Lee said that the Recreation and Park Department walked that site some months ago regarding the view from the Bernal Heights Road that exists at the top of the hill at the proposed site. Mr. Lee said that on an every day basis there are scores, if not hundreds, of residents and people who go that roadway to walk their dogs and to enjoy the view. Mr. Lee stated that it is a fantastic, panoramic view of the City. Mr. Lee stated that he believed this proposal would destroy the vegetation that exists that is part of that panoramic view and would also block the view of many of those who enjoy that roadway at the top of the hill. Mr. Lee said that finally, DPW has received quite a number of protests of this applicant's application and it was at these neighbor's request that DPW personally visited the site to make a walk from the very end of Shotwell walking up that pathway to the top. Mr. Lee stated that he believed that the City would be losing a good piece of land that currently exists for the benefit of quite a number of residents and users in the area. Mr. Lee said that there has been strong neighborhood opposition that has been registered with DPW. Mr. Lee said that he wanted to repeat that San Francisco has very few grades of roads and driveways of this nature and said that he thought these types of dangerous constructions should be avoided. Mr. Lee stated that he thought that there would be maintenance problems in the future if the Department were to permit this to happen. Mr. Lee said that he was appointed by the Board of Supervisors as the City's Official Road Commissioner, so it is in that capacity that he presented this last issue. Mr. Lee thanked the BIC for their attention and time.

Commissioner Guinnane asked who would maintain the actual road once it was put in, if it were to be allowed; would it be the applicant or the City? Mr. Lee said that at this point if DPW was to grant the applicant, it would the applicant's responsibility to maintain the road. Mr. Lee said that he had Ms. Barbara Moy and Mr. Nick Elsner of his staff available to answer any technical questions that the BIC might have. President Fillon said that he wanted to hear from every public speaker and then come back to questions.

Vice-President Hood asked if Mr. Lee had any drawings available. Mr. Lee said that he believed that the applicants had pictures available.

Court Reporter Doris Levine informed President Fillon that she would have to swear in anyone who was going to speak on this issue. That was done at this time.

President Fillon called on the applicant and reminded him that he had seven minutes to speak. Mr. Jim Reuben speaking on behalf of the applicant congratulated President Fillon on his re-election. Mr. Reuben stated that he was helping Mr. Chris James, owner of the residential site that Mr. Lee referred to. Mr. Reuben said that Anne Forell, the project architect and Debbie Hite, the project engineer were present to speak in response to questions. Mr. Reuben said that first, to get it out of the way, some materials had been submitted to the Commission that are primarily legal in nature and stated that he would not be addressing any of that material as it was for the City Attorney and had to deal with ingress and egress and the takings of property. Mr. Reuben said that it also dealt with the fact that Mr. James is paying property tax for a parcel that he might not be able to ever use for any purpose. Mr. Reuben said that he wanted to go through a chronology so the Commission might understand how the applicant got where he is today. Mr. Reuben stated that in November 1999 before acquiring the property at 1573 Shotwell Street, which shows as a buildable lot on the Assessor's Parcel Maps, Chris James met with DPW, DBI and Planning to explain what he wanted to do with the property including the construction of the driveway and was advised by each one of those departments that they did not see any problem with his development plans. Mr. Reuben said that it should be noted that there is a paper easement that shows up on the Assessor's Maps for a driveway that extends to this buildable parcel of property. Mr. Reuben said that on December 9, after those meetings, Chris actually bought the property for his personal residence and said that Chris would be speaking today to tell the Commission about the views and the fact that it is adjacent to open space and is good for his dogs and all of those kinds of things. Mr. Reuben said that these are the reasons people pick pieces of property to live at. Mr. Reuben stated that in November 2001, Nick Elsner actually visited the property with the project architect Anne Forell and Chris James, the owner. Mr. Reuben said that they specifically talked about the driveway and all agreed that it would be somewhat steep, but would not ultimately be a problem or stop the project. Mr. Reuben said that as a result of that meeting on January 4, 2002 Anne Forell filed the original formal application for a street improvement with DPW and that original application showed a grade of up to 37%, as the grade is not consistent but moves back and forth a little bit going up the hill. Mr. Reuben said that on February 28, 2002 Tom Harvey from the Fire Department visited the site and Jack Fleck at DPT had requested that Chris James hire a surveyor and civil engineer to do a site study regarding the proposed driveway. Mr. Reuben said that Chris James and Anne Forell were advised that the maximum allowable slope would be 32% and on May 15, 2002, as a result of all that had happened up until then, Anne Forell submitted an updated survey prepared by Meredian Engineering as well as the civil engineer plans prepared by Debbie Hite. Mr. Reuben stated that the slopes for the proposed driveway range from 19% to 30.2% in keeping with the directive that was received. Mr. Reuben said that on July 9, 2002 Nathan Lee from DPW's hydraulic section issued a written memo to Nick Elsner stating, "we have no objections to the proposal". Mr. Reuben said that several conditions were attached to that approval, all of which are acceptable to the project sponsor that had to do with sewers and things like that. Mr. Reuben said that on that same day, July 9, 2002, Anne Forell and Chris James were given a copy of the order that was the approval of their permit to build the driveway. Mr. Reuben said that the next day the Department of Public Works, in accordance with their standard procedures he assumed, sent a notice out to the neighbors that they intended to issue DPW Order No. 173627 granting permission for Chris James to construct a privately maintained driveway on the Shotwell Street existing easement and a copy of that order was provided to the neighbors. Mr. Reuben stated that between July 10 and July 20 a lot of letters were received and members of the Board of Supervisors got telephone calls as to the neighbor's concerns. Mr. Reuben said that on July 23, Tom Harvey from the Fire Department sent a letter directly to Anne Forell approving the project and stated that this was a part of the record in the Commission's documents. Mr. Reuben stated that some of this he and his client understood from conversations with DPW, but said that on August 21 an in-house hearing was going to be scheduled at DPW to allow Chris James to present his case and possibly alternatives, with an opportunity for the neighbors to express themselves to try to come up with ways to mitigate the issues. Mr. Reuben said that on August 22 they were informed that Mr. Ed Lee had an in-house meeting with Nick Elsner and put the project on hold and that in-house meeting or hearing never happened, got cancelled and to this date, Chris James, Anne Forell, and Debbie Hite have never been invited to DPW, have never been invited to respond to the neighbor's concerns, and never been asked to describe other ways to do this driveway. Mr. Reuben stated that there are many other ways to do this driveway as the size of the retaining walls could be increased, or the slope could be lowered dramatically, but that conversation never took place. Mr. Reuben said that he felt his side had been denied due process. Mr. Reuben said that after that August 22 internal meeting that put everything on hold, on October 30, Barbara Moy who was present at this meeting, sent a letter to Anne Forell simply denying the driveway application saying "construction of a driveway in excess of a grade of 30% is very steep and may present potential safety concerns for vehicles using this driveway". Mr. Reuben said that importantly, from his point of view, the letter did not cite any Code sections, no rules, no regulations, no precedents were cited, no nothing and no opportunity for Chris James to come back and tell them that he could do a driveway lower than 30.2%, just an absolute denial without alternatives except coming to the BIC. Mr. Reuben stated that he was sorry this appeal had to come to the BIC. Mr. Reuben said that DPW never notified Chris James of its intention to reverse its decision and deny the permit, never asked for a meeting with Debbie Hite to talk about redesign of the slope of the driveway, never asked for input from Chris James or Anne Forell after they had received letters from the neighbors in opposition to the project, did not ask for a response or plans to mitigate potential impacts so that they could better evaluate the neighbor's objections, but simply just reversed themselves and denied the permit without any opportunity to be heard. Mr. Reuben's seven minutes were up and President Fillon informed him that he would have a three-minute rebuttal period. Mr. Reuben submitted a topographical map that showed an existing driveway and easement leading to the spot where this driveway would start at a grade of 26%.

Vice-President Hood asked why Mr. Reuben did not submit any drawings with the package submitted to the Commissioners, as there is no drawing of where this is located in the City or any graphic information. Vice-President Hood said that she found this to be a real deficiency and said she did not know how this could have happened. Mr. Reuben said that he could not give a reason why and said that it was a mistake and should have been done.

President Fillon asked for any members of the public that wanted to speak on this item to come forward. President Fillon said that after public testimony the Commission would hear the rebuttal from DPW and the appellant.

Mr. Chris James, the owner of the property, said that in 1999 when this property became available before he purchased the property, he talked with the Department of Public Works and got a letter from the Building Department stating that this was feasible, and it wasn't going to be a problem. Mr. James said that he wasn't trying to build a road, but was trying to build a driveway and not a freeway up to his residence. Mr. James said that he was going to continue the one that is already there that is ten feet wide and in pretty bad repair. Mr. James stated that he went ahead and purchased this property based on the information that both departments gave him, that he could go ahead and do this and if at sometime the City ever decided to redevelop this road, because seemingly the City ran out of funds back whenever they decided to do it, that he would dedicate this slab back to the City and the City could just pull it out and do what they like. Mr. James said that, at that point, he hired an architect, engineer and soils engineer to proceed with the project. Mr. James said that he went over the weekend and took photographs of grades of 30 degrees of hills that are in the City with houses on both sides. Mr. James stated that he could have gotten ten other streets that are more than 30 degrees if he had spent the time looking. Mr. James submitted three pictures to the Commission for their review. Mr. James said that in his opinion the City were never requiring themselves to maintain this driveway as he was going to do that until such time as the City would decide that they were going to continue the road on up and dead end it which is where his lot is. Mr. James said that he never would have bought this lot and spent the amount of money that he has spent on architects, engineers and be standing in front of the Commission today had he gotten the proper information from the City. Mr. James stated that all he has done is to pay property taxes for the past four years and spent a lot of money on attorney's legal fees and with soils engineers, civil engineers and architects for something he was told was a very simple project.

Ms. Debbie Hite said she was with Triad Homes Associates who are the civil engineers that designed the driveway that was detailed on the plan that was before the BIC. Ms. Hite said that she was provided parameters for this driveway through the architect from DPW with a maximum of 32%. Ms. Hite stated that she went out to the site and found that the existing driveway going up to this area ranged from 18 - 26% in slope, so she tried to match the existing conditions out there. Ms. Hite said that she designed Chris James' driveway to run between 19 and 30%, just a little bit over the 26% that already exists out there and below the 32% grade that she was given. Ms. Hite said that independently she checked with the Fire Department to make sure that the project would not be exceeding maximum grades and was told that on a private driveway like this there were no max grades as long as the building was sprinklered and the driveway was less than one-hundred feet; this driveway is one-hundred twenty feet. Ms. Hite stated that the slope could be shallower with higher retaining walls, but said that she tried to keep the retaining walls a little bit shorter based on DPW and architectural input. Ms. Hite said that there are no trees affected by this driveway, as there is an erosion control fence that is protecting all of the trees in the area where building would be taking place. Ms. Hite said that the trees are all off to the right side and there are no trees that would have to be taken down.

Commissioner Santos asked if the wall heights were being kept to five feet, in general. Ms. Hite said that in general on the driveway itself the walls range between four and six feet. Commissioner Santos said from the bottom of the wall to the top of the wall there is a constant five feet and stated that this could be changed. Commissioner Santos said that if the retaining wall was changed to seven feet, based on his quick calculations, the grade could be lowered to 21%, which is well within the parameters. Commissioner Santos said that this would imply that the pad of the house would be slightly lower. Ms. Hite said that there might be some height issues to look into, but maybe the garage could be made taller. Commissioner Santos stated that this would be a Planning issue and said that in terms of the percentage if the height of the retaining wall was changed, DPW has some parameters that they call a minor encroachment permit versus a major encroachment permit and it usually has to do with the height differential on the walls.

Ms. Hite said that she wanted to make the point that 30 degrees is different than 30% because a 30% slope is a 16 or 17 degree angle. Ms. Hite said that this driveway maxs out at 30% or 30.2%. Ms. Hite stated that this is an important point because a couple of people have misspoken by saying that this would be 30 degrees when it really is 30%.

Vice-President Hood asked if Ms. Hite had a section that showed the angle that she was talking about and said that she did not understand that there were so many professionals at the meeting, but there was no section through this driveway. Ms. Hite said that she did have some profiles. Vice-President Hood asked why these were not in the BIC package. Ms. Hite said that she did not prepare the package that was submitted. Vice-President Hood asked if, as a civil engineer, Ms. Hite had prepared sections through this driveway. Ms. Hite said that was correct and stated that there was a profile and a plan view. Vice-President Hood said that it was not even labeled on the plan what was proposed and what is existing, but is labeled preliminary draft and doesn't have basic information that anybody sitting on a public body needs in order to make an informed decision. Ms. Hite said that she was never notified until about a week ago that there was any problem with this design. President Fillon asked for any further public comment.

Ms. Anne Forell said that she was the architect on the project and stated that she wanted to submit a photograph that showed the existing driveway and the existing easement that goes up with no trees on it. Ms. Forell said that she was also going to submit the supporting documentation for Debbie Hite's drawings for the slope and grade that the Commission was asking about with some details. Ms. Forell apologized for incompleteness of the package and said that it was a simple oversight.

The following neighbors in the area of the proposed project spoke in support of the decision of the Department of Public Works to deny the applicants permit:

Ms. Shannon Hall - 45 Stoneman Street, Mr. David Speth - 1525 Shotwell Street, Mr. Alan Lessick - 37 Stoneman Street, Ms. Melanie Shaw - 1571 Shotwell, Mr. Brendan MacMillan - 1571 Shotwell Street, Mr. Barry Hanson - 1502 Shotwell Street, Mr. Jeff Bershan - 115 Manchester Street, Ms. Sue Bushnell - 180 Manchester

The reasons given by these neighbors in support of the denial of the project were many:

Neighbors very strongly opposed this project, submitted pictures and quoted DPW Code 15 Section 787, Street Vacations, #b. "The Board of Supervisors finds the improved streets in Bernal Heights Area are important open space resources for the citizens in this area where the lots are small, streets are narrow and space is at a premium; therefore, the Board of Supervisors declare that as a policy the City and County of San Francisco not to vacate unimproved streets, sell transfer or relinquish its interest in the underlying property to private ownership."

The neighbors thanked the Building Inspection Commission for their consideration and time.

President Fillon asked for the rebuttal from DPW Director Ed Lee.

Director Lee said that he had two points that he wanted to make and said that he thought that the residents had made most of the points clear or clearer. Mr. Lee said that he thought that this type of construction for a roadway would lead to the destruction of the vegetation and said that he felt very strongly that the construction would hit the roots of major trees in that area. Mr. Lee stated that this would weaken those trees. Mr. Lee said that DPW was not opposed to a pedestrian pathway, as at least three to four of the existing homes next to the proposed site have available to them today. Mr. Lee said that DPW simply believed that vehicular access would cause a degree of danger that should not be permitted here. Mr. Lee stated that finally he would say that DPW would be available to meet with anybody, including all representatives of the applicant. Mr. Lee stated that he and Mr. Reuben have been friends for many years and said that if the record reflected that they had not met and if there are no letters requesting such meetings, it must reflect a mutual lack of interest as opposed to being a one-sided thing.

Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Lee if he could explain a minor encroachment versus a major encroachment, as there had been a lot of discussion about the two encroachments and the driveway versus coming out the doorway. Mr. Lee said that he would defer to his staff with this question, as there has been some case law that has evolved over the years in distinguishing the two.

President Fillon said that he would like to hear from the appellant and get the rebuttal portion of this hearing over with first.

Mr. Reuben said that the failings of the submittal were his and his alone and his offices and asked that the Commission not hold this against his client who was present in good faith to try and build his home. Mr. Reuben stated that we live in an urban environment and in a hilly City and as seen from the photographs there are grades of 30% or more on public streets all over the City and said that Chris James could have spent another few days and found ten or fifteen more of them. Mr. Reuben said that to say that it is too steep of a grade is just simply not correct. Mr. Reuben said that one speaker mentioned that there was an easement offer and Mr. Reuben said that he knew of no easement offer and there is no easement that could be offered, as there is a wall of homes on the other side of this property. Mr. Reuben said that he was never asked about drainage and said that he was told by the architect that the drainage system was designed to a magnitude of thirty times more than is required. Mr. Reuben said that his client was never asked about foliage, maintenance or what would happen and has never been asked to get somebody out there as happens all of the time in Planning situations. Mr. Reuben stated that he goes to the Planning Commission all of the time and people raise tree issues and specialists are hired to come out and evaluate the situation. Mr. Reuben said that he was never asked about maintenance of the easement and how that might work. Mr. Reuben said that if he were a neighbor he might not like this either, as it yet the next home, but he wouldn't be out opposing it because that is not what he does. Mr. Reuben said that the neighbors have theirs and that is how things sometimes work in this City. Mr. Reuben said that as he mentioned, at the Planning Commission, these kinds of construction detail complaints are heard all of the time, but things get built in an urban environment as they are in-fill sites and need to get built. Mr. Reuben stated that there are many, many ways to deal with some of the complaints and concerns that were raised, such as fences or guardrails. Mr. Reuben said that he wanted to point out that on the photograph that was given to the Commission it shows the existing driveway that goes part way up the hill and then stops at Mr. Hanson's house and did not ever get completed up the hill; that grade is 26% and no children have been hit or no one has slid on leaves. Mr. Reuben said that there have been no complaints about the 16% grade and said that his client could lower the grade below 26% so the evidence is right there. Mr. Reuben stated that the letter of denial does not say anything about minor encroachment or major encroachment and that is probably because DPW directed Anne Forell to submit this project as a minor encroachment and that is what it is. Mr. Reuben said that the project engineer was present to answer any questions. Mr. Reuben stated that it wasn't a mutual, by the way, lack of interest as there were some phone calls made, but the applicant was never invited or told that there was going to be a denial.

Commissioner Guinnane said that there was a question about access and fronting on a different street. Mr. Reuben said that the only other street that a person could access this property has a wall of homes on it, so there is no way to put a driveway through there. Commissioner Santos asked if Mr. Reuben was referring to the street on the back of Shotwell and asked is so there is absolutely no ability to access the property on that street. Mr. Reuben said that maybe the owner could buy a footpath from somebody if they would be willing to sell it, but the houses are very close together and said that there is nothing physically available that he knew of. Commissioner Brown asked if the project sponsor had sought one. Mr. Reuben said that yes for a footpath, but the owner said no. Commissioner Brown asked if this was from the street behind. Mr. Reuben said that was correct. Ms. Anne Forell came forward to report that there is a row of houses and a house on Manchester with two additional houses that are still uphill from where this proposed residence is. Ms. Forell said that the last house has a very, very steep road cut back up into the Park & Rec land beyond, but there is no access that way. Ms. Forell said that she did inquire about the residence that exists next door, at the meeting that was held with the neighbors, if it would be possible to share their easement because they actually do have an easement from Manchester Street. Commissioner Santos asked if Melanie MacMillan had an easement through Manchester. Ms. Forell said that was correct, but that her client was told no on obtaining an easement and said that it was not likely. Commissioner Santos said that was not an option. Ms. Forell said that was correct.

Commissioner Santos asked Mr. MacMillan if there was an easement on Manchester Street to access his property via a driveway. Commissioner Santos asked if anyone had entered into discussions with Mr. MacMillan about the possibilities of sharing that particular easement. Mr. MacMillan said that no one had asked him anything about the easement. Mr. MacMillan said that there have been references to conversations that have been had, etc., but obviously there is a footpath that could be had straight up this street improvement so there is clearly direct access there. Mr. MacMillan stated that he had access via an easement granted by the property owner of Manchester in front of him so that easement is written into that person's property guidelines not his. Mr. MacMillan said that a conversation about an easement would have to take place with that property owner. Commissioner Santos asked if that conversation had ever taken place or if anyone was aware of this. Mr. James said that as the owner, when he tried to get alternatives for an easement, Mr. MacMillan's easement is a three-foot walkway with buildings on either side and no one can drive up it, maybe a pushbike, but that is about it. Mr. James stated that there is no street parking on that street, or at best it is very limited, so what someone would have to do is drive and hopefully find a parking space on Manchester Street, walk through an easement behind someone else's home and go through an easement that Mr. MacMillan would have to grant Mr. James to cross over to get to his property. Mr. James stated that he was not in the habit of buying private gardens in the City for people to walk their dogs in, so when he did purchase this project he made all of the inquiries he needed to make because he is not a charity and would not pay for private gardens that he can't use. Mr. James said the big thing that bothers him is that he was never given any alternates, but was just flatly turned him down and said that this was the first he heard about steps or easements, and was just told that he could not do this, period.

Vice-President Hood said that she had a number of issues and a number of ideas. Vice-President Hood stated that she has lived in San Francisco for thirty-three years and would say that all of that time has been within half a block, or on a street that exceeded 30%. Vice-President Hood said that she is an architect and said that many of her houses have been built on streets that exceed a 30% slope and she lives in a house on Bernal Hill which has no automobile access and she has to walk up many, many steps to get to her house. Vice-President Hood said that she lives across the street from many other houses like that, which have no garages and no automobile access and one of them recently sold for $850,000 and was approximately 1,100 square feet. Vice-President Hood said that she believed that there was in the City, a tradeoff between view and automobile access and there is a very substantial market of people who will walk the steps, indeed love the steps because it is one way of holding weight down, in return for having a spectacular view. Vice-President Hood stated that in addition, in this particular case, this lot is in a very beautiful physical setting as has been shown by the photographs that were passed around. Vice-President Hood said that she thought that this beautiful setting would be very adversely affected by putting in a kind of underground U form into the earth. Vice-President Hood said that she thought that there were a number of problems with that concept and said that she wanted to explain to the Attorney for this project that she believes that the Department of Public Works was concerned with civil engineering, and yet when encroachment problems arise they also become involved with the master plan of the City, with the concept of what a public street is from an urban design point of view. Vice-President Hood said that there happens to be many wonderful examples in this City of how very steep streets are handled. Vice-President Hood said that she lived at the corner of Leavenworth and Filbert for twenty-three years and one of them had a 31% slope and the section of Filbert between Jones and Leavenworth is the steepest automobile accessible street in the City of San Francisco and said that she thought that it was 36 or 37%. Vice-President Hood said that she loves to take tourists over that street and give them the joy of sailing up into the air as they come over the edge. Vice-President Hood stated that during all of the time that she was there she never saw anybody hurt and said that she brought up two small children on those very steep streets. Vice-President Hood said that there are many ways of handling those things, as this is a City of wonderful design ideas, not found anywhere else in the country about how to use hilly sites. Vice-President Hood referred to the part of Lombard Street that is very steep and yet it is so beautiful, it is used as a destination. Vice-President Hood said that this is a very beautiful street and there is a way of building a wonderful house on that lot even though the owner might not be able to drive to the door the way someone could in a suburban situation, but at the same time it would not create this kind of tunnel going into this hill which she agrees would be a real problem with private maintenance over the life of the street. Vice-President Hood said that doing anything about it, if the maintenance isn't done, would be a really big problem so she would encourage Mr. James to take another look at the possibilities of using the site and some of the wonderful imaginative things in the City. Vice-President Hood stated that she did not think that the sole problem was with the slope of the street as there are examples of 30% slopes, which work very well in the City, and to use that as a major reason to reject it is not good. Vice-President Hood said that the environmental consequences of this solution are really, really negative and said that she thought there would be no way of walking along side of this thing and getting access into the street in back. Vice-President Hood said that it is a real problem because it is in the public right-of-way and for all of those reasons she would support DPW's decision to deny this minor encroachment permit.

Commissioner Marks said that she would agree and stated that she and Commissioner Santos had gone to the subject property. Commissioner Marks said that she wanted to make a motion to uphold the Department of Public Work's decision.

President Fillon asked for comments from the other Commissioners on the motion. Commissioner D'Anne said that she had also gone out to the site and said that the picture that was before the Commission was a little deceptive because when she got up the hill she had concerns about getting back down. Commissioner D'Anne said that she stopped in the driveway at 1502 Shotwell and in trying to turnaround hit one of the posts and lost her license plate. Commissioner D'Anne said that when she wanted to turn around at the top she could not see the bottom of the hill and said that it was frightening for her to take her car over that hill. Commissioner D'Anne said that she had been on many hills before, but said that she just couldn't see how this could be done. Commissioner D'Anne stated that she was concerned about the stability of the hill, the ingress and egress, as it seems that only one car at a time could go down or up and even though there are pictures presented of other hills, the width of these streets are quite wide so it makes sense that there could be automobile access on those kinds of streets. Commissioner D'Anne said that on this particular street you could not even turn around if there was a problem. Commissioner D'Anne said that the appellant talked about there being no accidents on the short pavement and said that there were no eucalyptus trees either, but that doesn't hold much water because the opponents or proponents were complaining that the trees would be a hazard if the leaves got on the pavement. Commissioner D'Anne said that she was supporting DPW's decision.

Commissioner Brown said that he wanted to add his support to what the other Commissioners had already voiced. Commissioner Brown said that he would disagree with Mr. Silverman's assessment that this equals a taking, because not having a driveway in the City of San Francisco is not actually a taking, especially since no walking easement has been sought. Commissioner Brown stated that another thing that convinced him is that the Commission asked a direct question of he appellant's camp about actually seeking an easement where Mr. MacMillan's property is and Mr. James gave a fairly cryptic answer about not being in the business of gardening. Commissioner Brown said that as far as he could see, no easement has been sought in this case from ones that already exist. Commissioner Brown said that everyone makes sacrifices to live in a City of this nature, and there is no guarantee that anyone's home is going to have a garage or a driveway and stated that he could see supporting some sort of a walking easement, but not a driveway of this nature.

Commissioner Santos said that he thought it was time to hear from a pragmatic Commissioner. Commissioner Santos stated that he is the Structural Engineer on this Commission and said that he visited the site, looked at the civil drawing and based on his quick observations regarding the slope, the height of the wall could be lowered to achieve a 20% slope. Commissioner Santos said that he makes a living out of challenging structural jobs and said that he has designed walls up to 28' such as Kensington and Edgehill, which were designed by his office, and they exceed 22'. Commissioner Santos said that in this case the worst condition would be 15.9' if the grade was dropped and it would be approximately 17.9', which again is solvable. Commissioner Santos said that tiebacks might have to be used and that would require permission from Park & Rec and that can turn into a structural exercise, but it can be done. Commissioner Santos stated that he was not talking about the environmental impact, or walking dogs as he does not own one, or children's safety which was explained by Commissioner Hood on Filbert where there is a condition that is actually steeper, and said that he had not heard of accidents on that street. Commissioner Santos said that in regards to Commissioner Hood's statements regarding the possibility of looking at this site with perhaps a bit more creative line, he could not agree with that because it might be possible to construct a garage on the lower end depending on DPW restrictions. Commissioner Santos said that the point he wanted to make was that structurally this could be done; it can be maintained and an arborist could be hired to review the conditions, safety and health of the trees out there. Commissioner Santos stated that this project is technically challenging, but it is not impossible. Commissioner Santos said that San Francisco is a hilly City, it is complicated and every available lot requires structural, civil and technical input; San Francisco is not Sacramento and there are conditions of a zero property line. Commissioner Santos said that there are underpinning conditions in every property that he works on because there are hilly conditions out there, so his point is that to simply deny this because someone has been walking their dog for the last twenty years is not a valid reason. Commissioner Santos stated that the question that needs to be asked is whether the application that was made under a minor encroachment is the proper application. Commissioner Santos said that this was one question he would like to ask DPW because he was not sure that, based on his experience, a major encroachment implies that it goes directly to the Board of Supervisors.

Vice-President Hood said that in her opinion the proper application here might be for a street improvement project, which would be a public project and would have to meet all kinds of special conditions. Vice-President Hood stated that she had worked on projects in the City where she had to create a new street, meeting all of the handicapped requirements and everything else in this type of situation. Vice-President Hood said that she thought that there were other more creative solutions, as it is really an urban design issue and the quality of the environment. Vice-President Hood said that this has sort of fallen onto DPW because that is where the project applicant chose to get his permit and said that apparently this is his first permit. Vice-President Hood said that the project applicant would, at some time, have to have this reviewed by other departments. Commissioner Santos said that there were many other steps. Vice-President Hood said that she thought the project sponsor would run into trouble there. Commissioner Santos said that it was important to note that it is challenging, but it is possible because the walls can be built and said that he had done jobs such as this before. Commissioner Santos said that it is important that the Commissioners realize that if the BIC wants to deny this on the technical basis, the Commission would be doing a disservice to the process.

Vice-President Hood said that there were technical issues such as the relationship of the traffic area and the access into each neighboring lot, and the height of the curb when it goes up to sixteen feet does not meet, what she sees, a public street. Vice-President Hood stated that there are all these issues about access to the adjacent properties which would be reached over this same stretch of turf that are not solved. Vice-President Hood said that she thought that part of DPW's resistance to this comes out of that general overview that they had as a department and the people who have spoken from the neighborhood have sensed that in one way or another and have spoken to those things. Vice-President Hood stated that the technical issue here is that this really would be a public street and yet, it would have no access to the adjacent properties nor the pedestrian walkway or anything else that is associated with a public street in the City. Vice-President Hood said that on unpaved streets such as Napier Lane on Telegraph Hill, McCondry Lane on Russian Hill, and these are wonderful examples of public streets that are unpaved in this City that have houses all along them, many of them go for multi-million dollars in value. Vice-President Hood said that there is a way of doing it here that keeps the value of this lot and doesn't impose this on the City.

Commissioner Marks said that when she and Commissioner Santos went out to look at the site Commissioner Santos did comment that he thought that it was a major encroachment, that it was not a minor encroachment. Commissioner Marks said that if the applicant wants the plans to go ahead as proposed he would have to go through a different process. Commissioner Santos said that he has dealt with many applications in his office for sidewalk encroachment permits and they are usually minor in nature. Commissioner Santos stated that it is his understanding that it is the four-foot retaining wall that is the threshold between minor and major. Commissioner Santos stated that this is an ongoing issue.

President Fillon said that the Commission had not talked about the issue that the applicant was given preliminary approval on many of these issues. Vice-President Hood said that in the City of San Francisco anybody who does any project here knows that it is very complicated and this project could have been stopped when it went to the Planning Department; it could be stopped by negative declaration even after the driveway had been built. Vice-President Hood stated that she thought that the argument that the Department of Public Works told the applicant something and then changed is often an argument that is advanced to people, but as anybody in the Building Department would say, until an applicant has the approval for a permit, they don't have a permit. Vice-President Hood said that when someone enters into dialogues with staff if it is done with an open mind and someone is trying to seek a solution that works, and in this case it would have been helpful to have a dialogue with the neighbors, then the applicant could come up with something that they are pretty much assured of getting. Vice-President Hood said that in saying that it got changed at the last moment, the Director has the right to reject it at any point if he discovers it is not working and it might be that DPW became aware of circumstances after input from the neighbors. Vice-President Hood stated that she would encourage the architect and the owner to meet with Mr. Lee and perhaps with other people who might be able to give ideas on how to solve this. Vice-President Hood said that she thought that there could be good solutions that would be win-wins for everybody so she did not see this as a total loss of the value of the property.

Commissioner Santos asked if DPW had a process similar to DBI where there is a pre-application meeting that costs $140.00 and then the parties meet six weeks later to put the questions in front of a Structural Plan Checker and the resolutions to any plan check problems will be faced on the front sheet of the drawing that is eventually submitted. Director Ed Lee said that DPW does not have an exact process like that, but said that DPW does act on the principle that its doors are wide open. Director Lee said that he heard what all of the Commissioners said with respect to being more creative and not saying no just to say no, or yes just to say yes. Director Lee said that DPW would be very open to looking at as many alternatives as possible, and said that he did believe that the residents had a very serious say and stated that it was the residents that got to him to personally pay attention to this project. Director Lee stated that he felt that without his personal attention to it there would not be the brevity of seriousness to all the issues that are coming out on this. Director Lee said that he greatly appreciated the comments that were made by each one of the Commissioners because he thought that the City strives for a balance, as this is not an easy question. President Fillon said that the Commission appreciated the fact that Director Lee was present.

Commissioner Santos asked what the difference was between a minor and a major encroachment. Director Lee called on Nick Elsner of DPW. Mr. Elsner said that over his eighteen years with the department he had processed over three-dozen major encroachments and probably ten times as many minor encroachments. Mr. Elsner stated that there is no clear-cut definition between a minor and a major encroachment, but according to the Code, it is at the discretion of the Director of Public Works. Mr. Elsner said that there are several issues that go into that decision such as the height of the walls and is usually the cut-off point, but the department also looks at the existing terrain of the building. Mr. Elsner stated that terraced four-foot walls have been accepted in past instances where the overall height of the wall from footing to the very top would exceed twenty feet sometimes, but above grade it is only a terrace and these have been approved as a minor encroachment. Mr. Elsner said that the department looks at the potential liability of the different encroachments, a minor versus a major, and stated that a minor is recorded onto the title of the subject project and that ties in the maintenance and liability requirements to the property for all future owners. Mr. Elsner said that a major encroachment requires a $2M liability policy for the life of that encroachment. Commissioner Santos asked if Mr. Elsner would consider this project a major encroachment. Mr. Elsner said that in this case he initially considered it to be a minor encroachment because the proposed walls were no more than four feet. President Fillon said that the plans that the Commission had in front of them showed walls of five feet and up to sixteen feet. Mr. Elsner said that those were the back walls and those would have had to be major encroachments. Commissioner Santos asked if Mr. Elsner was saying that the fact that this was originally perceived as a minor is because the largest percentage of the walls was within the height limit. Mr. Elsner stated that DPW did not see this as a potential liability to require the owner to put up a $2M liability policy for a driveway access, but after hearing from a lot of the neighbors and hearing their concerns over the existing hillside and the Bernal dog path these all came up in the issues raised by the neighbors. President Fillon asked if that was what led DPW to change their position on this. Mr. Elsner said yes, after talking with Director Lee. Mr. Elsner stated that Director Lee visited the site with the Deputy Director and a City Engineer after which the decision was made to deny this application as submitted.

President Fillon said that he did not think that the question was whether this was buildable or whether it is usable with this slope, but the question is whether this is a desirable thing and said that in his mind it was not. President Fillon stated that he uses this space a lot for the same purposes as other people have mentioned, and with walls this high it would be extremely dangerous and said that he could see a lot of people falling into this and getting hurt because of the high traffic in that area. President Fillon said that he thought that Vice-President Hood brought up a good point that perhaps there is a better way to do this and said that he did not think that the Commission was closing the book on this project. President Fillon said that he thought there had to be a way to work this out to get access and maybe there is a garage at the bottom of the property and the owners have to walk up the rest of the way and this is something that needs to be looked at by the owner. President Fillon said that he thought that this was a major encroachment and being that this is a major public open space for the City, and a very important one especially to the residents, he would have to fall in with the rest of the Commissioners and support upholding DPW's position. President Fillon stated that he was a little bit uncomfortable with the BIC having jurisdiction over this on some level because it is an area of the City that is so important that it becomes an urban design issue.

Vice-President Hood said that she wanted to say for the record that she thought that the reason the BIC had the jurisdiction is because it was done as a minor encroachment permit.

President Fillon said that there was a motion made and asked the Secretary to take a roll call vote. Secretary Aherne asked for a second to the motion. President Fillon said that he would second the motion. Secretary Aherne repeated the motion, which was to uphold DPW's decision. The Commissioner's voted as follows:

The motion carried by a vote of 6 to 1.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 005-03

At 2:50 p.m., the Commission took a break.

The meeting reconvened at 3:15 p.m.

6. Update on Litigation Committee Meetings. [Commissioners Brown, Guinnane & Santos]

Commissioner Guinnane said that the Committee met on Monday and reported that there are three cases that have been settled with the City Attorney and the individuals with one case bringing in $350,000 in penalties and legal fees, another one brought in $350,000 and the third one $135,000. Commissioner Santos said that it was a very lucrative month for the City Attorney's Office in terms of the judgments against some of the property owners that have violated the Code. Commissioner Santos stated that there was one additional case that was very close to reaching the end that looks like it would be quite favorable for the City and obviously there is the case against AIMCO. Commissioner Santos said that the AIMCO case is currently in intense discussions so in regards to funds and success rate it appears to be quite positive.

7. Update, discussion and possible action regarding supplemental of $1M+ for additional City Attorney's fees for current fiscal year.

Assistant Director Amy Lee said that she would begin the discussion and stated that Director Chiu and Commissioner Guinnane could add to her comments. Ms. Lee said that recently the Department met with Dennis Herrera and his Managing Attorney, Marisa Moretti and they mentioned that due to such high legal activities surrounding the Jen case, as well as the AIMCO case, and the continued increase of work with the referral of Disability Access cases that the City Attorney's Office estimates that they will need an additional $1.6M for this fiscal year 2002/2003, which will end this June 30, 2003. Ms. Lee stated that currently DBI gives the City Attorney's Office approximately $970,000 per year in work order funds for them to provide legal services for DBI. Ms. Lee said that it was unexpected that such activity surrounding the Jen and AIMCO cases would bring up this much legal activity so the City Attorney's Office have said that they need this additional $1.6M and would bump the total amount for this fiscal year up to $2.6M. Ms. Lee said that because this is something that was unforeseen, DBI did not have this appropriated in the budget as there is only $970,000 appropriated, so if the Department does agree to provide these funds to the City Attorney's Office for services to DBI, the Department would have to go before the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor for a supplemental appropriations request to use some of DBI's surplus funds. Ms. Lee said to give additional background on the surplus funds, the Department is currently going to be using the remainder of its surplus funds for next fiscal year's budget. Ms. Lee reported that the Department does have $5M that has been put aside in the capital project because the expansion of 1660 Mission Street was put on hold. Ms. Lee said that in the process of getting the supplemental request, the Department would ask to use or redirect this money from the capital project to the City Attorney's work order.

Commissioner Guinnane said that the actual $1M that is being requested might actually be mute at this point and would depend by tomorrow if the Department settles the AIMCO case, and said that the Jimmy Jen case has been basically tried, but the judge has not ruled on it yet. Commissioner Guinnane stated that if the Department settled the AIMCO case tomorrow then DBI would not need all of this additional money. Commissioner Guinnane said that he had talked to Ms. Lee and Director Chiu regarding having problems with the City Attorney's Office in the last year and a half getting payment into DBI's account for any of the money coming into the City Attorney's Office. Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought that right now the balance owed to DBI from the City Attorney's Office was about $500,000 and said that there was another $250,000 going back two years ago that was charged to DBI and the Department is trying to get that back. Commissioner Guinnane stated that the $250,000 was for the musical room issue and said that right there alone there is $750,000 owed to DBI.

Vice-President Hood asked why the Department could just not pay the City Attorney's Office and send them an invoice that shows what they owe DBI and then any amount owed to the City Attorney's Office could be written off against that. Ms. Lee said that she raised those two points with Dennis Herrera at the meeting regarding the $250,000 and the fact that the City Attorney's Office has not credited any of DBI's settlement funds since April 2002. Ms. Lee stated that the Department did have documentation, so staff is currently adding all the funds up to determine exactly how much is owed, and separate from the recent settlements, the amount is $500,000+. Ms. Lee stated that she had sent a preliminary e-mail just confirming the meeting and Ben Rosenfield, the Mayor's Budget Director, recommended that instead of DBI providing a new supplemental the Department should just offset the revenues that the City Attorney's Office is supposed to provide to DBI along with any expenses that might be owed. Ms. Lee said that staff would be working to determine what mechanism should be used, but this item was just to bring it to the Commission's attention that there is a proposal or an agreement with the City Attorney's Office that they need an additional $1.6M. Ms. Lee said that it still needs to be determined how this would be paid because if the City Attorney's Office owes DBI $800,000, then that $800,000 would be applied to the $1.6M and the Department would go for a supplemental of $800,000 depending on how the numbers work. Ms. Lee said that the ultimate decision or goal is that DBI will be giving the City Attorney's Office an additional $1.6M.

Commissioner Guinnane said that in response to Commissioner Hood's question, he, Amy Lee and Frank Chiu about two years ago went over to the Controller's Office and met with Ed Harrington and tried to hold up the actual funding at every quarter for the City Attorney's Office until DBI got better accounting. Commissioner Guinnane said that the bills were one issue, as the Department was not getting the bills until six months had lapsed and stated that DBI tried to get the bills ten days after the thirty day window had passed, for instance on January 30^th DBI wanted a bill by the fifteenth of February. Commissioner Guinnane stated that the detailing on the billing was very bad and that got cleaned up, but in trying to hold up the money, the Department could not get cooperation from the Controller's Office. Vice-President Hood asked if the Department got to sign the checks. Director Chiu said that the check goes to the Mayor's Office first and the money was kept in the general fund or the City Attorney's fund and DBI was having trouble getting the money transferred over. Vice-President Hood said that DBI should complain to the auditor about that. Ms. Lee said that the process is that when DBI pays other department's work order funds they post that they need payment from DBI, staff reviews it and then it gets paid. Vice-President Hood said that there needs to be more of a paper trail on this, the auditors need to be told about this and maybe get some publicity. Director Chiu said that they are the auditors. Ms. Lee said that the Department has written to the Controller to raise this issue with him and they may not have been his doing, but it may have been the Mayor's Budget Office trying to balance the City Attorney's Department funds. Vice-President Hood said that now if he is not so happy with Dennis Herrera maybe the situation has changed. Ms. Lee said that just as Commissioner Guinnane had stated, given what the outcome is of the Jen case and the AIMCO case, the City Attorney's Office is still requesting $1.6M in this fiscal year so that is just from this February to July. Director Chiu said that this discussion was assuming that the Department was going to proceed with a lawsuit against AIMCO, so it should be clarified that the agreement was subject to that case going forward. Ms. Lee said that she would be drafting a letter to the City Attorney and would copy the Commission on that letter.

Commissioner Brown asked what would be the alternative to giving the $1.6M. Ms. Lee said that she thought that $900,000 was probably too minimum even separate from the Jen and AIMCO case especially if the Department wanted to step up with the referral of the Disability Access cases. Ms. Lee said that in the past about five of these cases would be referred per month, but now the Department is trying to do thirty per month. Ms. Lee stated that the Department would have to provide additional monies for that, but said that she was not sure that a total amount of $2.6M could be justified in legal fees when normally $900,000 to $1M would be budgeted and the Department might over spend by $200,000. Ms. Lee said that typically the Annual bill is $1.2 - $1.3M, but now $2.6M is being proposed. Commissioner Brown said that his concern was that if the Department does not sufficiently fund the City Attorney's Office to prosecute the cases that have already been brought forward for example, then the Department would be doing a disservice not only to the City Attorney's Office, but to DBI given that when money is put into litigation, if the attorney's are being prudent about it, the Department is expecting to get those funds back either in costs or attorney's fees. Commissioner Brown said that he was not saying that the Department should spend haphazardly or without an eye towards responsible fiscal management, but said that he thought that at certain times, certain years or months might require additional expenditures that hopefully the Department would be getting back. Ms. Lee said that the Department has been very flexible in that regard and said that, as she mentioned before, DBI's budget was about $970,000, but the Department has always spent and paid more whether through salary savings or whatever. Ms. Lee said that she was still trying to figure out how the City Attorney's Office was estimating the $1.6M because the first quarter billings were between $400,000-$500,000; the second quarter billings are going to be about $600,000-$700,000 and the second quarter billing reflects heavy activity on the Jen and AIMCO cases, so if that $1.2M is projected out for the third and fourth quarters the Department is still only looking at a $2.2M overall budget, but they are proposing $2.6M. Ms. Lee said that she was hearing what Commissioner Brown was saying and said that she thought that the Department is more than happy to pay for any costs that are incurred to litigate and show that violations of the Building Code are not something that DBI condones. Ms. Lee said that the Department could do the supplemenal this month or in any given month, as it takes a process, but could be done at any time.

Commissioner Guinnane asked, excluding this calendar year and said that he knew Ms. Lee could not provide exact numbers, if over the past two years and picking a number of $1M of legal fees for the year, what was the Department recapturing. Ms. Lee said that it would be about 50% and referred to funds 61168, 61167 and 61165 that have those dollars that the City Attorney's has retrieved for DBI in doing the litigation activity. Ms. Lee stated that the amounts have been running from $300,000 to $500,000 to $700,000 per year.

Vice-President Hood said that she suspected that what the Department might see is that this is what happened when the City Attorney's Office didn't have budget problems. Vice-President Hood stated that she would like to see the Litigation Committee look at the cases that have been sent over and get some evaluation on the likelihood of a payoff on each one of them and maybe the Department does not have enough money to go after all of the cases at this time. Commissioner Santos said that this is something that the Committee always does by asking that candid question to know if there is a real shot at retrieving the money. Commissioner Santos stated that Commissioner Guinnane is quite efficient in that regard and if the Committee cannot see an opportunity to obtain money, the Committee is not litigating to keep attorneys employed at all. Commissioner Brown said that this is one of the major agenda items every time the Committee meets each month, getting a status update on each case and the Committee nor the City Attorney's Office are in the business of funding cases that are going nowhere. Commissioner Brown stated that there are certain start up costs to cases that ultimately fail, but that is just the cost of doing business in Code Enforcement.

Ms. Lee said that it was a good thing that the budget had not been heard today because there have been substantial changes made already, and DBI has been notified by several work order departments that there are going to be changes. Ms. Lee said that the COW/CAP which is just the general administrative fee that the City charges DBI is projected to go up from $300,000 to $900,000 and the Department just found out about it today. Ms. Lee said that this was downtime for a lot of general fund departments and certainly DBI has to step up to the plate in terms of what is appropriate for this Department to pay in those fees and what is not appropriate. Ms. Lee stated that DBI has the mandate that DBI fees are for certain purposes and the Department does not have the luxury of using the surplus for just anything and the surplus is dwindling especially after this fiscal year.

8. Presentation by Buildfolio on mobile handheld devices for use by Housing Inspectors.

Director Chiu said that in the past he had spoken to the Commission about the idea of supplying these types of devices for the Housing Inspectors and said that with the new Oracle Permit Tracking System stabilized, it is time for the Department to look at the next technology to minimize the paperwork for Inspectors in general. Director Chiu said that he felt that ideally it would be best to do a pilot program with the Housing Inspectors first and see if this could be migrated into the different Inspection divisions. Director Chiu stated that he wanted it on record that Buildfolio was doing this out of their own pocket and DBI does not have any contract at this time, but is just providing the opportunity for them to demonstrate that the technology does exist. Director Chiu said that this would still depend on the Department and the Commission deciding that this is the technology that is wanted and the contractor would have to go through COIT and DTIS to do what they have to clear the contract and then compete for the contract. Director Chiu called on staff from Buildfolio to demonstrate the device that the Department is looking at and to give the Commission a chance to ask questions. Director Chiu said that he was hoping that Chief Housing Inspector Rosemary Bosque could be present, but said that in talking with the Inspectors that have used this device they are happy with it.

Commissioner Guinnane asked where the MIS Manager was for this demonstration because this would greatly affect his operation. Director Chiu said that he had not invited the MIS Manager for this particular project yet because the Department has not yet decided to move forward. Director Chiu said this is more of still trying to see if this is something that the Department wants. Director Chiu stated that Marcus Armstrong is aware that the Department is working on this, but has not been brought into the loop at this time, but if this is something that the Commission feels the Department should proceed with, and if Buildfolio succeeds in getting a contract or a City clearance, then the MIS Manager would be brought into this. Director Chiu said that the MIS Manager is aware that the Housing Inspectors are being introduced to this kind of device. Commissioner Guinnane said that when Buildfolio is finished with their presentation he had about twelve questions to ask.

Mr. Wayne Hu introduced himself as a Real Estate Consultant and said that he had Chee Song the Director of Corporate Development with him from Buildfolio. Mr. Hu said that Buildfolio was a software application company that focuses on data collection and database systems. Mr. Hu referred to a handout that was given to the Commissioners and said that it would be presented on a screen. Mr. Hu stated that Buildfolio was started in 1999 primarily by some of the faculty from Stanford and students in Palo Alto and is a technology company that has used industry experience to develop mobile inspection systems. Mr. Hu said that the R&D development has been developed through partnerships and with its customers, as well as with academic input from leading professors in very well know institutions. Mr. Hu reported that Buildfolio is guided by the principle that they are trying to develop simple and cost effective solutions, utilizing reliable technology and developing it through their long term relationships with their partners and customers. Mr. Hu said that one of the largest systems that Buildfolio has done is in Singapore and is a system that uses more than 250 PDAs. Mr. Hu explained that a PDA is just the handheld device that keeps a contact list, calendar and everything else and has grown to a little bit more and said that he would demonstrate some of the systems on a slate tablet, a pc and some new pieces of equipment. Mr. Hu said that Buildfolio does not sell equipment, but are really selling the software application. Mr. Hu said that he would give a little bit of introduction into the Buildfolio system and show some sample applications that have been implemented and would then demonstrate to the Commission the program that has been presented to the Housing Inspection Division and a program that has been presented to the San Jose Building Inspection Department.

Mr. Hu said that the Buildfolio system is a system that says if someone really needs to be out in the field and needs to collect data, it can be collected with PDAs, handhelds or other types of mobile equipment and that data is transmitted wireless or through hot syncs through computers which then goes into the database or wherever the Department stores information to generate reports. Mr. Hu said that these reports could then be distributed through some web based system or through another hardwire system. Mr. Hu said that the primary input is then done on electronic file, versus doing the input on paper and then going back to the desk to create the electronic file through the desktop computers. Mr. Hu said that with this type of system, if the information is collected in the field,it can actually then be transmitted into the database, generate the reports needed and if anyone else needs to be notified it is all done electronically. Mr. Hu said that the employee does not save time on the initial input because the person inspecting has to be out there to inspect, but where time is saved is when it has to be reinputted or handled by other personnel within the Department to get it into the system. Mr. Hu stated that the other benefit is the report generation because all of the information is within the system and therefore all of the data can be retrieved electronically. Mr. Hu said that some of the benefits in using an electronic system like this, or a data collection system, would be standardization of how the information is collected and said he would demonstrate this in the forms that are being used, as well as the fact that these systems have to allow for subjective information so the employee could still write information in and also link in digital photographs that might be collected in the field inspections. Mr. Hu stated that there are savings if these things are combined and are under one system. Mr. Hu said that the other part of the system that works very well is that the system is being designed to back into the Department's existing database system, although Buildfolio understood that there are some problems with DBI's system at the present time.

Mr. Hu presented a sample from a company called City Developments Limited based in Singapore and said that the project that was done was in Hong Kong and involved five-hundred apartment units. Mr. Hu said that the units were in multiple buildings and the company needed to do a punch list of activities. Mr. Hu explained that a punch list is when a project is completed the owners need to go back and inspect the project to make sure that it was built to specifications. Mr. Hu said that the inspections were done with handheld PDAs and had to identify the building, the apartment, the room and the components of a room with the total number of items. Mr. Hu stated that in this inspection form there were about 1.6M items which effectively converts into 55megabytes of data. Mr. Hu said that Buildfolio designed a system that compressed that data into less than 3 megabytes and therefore the inspections could be done on a handheld PDA. Mr. Hu said that because the input is standardized, with boxes to be checked and standardized comments, multiple Inspectors could be doing different units at the same time and at the end of the day, or through wireless during the day, it could sync into the system. Mr. Hu said that by the next morning the information is summarized and can generate reports. Mr. Hu said that the developers were located in Singapore and the information was transferred to them on a website and the developers could monitor the status of the project. Mr. Hu said that more importantly in some of the punch list activities that Buildfolio has been presenting, is the fact that based from the website, the general contractor and sub-contractors could actually take a look at that punch list, find the things that are incomplete, respond to them and put it back on the web. Mr. Hu said that what happens now on most projects is that when the punch list is done it probably takes a couple of weeks to get it summarized and back out to the contractors from the owners and architect, they respond and it takes another couple of weeks. Mr. Hu said effectively this is almost instantaneous because they can access a web, get the information and then sub-contractors can respond, correct the imperfections and then put the information that is corrected on the system so it is a continuous update. Mr. Hu said that this information is then archived.

Mr. Hu said that Buildfolio is doing another project with FEMA on post earthquake surveys and said that when there is something like a 911 or the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake there usually needs to be a survey of the damaged real estate. Mr. Hu said that Buildfolio has developed a PDA survey system that can collect that information. Mr. Hu stated that with 911 in New York it took almost four months for that information to be summarized and the information could have been summarized and updated daily through a PDA system or a wireless, so the collection of data is almost instantaneous.

Mr. Hu referred to another example of the Ministry of Education in Singapore. Vice-President Hood said that she thought it would be helpful if Mr. Hu just skipped to the example that would be most like the Building Department. Mr. Hu said that the Ministry of Education has about four-hundred schools that they are responsible for and what they did with Buildfolio was to have a system developed that when a school had a problem with a piece of equipment there is a monitoring system that would monitor the equipment and could call into a central office if a repair was needed. Mr. Hu stated that the repair request would go out by wireless onto PDAs and contractors would then respond that they could do the job, then go out to the job site and the piece of equipment has a barcode where the repair person could read the history of that equipment, make the repairs, put it back into the system and report to the central office that the work had been completed. Mr. Hu said that again the amount of time has been reduced. Mr. Hu said that he would move on as requested by Vice-President Hood.

Mr. Hu said that Housing Inspection gave Buildfolio their forms and stated that one of the things that Buildfolio believed was that to get a department to use a new system there is always lag time of education in trying to implement a system because not everyone is willing to use a new system. Mr. Hu said that because of this Buildfolio prefers to replicate the users paper forms. Commissioner Santos asked if the form Mr. Hu was talking about was given to Buildfolio by Chief Housing Inspector Rosemary Bosque. Mr. Hu said that was correct; he met with Housing to obtain the form and Buildfolio did a prototype and said that on a tablet PC, with handwriting, information could be input. Buildfolio demonstrated that by handwriting in an address on the screen, it would then go into the address box on the form in typewritten form. Mr. Hu said that by checking the boxes that have been set up, the Housing Inspector could just check the boxes and generate a violation report and at the bottom there is a place for the Inspector to write in comments. Mr. Hu said that the system could require a signature by the Housing Inspector and the property owner. Mr. Hu stated that one of the things that the Department asked Buildfolio to do was to be able to generate the report out in the field and said that it could be transmitted to a portable printer. Director Chiu said that right now the Housing Division is the only division that is not issuing the NOV on the spot and said that every other District Inspector issues the NOV as they see the violation, but Housing Inspectors right now come back to the office to type in the reports and then send them out. Director Chiu said that he was concerned about the Housing Inspectors being able to issue the NOV on the spot and this was one of the reasons why he thought this would be a handy tool for the Housing Inspectors.

Commissioner Guinnane said that Director Chiu made a statement that the Housing Inspectors don't issue the NOVs on the spot and said that he had his buildings inspected and the Inspector issued the NOV right there. Director Chiu said that the Housing Inspector handwrites a NOV and then comes back to the office, inputs all of the information into the computer again and then officially sends out another copy that is typed so there is a lot of redundancy. Director Chiu said that with a system such as Buildfolio the Inspector would do it one time and that would be it. Commissioner Guinnane said that if a Housing Inspector issues him a NOV today and it's in multiple copies why do they come along and duplicate it again; why is the copy not just put into the file. Director Chiu said that it is typed into the computer system and then the owner is sent a copy and that is how the information is kept. Director Chiu said he had been trying to figure out why, but this is the way it has been done for a long time and said that he has been trying to get the Housing Division to follow the other inspection divisions where the process has been working well. Vice-President Hood asked if the handwritten parts would go into the mainframe too. Mr. Hu said that was correct. Mr. Hu said that there was a comment section where the Inspector could write comments in and said that as much as possible the boxes should be checked because of standardization. Commissioner Santos asked if, in terms of handwriting, a graffiti style had to be used or could the Inspector just do this by their own handwriting. Mr. Hu said that handwriting recognition programs are getting a lot better and can pick up any handwriting and with this type of inspection form it works well.

Mr. Hu demonstrated another inspection form from the San Jose Building Department because it was a little more sophisticated than the Housing Inspection form. Mr. Hu said that when an Inspector is using a paper form there is a limited amount on one sheet and sometimes when it is being marked off like Housing Inspection does, it refers to a violation and that violation, when they go back to the office gets printed up; there is a lot more information that could be collected. Mr. Hu said that Buildfolio believes that they could put the Uniform Building Code into that handheld system so when an Inspector is out in the field and discovers a violation, the Code could be called up to show to the property owner, or it could be referred to in the violation. Mr. Hu said Buildfolio could store ADA Codes so that an Inspector could see diagrams with detailed measurements for disabled access issues. Vice-President Hood asked if a keyboard could be attached. Mr. Hu said that would be possible and said that he was demonstrating a slate that was running under Windows CE and said that a tablet PC would run under the Microsoft tablet pc which is close to Windows XP. Mr. Hu stated that he had a keyboard that has an usb plug that plugs into the pc. Mr. Hu said that there are pc wireless keyboards on the tablet, which don't have to be plugged in. Mr. Hu stated that he carries eighty-three sheets of drawings on his tablet pc and when he needs to look at them he can call them up. Mr. Hu said that in a perfect world DBI would have a database system that would download the work requirements to their Inspectors every week with the files for that property and that Inspector could go out with some type of system and would be able to call up all of the information, make the inspection and feed it back into the system. Mr. Hu said this would eliminate a lot of repetition and create documentation of when the job was done.

Mr. Hu said that he had done another job for a City department and said that the manager wanted to document the amount of time that the Inspector spent out in the field and in talking to one of the Inspectors he said that the Inspectors did not want any documentation of time. Mr. Hu stated that with a system such as Buildfolio's the time is automatically collected. Mr. Hu demonstrated a form that is used by the City of San Jose that used digital photographs that were tied to the property.

Commissioner Santos asked about the connection with DBI's system where an Inspector could find out the status of a permit and asked if this could possibly be linked, for instance, when an Inspector goes to make an inspection and the Contractor claims that there is a permit or permit application or the work is not part of the scope and asked if this could be an option. Director Chiu said that currently this process is not available because the Department is not looking for that information at this point. Director Chiu said that eventually if the Commission decides that this is the way to go then after the Housing Inspector is comfortable with this system the Department would like to migrate this type of system to all of the Inspectors. Director Chiu stated that eventually the information could include the plans. Commissioner Santos asked if a certain address were typed into these handhelds would the information tell that this is a second or third violation. Director Chiu said that this is being done in two phases and the first phase is just to have the Inspector be able to issue the NOV on the job site and then be able to come back and put it into the mainframe. Director Chiu stated that eventually once this is working then the next phase would be to move into a wireless radio link.

Mr. Hu said that the Palo Alto Fire Department wanted a system to use in their fire trucks to be able to put in an address to pull up a map that would show where the fire hydrants were located and also wanted to have a hazardous material report. Mr. Hu stated that all of this information is in their handhelds and said that systems like this under Windows CE have a lot of information stored on compact flash cards or PCI cards that get put in a full tablet pc with a hard drive in it. Mr. Hu said that the way the software is designed is to back into existing database systems and said that there is a communication activity that has to occur and also a design activity that would work. Mr. Hu said that Buildfolio is not offering software that is canned that DBI would have to adapt to Buildfolio, but Buildfolio tailors and customizes the system to the needs of the user as well as their database systems.

Mr. Hu said that he was finished with his presentation and stated that Buildfolio had made a proposal to the Department of Building Inspection for implementation to the Housing Inspection Division without hardware because it would depend on the type of hardware that the Department would want to use and that would determine cost. Mr. Hu said that the most sophisticated handheld PDA would cost about $600, a tablet system would be in the $1,000 - $1,200 range and a tablet pc with a hard drive, depending on what the components are, would range from $1,500 to almost $3,000. Mr. Hu said that he was available for questions.

Commissioner D'Anne asked what the battery life was on the tablet pc. Mr. Hu said that the battery life is about four to five hours and there are extended batteries. Mr. Hu said that he uses his pc everyday and plugs it in at night and charges up for the day. Vice-President Hood said that there could be a backup battery pack just as people have for digital cameras. Mr. Hu said that he uses Outlook and keeps his calendar and phone book on this same system.

Commissioner Guinnane asked if Mr. Hu's firm was part of the City Store vendor program under COIT. Mr. Hu stated that Buildfolio had made applications because they have provided some services to other departments. Mr. Hu said that one of the problems, as a small applications software company, is that the company is not providing all of the services that most of the vendors need so the company would have to work through some of the other vendors. Commissioner Guinnane asked who Mr. Hu's contact was through the City if the company is not approved through the vendor store. Mr. Hu said that Buildfolio did a project with the Department of Consumers Insurance, which was a relatively small project that they got approval for because it was under a certain dollar limit. Mr. Hu said that as far as getting approved for projects in excess of $50,000 the company had not been approved for that. Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Hu how long Buildfolio had been working with DBI. Mr. Hu said that a presentation was done to DBI about a month and a half ago and it was a demonstration and then a prototype program was done to show DBI how the system would be used. Mr. Hu said that the total work time would be about two or three days. Commissioner Guinnane asked Director Chiu if this was the same company that he had been working with for six months or was this something different. Director Chiu said that his office has been approached many times with similar projects for about a year so there have been about six or seven vendors who have come to DBI to propose similar things in the past, and said that he had referred many of them to Marcus Armstrong. Commissioner Guinnane said that there was one company that Director Chiu talked about in a sub-committee meeting that Commissioner Guinnane was not involved in. Director Chiu stated that Buildfolio was that company. Commissioner Guinnane said that in that meeting Director Chiu had stated that he had worked very closely with this company for six months. Mr. Hu said that his company had been trying to present their program and their system to the Department of Building Inspection so they had shown it to various department heads, or division heads, and finally late last year, met with the Housing Inspection Division as one of the divisions that had a need to look at a mobile system. Mr. Hu said that Buildfolio met with them, got their forms and then developed a system using their forms. Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Hu who solicited him to DBI. Mr. Hu stated that it was a cold call from him to DBI and said that Buildfolio was doing programs for other cities, for the construction industry and for a variety of other entities. Mr. Hu said that the company did a presentation to the Asian Art Museum to do their punch list.

Vice-President Hood said that Mr. Hu had a long experience with San Francisco as he was on the Planning Commission and the Board of Permit Appeals and has been active in Chinese Community Housing and other non-profit organizations. Mr. Hu stated that he did development management projects and was now doing the St. Regis Hotel. Mr. Hu said that with Buildfolio he has the responsibility for San Francisco, the real estate and construction industry and also government. Mr. Hu stated that he had presented a similar program to Ed Lee at the Department of Public Works and said that a lot of times it is cold calling, trying to convince the department that there is a need, and more importantly could it be implemented within a certain department.

Vice-President Hood said that something that she felt that would be very helpful as this moves forward is that she applauds the use of forms that are exactly like the paper forms because for the generation that spans the pre-computer with the after computer, the ease of starting out is really critical. Vice-President Hood stated that one of the things that she has been recently been blown away by is the ability to go out and take pictures and bring them back to show people in Planning or Building on a laptop because it is like being able to visit the site. Vice-President Hood said that if Mr. Hu had a camera at his presentations to show how easy it is to have the photographs available it would be very helpful to see because tracking and labeling those photographs are so important to Housing Inspectors and a picture is worth a thousand words. Vice-President Hood said that this would help overcome the hurdle of people accepting new equipment because it is so much easier than taking a picture on a roll of film. Mr. Hu said that most digital cameras store their pictures on some type of storage card and stated that he takes pictures with a compact flash card on a digital camera and then puts the flash card into the handheld device and is able to look at the pictures. Mr. Hu stated once the picture is collected it is integrated into the inspection form so it could be recalled with the inspection form. Mr. Hu said that when a picture is taken of a violation when that violation and is corrected, the Inspector could also take a picture of the correction to go into the file.

Mr. Hu stated that Buildfolio was doing a presentation for Boston Properties that manages the Embarcadero Office Buildings and their property management side is really focused on leasing so they are asking for a staking plan. Mr. Hu said that a stacking plan replicates the building in boxes and puts the tenants names on each floor and shows the approximate rentable area for each tenant. Mr. Hu said that Boston Properties has asked Buildfolio to link this all together so Buildfolio has said that if there is a lease abstract that summarizes all of the tenants information, from that lease abstract the lease document could also be accessed. Mr. Hu said if the lease abstract is called up and the current rent rate is shown that would link into the lease document showing the rent rate and going back to the stacking plan, the stacking plans tend to be graphics programs so they don't necessarily link into the text type programs. Mr. Hu said that in thinking about what a stacking plan is, it could be a text program with boxes around it and this could be presented so that link between that graphic program or stacking plan that is converted to a text program could be linked to that lease abstract. Mr. Hu said that the other part of it is that when Boston Properties needs to see the floor plan they can recall the whole floor plan.

Commissioner Guinnane asked if Mr. Hu had met with any DBI MIS personnel regarding this. Mr. Hu said that he has not met with them and had tried to set up an appointment, but did meet with Vernon Takasuka who reviewed what Buildfolio had and said that he would bring it back to DBI's MIS person. Commissioner Guinnane said that after five months, how could Mr. Hu say that Buildfolio had actually developed something without actually working with MIS staff. Mr. Hu said that Buildfolio volunteered to do a prototype because they are trying to market this product and Housing Inspection said that they would like to see if it could be done, so Buildfolio did a system to have Housing go out in the field to try it out. Mr. Hu said that there are still things that need to be addressed, and Buildfolio is not at the point where they know that they can develop the system or that the Department actually wants the system; the concept DBI wants and the ideas of where Buildfolio is going in the future is probably very realistic. Mr. Hu said that he did not know if a Buildfolio system was ready for the Department, but Buildfolio thinks that it can be done. Commissioner Guinnane asked if this had been tested against the DBI database. Mr. Hu stated that Buildfolio is only doing a field inspection collection system right now, to collect that information and produce the NOV, and had not linked that integration into the back end at this point.

Vice-President Hood asked how Mr. Hu would see making that a part of this project because she thought that this would be key to having this make sense is the ability to integrate into the overall computer system and this is where there have been problems in the past. Mr. Hu said that in other applications that Buildfolio has done for other customers Buildfolio has done this for them. Vice-President Hood asked if this could be added on. Mr. Hu said that the issue is that Buildfolio needs to work closely with DBI's MIS managers on something like that and secondly, the type of database system that a company is using is key because some of them are more complicated than others and some integrate very easily, so there would have to be an evaluation. Mr. Hu said that the way Buildfolio charges for this is time and material and a proposal would be made after the evaluation. Commissioner Guinnane asked what the cost would be to complete the project for all the HIS and all of DBI as there is number plugged in for $50,000 and obviously there is an overall picture that is being looked at down the road. Mr. Chee Song said that Buildfolio would have to look at DBI's database with the MIS people to get a database structure and then Buildfolio could come up with an estimate of how many hours it would take to perform the integration to come up with a cost. Mr. Chee Song said that right now Buildfolio only knows the total cost for the software based on the forms that were presented to the Commission. Commissioner Guinnane asked what was being included for the $50,000. Mr. Hu said that it was the inspection report system. Commissioner Guinnane asked Director Chiu why MIS could not do this in-house as it did not seem very elaborate. Mr. Hu said that any MIS system in-house could develop a system like this, but it might be done on a different type of programming and said that Buildfolio believes that it has designed a system that is extremely efficient. Mr. Hu said that there is a large learning curve to get a system and implementing it into a larger system so Buildfolio believes whatever it charges is cost effective. Mr. Hu said that if Buildfolio could not do this better than DBI's own in-house system could do it, then Buildfolio is not in business. Commissioner Guinnane asked if Mr. Hu could give an overall number of the final cost. Mr. Hu said that he could, but Buildfolio had not looked at all of DBI's systems that do all of that and had only looked at one component that they were asked to look at and gave a price on that. Commissioner Guinnane said that he was concerned that the Chief of Housing was not present and also the head of MIS. Director Chiu said that he wanted to inform the Commission as to how this process worked. Director Chiu said that DBI has no authority to enter into any contract for anything.

Director Chiu said that he would explain how a typical project would move forward if the Commission and the Department decided that they liked a concept and wanted to move forward. Director Chiu said that assuming the Commission said that this concept sounds great, the next step would be to have Marcus Armstrong (MIS) get involved to work with DTIS and COIT to put out a proposal saying that there is a system that DBI needs and ask them to find a vendor or contractor that could compete. Director Chiu said that DTIS and COIT are interested to see that the City gets the best deal so just because there is a proposal in front of the BIC that does not mean that Buildfolio is going to get a job. Director Chiu said that DBI did a similar thing with on-line permitting where somebody came to the Department saying that they had the software and the technology and wanted to do a presentation. Director Chiu said that these people spent many hours on the online permitting, but DBI then turned to COIT to let them get a contractor that was approved by the City to see if they could do a similar thing. Director Chiu said that at this point, the Department is not committed to anything, but should make a decision that this is something to move forward with or not. Director Chiu said that Marcus would then have to work with DTIS and COIT to let them know that this is a project that DBI and the Commission wants to move forward with so DTIS and COIT could go out and find the competitive contracts and develop it. Director Chiu stated that DBI has not entered into any contract, but Buildfolio wanted the opportunity to show the Department and the Commission what they had hoping that somehow they could get the system, but at this time the Department is not committed to anything.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he could not figure out how Buildfolio came up with the $48,000 or $50,000 and asked what it would cost to set up the HIS on its own with the handheld software and the whole thing, just strictly the Housing. Mr. Chee Song said that the price includes the complete installation, which means that basically the Inspectors would have the hardware and software and would be trained to use it. Commissioner Guinnane said that they could not use it because they don't have the handheld device and asked if that was another issue. Mr. Chee Song said that the hardware was part of the proposal that was submitted. Vice-President Hood asked if the $50,000 included or did not include the hardware. Commissioner Guinnane asked how many Housing Inspectors DBI had. Director Chiu said about thirty. Commissioner Guinnane asked if Buildfolio was going to provide the hardware and software for $50,000 that would take care of thirty Housing Inspectors. Mr. Chee Song said that the hardware was only for five Inspectors and said that the reason is that this should be a small control project to see how it really works out in the field before outfitting thirty Inspectors. Commissioner Guinnane said that if the Commission was going to move forward with this he would like to see Buildfolio come back with a proposal of what it would cost to do the Housing Inspection on its own for the thirty Inspectors. Mr. Hu said that when Buildfolio made these presentations to the Department of Building Inspection, it is on their own because Buildfolio believes that it has a system that works and right now there are a lot of competitors. Mr. Hu said that there are a lot of people that think they can do this, but have not really dedicated their activities to this type of system. Mr. Hu stated that it would depend on what type of equipment the Department would really want to use, as the slate or tablet pc might be convenient for a lot of people and it does replicate forms very easily. Commissioner Guinnane said that he would like something for the MIS that is a vision down the road, not something that is good for twelve months and then it is outdated as this is what has been happening at DBI. Vice-President Hood said that she would like Buildfolio to look at whether or not to use laptops because a laptop is so usable for so many other things and can drive computers and has all this utility and the little keyboard built into it. Vice-President Hood said that these devices would not be replaced for at least five years so BI wants to be on the forward edge not the backward edge of what it out there right now. Mr. Hu said that the tablet that he was demonstrating was advertised at the end of the year and is just coming out right now. Mr. Hu said that the issue is, for example when he demonstrated the Hong Kong Development; they wanted to do it on smaller handheld PDAs so it was a lot more convenient. Mr. Hu said that a lot of the general contractors that Buildfolio have presented different systems to wanted to be able to carry it in their pocket. Vice-President Hood said that she wanted bigger. Mr. Hu said that the handheld that he was demonstrating with was under three pounds, but runs under Windows CE and the storage activities are in compact flashcards, but in moving up to the tablet there is a hard drive in it and the weight increases to closer to five pounds.

Commissioner Brown said that the Commission was speculating on cost to carry this out for the thirty or so Inspectors in the HIS division and said that he imagined that the $50,000 would include some front end costs that would not be carried over to the full thirty Inspectors and there would be something discounted on the backend for the additional twenty-five Inspectors not included in the five Inspector pilot program. Mr. Hu said that there were unit prices that were added to install the system or buy the additional hardware. Mr. Hu said that Buildfolio had presented a system that could work, but now if they were going to take the next step and do a proposal they would really need to go back and spend a little more time with Housing Inspection to ask if this works for them and does it satisfy all of their needs; Buildfolio would need to spend time with the MIS Department to see if it is a system that would back into DBI's databases. Vice-President Hood said that she would say from the very beginning that it would back into the databases because the problem right now with the whole City is that there are all of these different agencies reviewing and when a customer wants to know what is happening with for example, 1050 Market Street they want to know everything on that project. Mr. Hu stated that he did not have all of the answers for the Commission right now, but said that when Buildfolio asked the type of database system that DBI is using, it is a system that he believed Buildfolio was compatible to in order to back in information. Mr. Hu said that if DBI was using a completely different system Buildfolio would not have done this next step, but they believe that it could be backed in without rewriting DBI's database program. Commissioner Guinnane asked if Buildfolio had an association with a parent company. Mr. Chee Song said that there were a privately held corporation registered in Delaware, but the headquarters are in Palo Alto. Commissioner Guinnane asked what the name of the parent company was. Mr. CheeSong said that Buildfolio was the parent company. Mr. Hu said that it was an independent company here in the United States and said that Buildfolio had done programming all over the world and had relationships in other areas in the Pacific Rim.

Commissioner Brown said there was mention of a printing at the site. Mr. Hu showed the Commission a portable printer that is battery operated with an infrared port so when the Inspector is finished with the report and is ready to print the printer would print a plain paper report. Commissioner Brown said that there was a budget item that was reviewed allocating $50,000 so this is at lease projected in next year's budget. Assistant Director Lee said that was correct, but the Department would still have to go through the whole RFP process and that does not necessarily mean that Buildfolio would get the bid, as it depends on how the process works. Commissioner Brown said that he understood this, but was just saying that the Department was projecting for some sort of handheld device. Director Chiu said that this was only a presentation and there was no action needed.

Commissioner D'Anne asked if there had been any data prepared regarding the cost effectiveness of this and asked if it saved personnel time or increased the time for the Inspector to do more inspections. Ms. Lee said that she did meet with Mr. Hu, but had not gotten into any discussion about cost effectiveness. Vice-President Hood said that those types of calculations are really difficult to have meaning because there are so many variables. Vice-President Hood stated that she was in a profession that has gone totally to computers from everything being hand drawn and initially it probably takes more people to use the computer because people are slower when they first start out, but over time they are able to handle a larger workload. Vice-President Hood said that the resistance to the devices happens and there are always new people coming on board. Vice-President Hood said that right now all of these hand written things have to be entered into the computer system and if the information that is taken down on the computer can't be plugged directly into the overall system it is probably not that helpful. Vice-President Hood said that when the UPS guy comes around and he picks up your package and you get a barcode on the package and you sign or whatever, that information is available for the sender, the company, the accounting department and everyone all at once and is really an incredible savings in time and if DBI is not getting that then the Department is not doing it right. Director Chiu said that one of the reasons why the Department is looking at this kind of system is just that, because the Housing Inspectors complain that they have more paper work than any of the District Inspectors; therefore, they don't have adequate time to do more inspections. Director Chiu said that the Inspector would not have to come back to the office and do the redundancy of reentering this on the computer and that much time would be saved so they could do other things. Vice-President Hood said that is why it is critical that it go into the mainframe.

Mr. Hu said that Buildfolio does prefer the customer to have an all encompassing system and right now Housing Inspection, as he understands it, has their own system within their own division and they do their paper form and then put this into their own database and they manage their own database. Mr. Hu said that when Buildfolio was asked to take a look at this and only limit it to the Housing Inspection they designed it on that basis. Mr. Hu said that Buildfolio would prefer for all of the system to work together to provide all of the information, but that scope has to be fully defined and that is a different activity from what they are proposing. Mr. Hu stated that Buildfolio could do this and said that they understand that they would have to bid for it and understand that they might have to work with one of the selected vendors within the City system.

President Fillon thanked Mr. Hu for the presentation.

9. Review of Communication Items. At this time, the Commission may discuss or take possible action to respond to communication items received since the last meeting.

11. Review Commissioner's Questions and Matters.

12. Public Comment: The BIC will take public comment on matters within the Commission's jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.

13. Adjournment.