her family. i responded by saying let her talk to whoever is finding this place for you and the way anybody would when they are looking for a new place and there is a broker involved you tell the broker what you are looking for, obviously, they should know what ms. long's needs are before they just pluck something. she is totally willing to work within that framework. it is not until i get the letter from mr. patterson on november 13th. i was informed this was a definite offer with termed and we had rejected those terms. none of that is true. >> that is important. i agree with you. the timeframe to make a decision is very difficult. i certainly wouldn't do it. i am in agreement that timeframe was a bit too short. that one issue. we now can understand this is something that could be

acceptable to your client if presented correctly and if it takes the boxes for them to make that decision, correct? >> that is true, yes. the fact that i have now been informed the unlawful retainer action is dismissed, it takes pressure off the time pressure from that standpoint. >> to your point earlier which i would be very cog an cognizant . would they like to move back into that building when it is done and live like the they havr 40 years, i believe? >> she understands there might be -- because we are aware of the big picture here, substantial rehabilitation they wantheywant to have going, extrs

in the garage and staircases from the top to the bottom floor so the place that we originally started when we were negotiating is that since the middle floor is already gutted, if they finish that and they don't have to put in granite countertops, but if they finish that the family would move down stairs and have the top and bottom floor unit to put the roof deck in and extra rooms in the basement and make the 11 room unit they are looking for. >> i get that, but i still go back to my position. no one has seen the drawings of the work to be done. that is going to be a hardship on that family. as a contractor i wouldn't want to do that job with a family living in a building like that. that is just me. i.ei see that as a stretch. i know you are not questioning that, but we talk about that

here. i see that as a real problem for the family. i will always take that point of view. my end game, and i am sure the commission's end game is a fair and equitable outcome that works for everybody. since you haven't rejected mr. patterson's original idea, the other part this could be that they move back in there, like commissioner walker was saying when this was remodeled as part of the agreement. what they want is could we get that. >> that could be part of it, too. we are putting everything on the table. would h we are available to talk. >> miss long. >> good morning. i am jackie long.

i have resided at 109 pierce street for 40 years. it is my home. i would like to stay there. no, i don't own it. i rent it. the issue is my expanded family. my daughter is mentality disabled, my son-in-law is physically disabled and they have a 9-year-old son. my presence is required in the home to just try to keep the waters calm for the 9-year-old. my adopted 23-year-old sons also lives there. the issue is i need at least a three bedroom house and space for my family. the unit i looked at even though i was ill, it was nice. i liked it.

the problem, the open kitchen. there is insufficient space to store foodstuffs and cooking utensils for a family of three stay at home people, income is limited, budget would go up 90 to $100 be per month just for transportation because we can't carry food on the muni, which means we would have to use a taxi. that is not feasible, and the kitchen is so tiny that if you are preparing a peopl a meal, it go in to make a cup of coffee. thus, the refusal of the unit. everything after looking at the unit are things i am learning of. never received a firm offer, and lastly, i would like to address the issue of my sunglasses.

due to years of diabetes, i am experiencing bleeding in the eye. for the last 11 months i have received an injection in my right eye. as timing will have it, i had it yesterday afternoon. hence, the sun glasses. thank you for your attention to this matter. >> i addressed you last month. i am back. i did take ms. long to look at the unit. i drove her over there. she was sick and i was leaving to go out of the country. i want to to respond. the generous offer of $100,000.

i did the math. $100,000 rent supplement would cover them for about 18 months of rent in san francisco at this point. what are they to do after the 18 months? the other thing i wanted to address since i am the next door neighbor is the ridiculousness of the building leaning. i have intimate knowledge of that building. it is identical to my building. i have knowledge of the dutch gutter. the building is not falling over. it needs work, but this exaggeration is ridiculous. i do want to get on to what i wanted to get on to having been the neighbor for 26 years. i have been to weddings, funerals, they are one of the last remaining african-american families in our neighborhood. i didn't need this project and i took it on and filed the

original appeal because i was so outraged about them coming in. i want to remind you, jackie long didn't contact d.b.i. the owner contacted d.b.i. to get violations to wave in her face. he didn't count on her being smart and didn't count on a snarky neighbor to get involved which everybody should count on a snarky neighbor in san francisco. i have been there and watched her raise three children then she raised her husband's grandson. now she is raising a 9-year-old. her daughter is seriously disabled. i know this from what i have witnessed first hand.

her own significant disabilities trying to do what is right by her grandson. i will leave one last thing. how much profit does someone have to make. they can accommodate them and make a profit on this building. thank you. >> any further public comment? public comment is closed. >> is there rebuttal? >> commissioner walker. >> this is a hard one because . >> we will do rebuttal for the department first, i'm sorry. department has rebuttal? >> thank you, chief housing inspector. this case touches on a lot of different dynamics in the city right now.

real estate speculation replacement of people from an african-american neighborhood. our deadline for the work to be completed was september of last year so we are 14, 15 months out. i have been to five hearings now. simple request. all we ask is the order of abatement. thank you. >> appellant. >> thank you. i want to start by thanking ms. long for speaking. i think that was helpful to understand and hear directly from her, especially what her concerns were about the unit that was offered, and i really am sympathetic, i think we are all to the challenges that she faces here. the owner also has a set of

challenges with the building. it sounds like there was a misunderstanding with the offer of that unit. these were phone calls between my partner and her attorney. i wish i had been in hawaii with him, but i was not. the fact of the matter is ms. long confirmed they rejected that unit. adding more items to that offer, you know, i don't know what they wanted in terms of a firm offer. it was offered and rejected. it sounds like it was rejected because of inadequate storage space for food and utensils. food storage is an important thing. i wonder if maybe we could add a cabinet to the unit to help with that. you know, if that separates the parties from agreement, i have got to believe there is a way to find agreement there.

the issue around timing with that, i appreciate that she came out after a couple days to look at it. the units don't stay on the market that long. as everyone familiar with real estate in san francisco knows, things move quickly and opportunities with a unit affordable at $849,000 asking price is something that doesn't last for long. i don't know if it is still available. if so, let's talk quickly. the $100,000 offer that the neighbor mentioned to clarify is stated in our letter. we would be willing to offer up to $100,000 of rent subsidy so that ms. long's recent would not go up even though she is getting a three bedroom two bath condo with private patio. it is a nice place. that amount of money would

presumably cover plenty of time for her to obtain section 8 rent subsidies or public assistance so we can pencil out this deal. my request at this point is to the tenant let's find a resolution. to the commission, to the board, an order of abatement should not stand where the owner does not have the ability to solve these problems while the tenant is still in possession. we ask it be returned to staff. i offer to return to mediation at next available date with andrew wesley if the tenant's attorney will accept that. thank you. >> commissioners. >> commissioner walker.

>> i know it is simple in one way but difficult in another when these cases come to us. what we do change is the dynamic of it. my fear is no matter what we do that the tenant is not going to be served, and after we do our hearing whatever else happens is sort of we lose the ability to do this. i want to thank the staff at housing for bringing this forward. these are important issues, and i think that it has been really helpful to illuminate what is going on. i mean we deal with this a lot in many of the cases we see where there is unintended consequences to fix the -- cure the notices of violation/other issues that come up in trying to

resolve that realizing that the owner did more work to find the problem. i mean, clearly, we know when there is mold and leaks, there is a reason for it. i am not a structural engineer. maybe they can weigh in. i can't address what the plans that were submitted, i can't address whether that is appropriate or not. it is the case of what the owner of the building wants to do. that is out of our jurisdiction, whether or not that goes forward. what we have before us is a notice of violation that is re real. the solution that has been put forward by the property owner is way more extensive than that, than the immediate cure or

simple cure for the violations. but it doesn't change the fact that the violations are there and still not fixed. you know, i don't think that there was any error in issuing the order of abatement at all. if we had a solution coming forward that just addressed those issues, we wouldn't be here, but that is not what is going on. i want be to make sure that whatever we do ends up not hurting the tenant and that it doesn't three months from now when all of this other stuff is resolved, all of a sudden she is on the street without a place to live with her family, that is a failure of our system. i want to encourage a resolution to this, and i appreciate that what you are telling us on both

sides there is a willingness to do that. i wouldtend, and i am willing to discuss this that may be we uphold the order and hold it in abeyance as long as we can and there will be a resolution one way or another to go forward after that. there is a resolution and the property owner can do their work within that timeframe or not. it is what we are dealing with. those are the facts. there is violations, there is no clear proposal to fix it except as to a larger solution, and that creates problems that create the delay. i would like to hear about other solutions. >> may i ask the city attorney

what options we would have as commission in terms of uphold be and holding it in abeyance. >> yes, the commission could hold it in abeyance for 18 months if you find no life/safety hazard. >> is there alive/safety issue? apparently not or we would know about it, right? i guess if the foundation needs leveled. it would be helpful to know what the status of that is. >> let me clarify. the code provides that the language the code uses is abatement appeals board finds not a serious and implement hazard it can be held in abeyance for a period of 18 months. >> inspector is it your opinion there are serious hazards here?

>> structurally there was a concern about the second means of egress which they have obtained a permit to temporarily do repairs. >> those repairs have been done? >> temporary. >> our main concern we are not experts, but our concern is environmental issues such as the severe mold formation in the tenant occupying the bedrooms and kitchens and so on. that will be a concern of us. here we have some pictures taken on november 18th. i will have christina explain what we are looking at. >> hi, i went over to the unit

on november 18th to take a look at the work to see if everything was completed or fixed, and in one of the bedrooms, i found there is still peeling paint on the wall, as you can see here, and mold. is that a window silthat we are looking at. >> yes, a window sil. on the right side i took a photo of this because this is right under the stairway they temporarily fixed, and this is the dry rotted wood that is upholding that stairway. >> is that consistent with the drawings on the permit or a description in the permit? >> that is in the description of the permit. >> next, this wall right here,

there is mold and peeling paint. this is also in the same bedroom where i was showing the window. this is the part of it as well. >> would you describe this as imminent danger? what we are trying to figure out if we can give time for a solution to play out as there is an active abatement pending. >> stairs are typically a serious hazard. that item is still outstanding. there is a temporary fix. the item is serious. >> is it okay right now? >> from is a temporary solution, but the item is not closed. >> i get there. is there imminent danger. >> there is a temporary fix that we do not consider a serious

imminent hazard. >> your opinion on the mold issue, do you consider that alive-safety hazard. >> yes, i consider it a health hazard. this mold right here in the kitchen is where the tenants are using their dishes and washing them. it is right above them. not only that, they have a nine-year-old child in the unit and he is breathing this. i get that it . >> in the legal sense at the moment we do not have serious imminent hazard. these are not permanent solutions. >> i got it. perfect. thank you. >> when you went out, did you have a chance to observe the

temporary fix on the tarping of the roof? >> yes, i did, and that tarp was actually halfway blown off of the roof. unfortunately and i apologize, i wasn't able to take photos for that. i am more than happy to do that the next time. that tarp, basically, is a blue tarp and nothing is holding it down. there is no tape around it, and because of wind or whatever weather issue, it has blown off halfway. >> what was identified by the tenant as one of her primary concerns that it is a persistent problem, the fix that was put into effect, in your opinion, is completely inadequate? >> right. i agree with that. it is inadequate because if there has been rain, that season

is coming, and that part is right above the tenant's room. [please stand by]

>> so i think that all parties need to come and i don't know -- i feel like we can't -- we can't tell the property owner what to do. this is what they cant to do iwant todo in response to bug the building and owning it in the future and fixing it up. and old buildings need fixing up, and i don't think we have the ability to limit what people do. until we do, we're hamstrung. so i would make a

recommendation to uphold the order of abatement. i think that the fee issue is one that i'm not sure it is fair to keep charging fees if there is actually a resolution process going on. so we should talk about that. i don't know -- maybe president -- >> commissioner m mccarthur. >> i concur with how you're trying to frame this. >> okay. >> i believe that's where we should go if we can't try another possible scenario here. i'm not trying to complicate it. but it was very helpful mr. lang to be here, and thank you for coming, to hear your testimony, and to your neighbor, who has your back, i do agree with everything you said there as well. so it is good that you guys are working well together and protecting

each other like good neighbors in this town. we don't see too much of it often, so i commend you for that. i know we talked last week, and we had made a statement we would give it one month to try to resolve this, and i really believe that that is kind of my line on this issue, but i've heard two things today. first of all, mr. duran came here today and kind of laying out how he felt the negotiations went, and open they are to further negotiations, and that was important. and mr. patterson's point of view that he really doesn't want this to be upheld because it affects the overall business plan for his client, and i get that as well. so the question is, is mr. graham -- forgive me if this is inappropriate or appropriate -- i would be interested to hear what your position would be. i have just one question for you, where you would

weigh in on -- commissioner walker, to your point, if we were to, let's say, not uphold it here today and send you guys back together to talk further, and honoring kind of both parties, really. one is, obviously, you need more time and exploration on a possible settlement, based on the last settlement, which i thought it was a good step forward. obviously it has to be vetted. and mr. patterson's position that he would rather not have this upheld today and give us more time to work out a deal, that works for everybody. what would your feelings be on that? >> well, to be blunt, we're going to be working on a deal no matter what happens here today. we think that the notice of violation should be upheld because it has been over a year, you know. justice becausjust because theye

better plans for this building later on, it doesn't mean they couldn't have been taking care of the mold and things like that. i'm going to assure the board, we're going to still be talking no matter what happens here today because no matter what happens here today, there is still going to be that elephant in the room, that isn't going to go away. so we will be talking no matter what. >> okay. i guess i'm just trying to keep everybody at the table, but us upholding the abatement today, which, obviously, i believe we could do, no problem, based on commissioner walker's proposal -- i'm just trying to think -- i'm trying to keep everybody kind of even play, you know. but to your point, your position is you would like to see the abatement upheld here today? >> we would, because as far as we're concerned, the only testimony that you have that directly goes to it is the city's

own experts, who have been out there and say the work has to be done, and it can be done with the tenant in place. >> okay. >> and we have hearsay evidence from the owner saying his contractor won't do it, but the contractor is not here, so we don't know what that contractor would say. >> okay. >> so i think mr. patterson thinks the right thing to do is to not uphold it, and i think the right thing is to follow the city's process and uphold the city's laws and get the owner to start working on fixing serious violations that have been outstanding for over a year. >> thank you. >> but i do want to ensure the board, we're going to be talking, whatever the decision is here today. our involvement is not going to end. we're going to still be involved and working at the long-term resolution of the tenant matter. >> mr. patterson -- thank you. i want to get both

statements in and then we can make a decision. mr. patterson, how important is it to you that we -- let's say, for example, we were to offer you another continuance for "x" amount of time and not uphold today, how important is that to you? i want to give you your fair share at that. i think it is important because i want to commend you for coming back with a good step forward, and i want to keep that spirit going. maybe you could explain to us why it is so important that we don't uphold today and give us reasons as to why we might consider that. >> thank you, commissioner. i guess there are really two reasons. one is: the issue of fines and penalties that may accrue during this time when we can't move forward. and the other is: financing for construction. so to actually do the work, my understanding is that -- >> if it is held in abeyance, it doesn't get filed until the deadline.

so we make the order now. we hold it, allowing you to do the work and resolve it, in which case it is not filed. >> right. >> and the fees is an issue. and it is one that i brought up. >> right. the fees are certainly an issue. and even if it is not recorded on title, i would think there still needs to be disclosed to lenders there is an order of abatement. >> and the fees would be fairly nominal and terms -- >> i could have to ask the staff what daily possibilities wil which would be accruing when we can't move forward. it is wrong to penalize someone when they can't move forward. i appreciate the idea of a continuance -- that gives us time to try to work this out. it would be better than upholding an order of abatement, even if it is

held in abeyance, which is better than recording on title. thank you. >> just for the record, the timeframe of continuance from your side would be? >> how quickly can we -- >> get a resolution? >> we're standing here, and we have an offer that we've made, and ms. lang didn't like that unit. and maybe a cabinet can be added and that solves the storage concern, if that unit is still available. i request two months. i think that would give us enough time to really make a good effort at it. if that unit is no longer available, we'll look for other units. one month is tight, but we'd appreciate anything you can do. >> commissioner walker? >> we gave you a month. i'm just saying that part of what the continuance was last month was to allow time to do a

resolution. and so the thing is that i would uphold this anyway because my understanding -- i mean, maybe our attorney can tell me to answer that question of when we hold an abeyance, does it still exist and we have to disclose and all of that. i can't answer that. but maybe we can get a -- >> my understanding is that the abeyance period, the department wouldn't record it until the period ends. it wouldn't show up in, like, a title search. but i can't say whether or not they would have a duty under real estate law to have to disclose that to a lender. >> okay. the issue for me is that i'm serious, you know? that's the deal. so that's why i would make the motion to uphold the order of abatement and allow a timeframe to

actually create the resolution that is shorter than -- i guess as long as the permits were filed to do the work, that included some sort of resolution, we wouldn't need necessarily 18 months, but a period of time. and, really, while the resolution is going on, not do penalties and fees. >> okay. >> and i'm not specific -- i'm talking about it, so i think there are some details to work out in there. >> so, fellow commissioners, are are there any further comments to this discussion? >> i have a question sort of off-topic about the stairs. i would like to have somebody go out there with a trained eye structurally, and i don't know if that means somebody from d.p.i. can go out, or if the owner has to hire a structural engineer and vouch for

them. depending on which way we vote today, does that prevent us from doing that? or can we do that regardless of whether we uphold the order or not? >> because of the imminent danger thing? >> thank you. i would like to -- the stairs are important, if you have firefighters coming down the stairs carrying somebody, we want to make sure they're very solid. >> i'm very concerned about these stairs. >> so can we have someone look at that, and does that change what we decide today? >> well, if i can -- >> please, go ahead. >> there are two legal terms that we work with in our department. there is a life safety hazard and a serious and imminent hazard, and those are different. any time we see a violation on the stairs that emergency crews have to use for a second means of egress, that is automatically a life safety hazard. when i see that propped up like that, i'm scared. i don't hike that.

i'm not willing to go as far as say that it is a series imminent hazard because there are other implications, like evacuating the building. it is a life safety hazard, and it is not a serious i imminent hazard. it is serious violation. and it has also been cited by the city association they are aware of it. we can have other people take a look at it, as much as you would like, but it has been cited, and they're going to have it signed off with engineers and engineers looking at those plans before the item can be abated. >> as a followup, we could include in the motion that all life safety issues are resolved in the interim -- >> to the satisfaction of d.b.i.. >> correct.

>> any other points of discussion? okay. is there a motion? >> so i move to uphold the order of abatement and hold in abeyance for six months, during which time any life safety issues are resolved while the tenant is in the building. and that fees and penalties are halted hence forward -- >> suspended? >> suspended, hence forward. >> the city attorney? >> hi. >> can we get clarification from the department what fees would be accruing in that time period? >> okay,. >> what is at issue is the assessment of cost, not

penalties. i think there is a monthly monitoring fee -- >> $5 a month50 a month. >> what are the costs that have accrued to date? >> about $3,000. >> so in the scope of this project, that is quite nominal. >> okay. >> and do we have the capacity to not have these inadequate fixes, like a blowing tarp -- >> that would be a life safety issue -- if there are leaks or anything that is -- i mean, i don't know how we describe that, but... >> well, if in the course of this month trial period, that was the best they came up with, i would like to be sure that anything that are health safety issues are not treated quite so lightly and inadequately. >> you mean all of them

are life -- it's a problem. they've been living, you know, with mold and whatnot, and it isn't healthy. so there just needs to be a resolution. [inaudible question] >> as opposed to what, three months? i don't care about time. i'm just trying to -- >> what's wrong with saying just to have all of the violations corrected? >> well, there is some window stuff that is probably more in the bigger picture. so certainly the leaks -- i mean, like i said, they have a solution they submitted that is way more than what deals with our violations. so that's not in our purview to determine what happens there. but we do have someone

living there in the interim that is affected by what we're doing, one way or the other. so i'm trying to do a resolution that allows for time to do a resolution and remedy the immediate life safety issues, including stairs and leaking and allow time. and whether it is three months or six months, you guys -- i don't care, but my motion is that, that we collect the current fees and the rest is nominal at this point, so...but we hold in abeyance for a period of time to allow this to mediate, hopefully. >> mr. sandimasu, are we giving you enough direction and clarity as

to how we can eliminate -- >> yes. >> maybe our attorneys are better to ask that question. upon the order of abatement, hold in abeyance for six months, assess fees -- >> uphold the assessment -- >> uphold the current assessment of fees -- >> assessment of costs. >> -- and costs and... >> they don't need to add anything else. >> as an aside, i would like to have an update on this at some point from everybody, to see if -- >> would you like to state a basis for the motion? >> that's presented. the facts presented do support that there were violations, and all of those facts are part of what was given to us. >> and the order was properly issued. >> intraorder was properly

issued. >> that motion, i would like to second. again, i think we all have great concern for the family that is living here. we have people with disabilities, seniors and a child, all of which cause us great concern. and to the extent that our goal is to enhance the quality of life for all residents for as long as they're there, and, hopefully, provide the greatest incentive to equitable and speedy resolution that is satisfactory to all parties, i feel this resolution is appropriately seconded. >> we have a motion and a second. i'll do a roll call vote. [roll call vote]

>> the motion carries unanimously. >> our next item is item "e," case number 6869. mariah mullcha, action requested by appellate, additional time due to bankruptcy. the staff would like to come forward? >> good morning, all. mi'm the chief building inspector for code enforcement. i understand in 2018, a complaint was filed with

this department regarding windows that do not open, no secondary exit, outlets do not work. an inspector was assigned to the case and performed a property profile search and found this to be a mixed-use building, two stories, commercial and residential. on october 4th, inspector mulcha obtained inspection for the property, and a complete remodel with a full kitchen and bathroom, without the benefit of a building permit or planning approval. in 2019, a final warning letter was issued, and the case was referred to code enforcement, and inspector mulcha found that the owner did not comply with the notice of violation. february 8, 2019, code enforcement prepared the case for a director's hearing on march 5th, 2019.

on march 5th, 2019, a notice of abatement was issued and pointing out that the owner did fail to attend the hearing. a conclusion based on the facts submitted, code enforcement believed that the order of abatement was totally given, so they want to uphold the order and impose the assessment costs. i want to point out this is the second time this property has been in violation for the exact same conditions. back in 2000, the second floor was actually converted to a residential use, which there was a notice issued in september 2001a permit that they had to file for for the changes on the second floor. this is another complaint for the first floor now being converted to residential. >> so did the top unit go through -- >> yeah.

the top floor got a certifcate of final completion. this is pictures of the kitchen. >> that's the first floor? >> yes, that's the first floor. >> have they been guided to do an a.d.u. process? >> yes. the owner actually came in and filed an application, but it was just an application, and they never did anything with the application. >> got it. >> as you can see, for the log on the complaint, the tracking system, this case is almost a year old. so they were given enough time to go through the planning process, and if -- we did give enough time for the owner to comply.

>> the second floor was converted into residential -- >> yes. >> -- after the notice of violation -- >> correct. the notice of violation in 2001. >> is it the same owner? >> no. there is a new owner now. >> is it owner occupied upstairs? >> no. >> it's all rental? >> there are two tenants at the property. >> okay. >> p th would the appellate like to come forward. >> that's a drag. the appellate is not here. any public comment for this item? okay. seeing none -- >> i would move to uphold -- >> second. >> -- based on the order was correctly written, and it is in violation.

assess all fines and penalties. >> is that motion okay? >> yes. >> did you say uphold the assessment process as well? >> yes. all fies and penalties. >> he's learned quicker than me. >> i'm trying hard. [laughter] >> there is a first and a second for this motion. i'll do a roll call vote. >> i'll second. [roll call] >> the motion carries unanimously. >> item "f," general public comment. is there any general public comment for items not on the appeals board agenda?

seeing none, motion to adjourn. >> second. >> all in favor. >> yea. >> we are now adjourned. it is 10:26 a.m., and we'll take a five-minute or 10-minute recess and reconvene at the building assessment commission. >> my name tom hewitt.

first of all, i would like to welcome everyone to come to this fair. this safety fair, we trying to educate the public regarding how to prepare themselves during and after the earthquake and then to protect themselves for next 72 hours. >> hi. my name's ed sweeney. i'm the director of services at department of building inspection, and we put together a great fair for the city of san francisco to come down and meet all the experts. we've got engineers, architects. we have builders, we have government agencies. >> well, we have four specific workshops. we have the accessible business entrance. >> my name is leah, and i am the

assistant manager with the department of small business. i am leading the new accessibility ordinance that helps existing owners better comply with existing access laws. so all buildings that have places of public accommodation in san francisco, they must comply with this ordinance. >> the a.d.e. was setup by the board of supervisors, and the ordinance was passed about a year ago. >> one of the biggest updates that we have is that the deadlines were extended, so all of the deadlines were extended by six months. >> and it's really to help the public, the business community to be specific, to cut down on the amount of drive by lawsuits. >> so on this workshop, we're going to be covering what the compliance looks like, what

business examiand property owne need to know how to comply with the ordinance. we'll also talk about the departments that are involved, including the office of small business, department of building inspection, planning department, as well as the mayor's office on disability. >> hi. i'm marselle, and i manage a team at the building department. today, we'll cover the meaning of a.d.u.s, more commonly known as accessory dwelling units. we'll talk about the code and permitting processes, and we'll also talk about legalizing existing dwelling units that are currently unwarranted. >> this is the department of building inspection's residential remodelling workshop. my name is senior electrical inspector cheryl rose, and at

this workshop, we're going to be answering questions such as do i need an electrical permit when i'm upgrading my dwelling, when do i need to have planning involved in a residential remodel, and what's involved with the coerce process? we're going to also be reviewing inspection process, and the permitting process for residential remodel in san francisco. there's always questions that need answers. it's a mystery to the general public what goes on in construction, and the more we can clarify the process, the more involved the consumer can be and feel comfortable with the contractors they're working with and the product they're getting in the results. if you have questions that aren't addressed in this workshop, you're always welcome to come up to the third floor of 1660 mission street, and we're

happy to discuss it with you and find out what you need to do. >> the program is very successful. the last piece is already 60% in compliance. >> well, we have a very important day coming up. it's sept 15. last four has to be compliance, which means that the level four people that have to register with us and give us a basic indication of how they're going to deal with their seismic issues on their building. >> i'm francis zamora, and i'm with the san francisco department of emergency management, and today we talked about how to prepare for emergencies in san francisco. and so that's really importantiimportant. in san francisco, it's no secret. we live in earthquake country. there's a big chance we will be involved in a major earthquake in the next 30 years, but we

don't have to be afraid. these are going to be your first responders outside of the police officers, paramedics, first responders, these are going to be the people that come to your aid first. by getting to know your neighbors, you're going to know who needs help and who can help in case of an emergency. one of the great ways to do that is for signing7for nert, san francisco neighborhood emergency response team. it teaches you how to take care of yourself, your loved ones, and your neighborhood in the case of an emergency. information is just as important as water and food in an emergency. san francisco has an emergency text message alert system, called text sf. if there's some kind of an emergency happening in san francisco or your neighborhood, it could be a police action, a big fire, a tsunami or an earthquake. all you have to do is text your citizenship code to 888777, and

your mobile phone is automatically registered for alert sf. >> my name is fernando juarez, and i'm a fire captain with the san francisco fire department. we have a hire extinguisher training system. you want to pull the pin, stand at least 8 feet away, aim it at the base. if you're too close, the conical laser that comes out, it's too small, and the fire won't go out on the screen. if you step back, the conical shape on the screen is bigger, and it will take the fire go out faster. so it can tell when you're too close. >> my name is alicia wu, and i'm

the director of a san francisco based nonprofit. since 2015, we go out to the public, to the community and provide training in different topics. today we're doing c.p.r., controlling external feeding and how to do perfect communications in each topic, and also, i hope that they can bring it home and start gathering all the supplies for themselves to. >> on any given day in san francisco, we're very well resourced in terms of public safety professionals, but we all know in the event of a large scale disaster, it will be hours and days before the public safety professionals can get to you, so we encourage people to have that plan in place, be proactive. there's websites. we have a wonderful website

called 72hours.org. it tells you how to prepare yourself, your family, your pets, your home, your workplace. we can't emphasize enough how

>> good morning. welcome to the november 20th, 2019 meeting. i start off congratulating the staff attending the community event. the director and d.b.i. staff provided detailed information on programs including seismic retrofits, a.d.u.s accessible business entrance as well as responding to questions about building safety. also thanks to the director for hosting the department's annual all-staff meeting october 31st, where commissioner wal