we're here for. in every case since i have been here, it was some neighbor. we cannot do anything about that. we do not know how people get along with their neighbors. that is none of our business. i>> if i get this on my building, it will be very expensive. i cannot go to the bank and get money, because it affects my credit, and i cannot get a home equity line. it is really burning the candle at both ends. >> the abatement will be held in the vaguenebayness. it will be held on your title unless you are not doing what you're supposed to do. we will uphold the abatement and hold it with the requirement that you fix the health safety issues in 60 days and file a permit for the planning issues

within three months, and maybe a year to resolve the situation. it seems like there is a problem, we can modify the time if nothing else. to g > i think we're moving vy close to an agreement on the commission, and six months is more fair. some feel that three is more appropriate. >> can we go with the difference? [laughter] >> we want to be fair about this. six months. i understand concerns. we look at the fire exiting issues. that is going to take more than three.

>> the attorney said it is only 60 days. that is the issue. to go we can definitely filed a permit, but the actual completion, i cannot see that being done in 60 days. there is a lot more to that than what we're going to save. i am just putting this out. if i could have clarification that she has 60 days to file a permit, and if that works takes five months to do, that is not -- how could she be held accountable for that? >> going back to the code section, with regard to serious and imminent danger to life, health, or safety, any order of the building the official shall provide any modification of the order of the building, and work to create -- correct each such hazards to be completed within

90. with respect to violations that are not bound by the abatement appeals board to constitute a serious and imminent hazard, and he did scission modifying the order -- and the decision modifying the order, any such decision to be completed within a reasonable time, not to exceed 18 months. it is the conditions you tried to constitute serious and a minute hazard to life, health, and safety that have to be begun within 30 days and completed within 90. it is conditions that are light safety hazards but not found to be serious and a minute that you get -- you have to begin within 60 days and the work is not to exceed 18 months. and it is about whether this serious and a minute, and i

would have to defer to is that to say whether this is serious and imminent. >> the safest thing to say is we do not know, because we do not know what is on the other side of the wall. we have not heard from many experts. this is robethis is a four-yeare and should have been done prior to coming here. commissioner walker. commissioner walker: i am willing to work on the timeline of doing this complete project, but the problem is if there is a fire and people buy, it is on us. there is people dying. -- but the problem is if there is of fa fire and people die, it is on us. that is why it is in the code.

i feel like this is a serious issue. i feel like this is a serious issue. maybe the other stuff can hold and give more time, but that is problematic. >> 30 days to commence work. 90 to complete? >> that is correct with respect to life safety hazards found to be a hazard to any person or structure or property. i think you are mainly concerned about the people. >> without being the experts, we're going off of staff recommendations. it seems like we have to air on this side of caution. that would be my feeling as far as the life safety hazards. we can agree to the 4.5 months on the illegal units issue. >> just to clarify what the

decision is. she has 30 days to fix it. to start, in order to do it properly, to hire a contractor within 30 days, or to vacate the unit, to not use them as rental units. because then nobody will be in a minute. we are deciding that they need to be evicted. it weighs heavily to put someone in a hazard. i also take it seriously that we are essentially ordering the

landlord to at not rent this is your net to someone who is occupying it. i just want to clarify that. commissioner walker: i have sympathy for the tenant that was put in in march or april of this year while the notice of violations were active. and many others probably. at some point we have to deal with the help safety issues. i have the same complex around getting rid of units. but i have a bigger conflict with the potential for people being injured, because there is no compliance with the code. it is a hard situation.

>> if she were to hire a contractor to go in and do minor investigation as to what may be back there, they might be able to give us assurances that we do not have in the hazard, but because we have never gotten to that point with this property owner understanding what she needs to do and doing it, that is where we have been. i do believe hiring a contractor can address this. she cannot do a lot of work it she will not be able to legalize herself. if we can get a contractor and there to take a look, what is

standard practices, etc., and give us more information, because we cannot go in an open walls to take a look at something. she has to have that done through a contractor. with permits, she could do that. that would help us understand whether the units are occupied or not. >> i have a problem with that. i do not think it is right if we cannot see something that isn't imminent hazard, we will have to have them open a wall to prove something. i do not think that is right. if we see something that is imminent hazard, we should set up for them. i do not think that is right. >> would you are talking about wiring put in without any kind of permit, that is what deputy director sweeney was talking about. >> we do not know what the hazard is. are other hazards, is the

electrical wiring is a hazard, that would, under the code, be included. if not, it goes with the later permits,, but has to be looked at. >> i am sorry i did not bring might electrician with me, because i have never been through this. he trained with david green. she has worked on some of the buildings. i would be happy to bring him in here. >> that is not the process. we need to be able to see it. this is part of the problem. you need to go through the process, and you need to deal with the issues. this is just the law. even though it might seem unfair, and emotionally i can relate to feeling under attack

by folks that are little off their rockers, but that is beside the point. there is a set of laws that everyone has to follow. you need to deal with the process. as you can see we are trying to work with you. you do have to do the things you have to do. i actually wanted to hear from so you could spell it out what exactly does that mean? what you just said in terms of getting a contractor and there. does that mean that we vote on the motion currently on the floor? say we give her 60 days, and the benefits of the doubt that it is not an imminent hazard, or do we go with -- can you spell out what that means in terms of the process? >> the language in 1a, talking about a serious or imminent hazard, it is talking about the

degree to which we would issue an emergency or something where we think it is an imminent hazard. since we have no plans and do not have the information, the benefit of doing any kind of plan checking, if she were to give us a set of floor plans, information from contractor, and to take a look at the smoke detectors, we might be able to fashion some interim remedies in situations like for you have done this in the past, but it would require is more information from the property owners. file a set of plans, get a contractor out there. it may be an electrical contractor or plumbing contractor to take a look at this and file a permit to it we show those components are safe while she is going to the rest of the process. >> i want to clarify so that we in the motion are following the

letter of the law and at the same time being reasonable about what she can do. as of right now we do not have evidence there is an eminent hazard, because we have not looked into the walls, but they very well could be because they were done without permits. the motion on the floor right now -- >> i would put the burden on the property owner to release be able to -- commissioner lee: i feel if the property owner is going to go through the process, the whole issue of the electrical in the walls will be resolved by that time. >> we would not be having this discussion if these four vacant units. she would have all the time in the world. the problem is they are occupied unit, and that is my concern. >> that is mine. i believe the motion should be,

identifiable, life-safety issues need to have a permit issued within 30 days and completed within 60 days. maybe what we do is have an inspector go out prior to it to determine that. i do not think we can avoid that. a lack of egress could be imminent hazard. >> in 90 days the work is supposed to be done, but we can evaluate at that time? a review and 90 days? in 90 days? >> we want to see a good faith effort. we want to see something done. >> 30-94 serious an eminent hazards. -- 30-90 for serious and imminent hazard. >> a dignified life-safety

issues, or permit filed for 30 days and were completed within 90, and we will reconvene this issue in 90 days. that we will give the appellate six months, 4.5 months to submit a permit for the illegal units. anyone want to take exception to the 4.5 months? >commissioner lee: i want to clarify that if things are being held up and planning, and you get the plan and they're getting back to you, then it is working through the process. they are slow, it is not the owners' fault. >> can we also include the issue of the fees. we did talk about it at the beginning of the meeting being

attached to her good faith efforts. >> 25%. >> 25% of actual? ok. >> could we put an end time that we could modify but would like to have this done within a year? and if there is a delay in planning -- >> one year for it to be resolved, and to be about you -- as we go through the process, and would like to give the appellant one final say. >> i am going through extreme financial debacle to is right out. if you could give me a little more time before i have to start spending money on plants or anything like that. i am in danger of violating its if you put it to shore. if you just give me more time, i can comply. >> we wanted 6, so the compromise is 4.5

>> if there are life safety issues, we cannot. we are legally bound. >> i do not think there are. >> when you file the building permits, rosemary will -- >> how much does that cost? >> deputy sweeney can help you with that. it is not a great cost to you. we want to help you with the cost to hopefully the department with the $2,000 on the books right now we will probably tight end. 25 percent. i would say 50 percent, we can compromise on 50. commissioner walker, that would save you money. >> think you. ank you.

commissioner walker: i am reluctant to do that only because it has been four years. >> 25% -- >commissioner walker: i will go to 30%. >> i thought it was lower. >> i'm good with 50. >> can you clarify what the motion is? i am not entirely clear. i also want to indicate the options are to uphold the order as it is to modify. i just want to clarify that. take of the motion is to modify the order of abatement to allow for health safety -- imminent

health safety issues to be permitted by 30, executed by 90 days. the legalization of the units and other code violations of 4.5 months to file a permit, and the year to complete it. we are willing to revisit the schedule if there are delays in planning. and, if all of the deadlines are met by the appellant, then we will reduce the fees by 50%. if not, the fees go back to their original and continue to accrue. >> the order of abatement will be held in advance? >> in advance for a year. >> second on that? >> second.

crafty. you all did good. [laughter] >> roll call vote on the motion? [calling roll] the motion carried unanimouss unanimously. item e, general public comment. any general public comment on issues related to the abatement appeals court? seeing none, item f, adjournment. all in favor? any opposed? we are now adjourned and the

building inspection commission will adjourn and approximately 10 minutes. >> the right to vote allows us to vote for candidates or party and it is a significant way to have our voice heard.

exactly 100 years ago, women were given the vote in california. the battle for women's suffrage was not an easy one. it took more than 70 years. a woman could run for president in new york. >> organizing this conference, basically it modeled itself on a declaration of independence for women. it marked the beginning of the women's equality movement in the united states. >> at that time, women were banned from holding property and voting in elections. >> susan b. anthony dedicated

her life to reform. >> suffrage in the middle of the 19th century accomplished one goal, it was diametrically opposed to this idea. >> many feared it would be corrupted by politics. >> women in the 19th century had to convince male voters that having the vote would not change anything. that woman would still be devoted to the home, the family, that they would remain pure and innocent, that having the vote would not corrupt them. >> support gradually grew in state and local campaigns.

>> leaders like ellen clark sgt come repeatedly stopping these meetings -- , repeatedly stopping these meetings as a politically active figure. doing everything they could to ground the campaign in domesticity. >> despite their efforts, the link made it tough whenever voters were in the big city. a specialist in francisco. >> the problem with san francisco is that women's suffrage as an idea was associated. >> susan b. anthony joined the

provision party. a deadly idea in san francisco. liquor was the foundation of the economy. and >> anything that touched on the possibility of prohibition was greatly and popular. >> the first campaign was a great effort, but not a success. >> the war was not over. less than one decade later, a graphic protests brought new life to the movement. >> women's suffrage, the republican convention in oakland, this time it was the private sector response. 300 marched down the streets of the convention center.

women were entitled to be here. >> joining together for another campaign. >> women opened a club in san francisco. it was called the votes for women club. if she could get the shopkeepers to have lunch, she could get them to be heard literature. the lunch room was a tremendous success. >> it was the way that people thought about women willing to fight for a successful campaign. what happened was, the social transformation increase the boundary of what was possible,

out word. >> there were parades and rallies, door to door candidacies, reaching every voter in the state. >> the eyes of the nation were on california in 1911, when we all voted. it was the sixth and largest state in the nation to approve this. one decade later, we have full voting rights in the united states. helping newly enfranchised women, a new political movement was founded. >> starting in the 1920's, it was a movement created by the suffragettes moving forward to getting the right to vote.

all of the suffragettes were interested in educating the new voters. >> non-partisan, not endorsing candidates >> -- endorsing candidates, getting the right to vote and one they have their voice heard. >> the 100th anniversary of women's suffrage is taking place throughout the state. bancroft library is having an exhibit that highlights the women's suffrage movement, chronicling what happened in california, bringing women the right to vote. >> how long does this mean going on? >> the week of the 20th. people do not realize that women were allowed to vote as early as

the 1920's. in the library collection we have a manuscript from the end of december, possibly longer. >> in commemoration of 100 years of voting in california. 100 years ago this year, we won the right to vote. around 1911, this is how it would have addressed. and here we are, dressed the same.