safety, security intimidation from sro management, pests and this is just a few on the long list of issues sro tenant have to deal with and the new tenants have to deal with through no fault of their own. the fact that the tenants have 938 and 940 hampshire had their lives disrupted and split up and moved is incochhensive. this isn't a matter of money they lost for living in the sro, but the emotion, physical and mental strain of living in the sro, sleeping on the floor or sleeping in the car. that is all i have to say about that and i really urge you all to think about how much of a toll not just it has taken on their pocket books but also in their physical being and emotional state. thank you.

>> [speaking spanish-waiting for translation] >> so, i h like the other partners said, i have been living in the building since 2005 and in 938 they haven't made [inaudible] the units are always the same way and never changed. everybody pays for the room in which they are in.

we always paid this way. that is all i have to say. >> next speaker please, thank you. >> [speaking spanish- waiting for translation] the revision that are made in the own, the person that was the owner i'm the oldest residents there and he did those revisions. i'm a witness he was the one that did that. no one else made any type of revision, just the owner. and about the checks

that were sent, i received one in my name and with that money i paid for the hotel where i lived with my partner. my partners check did not have any funds, they didn't honor when he went to--we bought food with that and then after that we had to pay from our own pocket. >> anymore more speakers on this item? seeing none. >> no further public comment. commissioners deliberation or

rebutal? 3 minutes for rebutal for the appellate. >> thank you. it is a fundalmental question that needs to be considered is does the commission want to be involved in the determination in the future. is this something dealt with as a [inaudible] or something the commission should be decide or wants tobe deciding as aimateer of its possible and until that determination is made proceeding on the ad hoc determination is a [inaudible] how future cases are handled and without having consulted the commission in the first place. i think that is a dangerous course for the city to be marching towards and strongly disagree with mr. [inaudible] characterization of what they did in berkeley with the same set of rules. the

problem with calling this due process for the owner is there are penalties available under the health and safety codes and tenants claims as a result of us allegely not paying the proper amount and didvent guide ens in the first place of what we are spaunl for. that is due process is understanding the rules. when you buy a piece of property you understand the rules not the rules get set out after the fact. the health and safety code exist but the departments determination is the first we are aware of. the determination of 2 versus 12, we have 2 units, the city rorbds dictate that and mrs. bosky referred to it that and the department records referred to it that way. there may be 12 rooms but there are 2 units and that is how the

determination should be made. there are no residential units that exist, but there are none dictated by whether there is a separate rent check issued or payable to the landlord. i do want toclarify the issue of the checks and relocation payments issued. initially thrfs discussion between the parties when the issue arose about coming to a form of agreement and the berkeleyords nns sets forth a process for this to happen. the parties start today dethat on our own and were not able to come toa grument checks were issued by the landlord before this was confirmed and payment on those checks were stopped when the parties rch not able to come to an agreement among other reasons for the fact theyment wanted 100 thousand dollars on top of the 30 thousand dollars the department ordered here today. payment on those original checks were stopped

and payment was issued for more than 30 thousand dollars based on the 25-12 ordered by the department per occupied room which we understood there to be 11 occupied room and the only thing we were disputing is the 12 room we don't believe was occupied and we miscalculated. we urge the department to revisit the course in the commission to give the time to do that. the money is paid that is due. there may be additional amounts due under the rent ordinance but that isn't the commissions roll to evaluate those. that something you can take into account and the problems will be addressed by relocation of the rent ordinance when the time is appropriate for that. we ask the dermation be suspended or the department understand we paid 30 thousand dollars pursuant the order and find the determination of 2 versus 12

units isn't necessary for the commission to make here today. thank you. >> commissioner walker did you want to-- >> do we have department rebutal? do you need to say anything else? don't we get rebutal too? >> yep >> i don't have much to add from earlier comment. i think the determination clearly indicates the departments position. you did hear testimony though that it was the proper owner helped dictate how the payments were made in the rooms when we did inspections we did find that there was evidence that all the areas were occupied. eerfben a area as we noted in the exhibit to areas that were not supposed to be occupied so from that stondpoint i think it is clear and think it legitimizes our position with what is in the notice so do believe this should be upheld. thank you.

>> okay, we'll start with commissioner walker and then commissioner mar. >> before you begin deliberations the first item on your agenda is to make a determination as to jurisdiction under chapter 77. you entertain a motion first. >> i believe we have jurisdiction. i believe the state code-the state building code is administered by the chief building officer- >> are you making a motion? >> i'm talking to it. the chief building officer enforces the state code. any decision by the director can be appealed to us. i move that we assume

jurisdiction >> second. that is based on the charter position d 3.750-4 and section 77.3 section b of the administrative code. >> correct >> a motion and second. do a roll call vote on the motion. president mccarthy, yes. vice president mar, yes. commissioner lee, yes. commissioner mccray, yes. commissioner melgar, yes. commissioner walker, yes. commissioner clinch, yes. the motion carries unanimously. >> okay. now deliberation. >> we don't have to take public comment on anything else? commissioner walker we'll start with you. >> so, you know i feel like we

-this is a complicated issue because there is legal units and the actual units occupied. the testimony that i heard causes me to support the directors action in determining that there was 12 occupied units, each acting independently. there was 6 on each floor. people wrote check zs separately, there were walls built. not by the people in there. so, i don't feel that there has been evidence provided for us to overturn the directors decision on that basis. i also have not heard evidence contrary to the determination of the utility

deposit issues that are being appealed by the project sponsor either, so i am supporting the directors decision in this and deny the appeal. that is my position. >> commissioner mar >> i have a question. i heard contdictory things from the paument whether they were arguing whether it was 2 rooms versus 12 or 11 room because if you paid the fee on 11 rooms to me that is a lot smaller of a question that is before us. right? because the appellate said that the fees were paid based on the 11 rooms, is that right? >> not clear about it. there are people that said the checks were canceled. i think we have to determine whatever the number is, not 2 or 11, but is

it 12 determined by the director. >> so i just want to get clarification, what is the appellate arguing for, 11 or 2 rooms? >> come up to the podium there are a few [inaudible] >> the chief housing order is the each room paid a certain amount and paid on the 11 rooms claimed by the tenants. we think the determination there were 11 or 12 is a error but we paid to minimize disruption in the interim while we pursued the appellate rights >> does the 11 rooms include the room in the basement?

>> i don't think it does. we just based it on the fact there are 11 rooms occupied by the tenants. >> it is my understanding in thetume the room in the basement was paying rent to the landlord. does it include the basement? >> the payments were made-collective the payments were not individually to the individual rooms so took the 11 rooms claimed occupied and paid on the claim. >> perhaps the tenant attorney can answer that. >> i'm trying to get at how much money is oweed. >> sorry, i forgot your name. please state your name for the record again, please. >> [inaudible] attorney for the tenants. to answer your question, so the dbi determination of 12 units we

believe is correct. the issue here or the confusion is regarding the fact there are 12 units that have been occupied and one of them at the time the determination was made, there was one room that was not occupied at that time because somebody had moved into another room. there were 12 yoounts and were occupied for the majority of the past 20 years but one at the time was determined it was a inhabited space and people were living there but it wasn't currently occupied. there are 2 issues because one is the determine aition of amount of money oweed versus how many units there actually were. >> let me-the person who had been living in the 12 units moved where? >> moved into another room. >> in the same-

>> i think either they moved into another room or it was the person who moved out because of health issues. >> if they moved inoo another room they are perhaps getting a double payment? >> no because there wasn't payments for 12 units, there was only payment frz 11. it is the difference between what was paid versus how many units and it was not a unit in the basement addressed t is 12 units between the 2. >> you are happy with 11, right? >> we say there are 12 actual units. >> i think that is a different issue, right? >> yep. okay. commissioner lee >> can i have the appellate clarify something? the appellates they paid they had checks that were canceled, can you speak on that?

>> both sides? >> sure, there were actually 2 sets of payments and that is where the confusion is arising from. when the issues first presented them sevl squz the department order to vaiicate were issued payments were issued. the landlord believed were were terms, the tenants disagree. the landlord stopped payment on the checks and issued payment frz more than 30 thousand dollars as replacement for the funds, based on the 11 occupied rooms and its belief these utility deposits were inappropriately calculated. there was a initial set of payments made, stopped payment on those, a subsquents set of payments prp issued to replace those and if the tenants didn't receive those this is the first i heard of that having been in

rel regular communication with counsel so that is surprising to hear the second set of payments were not received by the tenant. >> i'm sorry, the payments were sent? >> the second set of payments were sent. >> when were they sent? and you center have the date? some time in april. >> commissioner lee, you is to understand we are hearing conflicting information. i think what commissioner lee would like-come back up counsel. >> it is confusing. what happened is we came to an initial agreement for it tenants to move out and the landlord agreed and wrote checksment we presented the check tooz the clients. the agreement is the tenants move

out the next day, after they moved out the landlord canceled the checksism we went to court and the time between they canceled the checks and we went to court they ishude without telling more checks and dropped them at cocounsels office and didn't tell us that was happening. a bunch of things ensued as a result of canceling the checks and at some other point they gave a check for a different amounts. they never artic yailted how they came windup the articulation for thumounts they gave so all of what you heard is true. there were checks issued, they stopped payments on the checks, the checks were cashed at check cashing places, the check cashing places called our clients over and over and calling my cocounsel because they were drawn off his account and after all this started they dropped off other checks, another check that didn't cover the amount they initially gave

us. we were going after them for that and then they gave us another smaller check. it never matched the amount we first agrud to. the who whole thing is-i'm not sure-it was not the amount determined by dbi and never a amount that made sense. >> commissioner malgar. >> i just want to understand the nuts on bolts. the check is made out to you as counsel and then do you issue check tooz the tenants? yes, my co consal did and they cancelled the check. >> so it is uonly the hook plus the fees the bank issues plus aurfb cost the tenants incured and the second check was for a lesser amount? >> that is correct.

>> commissioner clinch and then commissioner walker and then commissioner mar. >> it is a follow to commissioner malgars question, so the second set of checks, have the tenants received those? >> they received the first check. they got the money from the check cashing places and we were responsible for reimbursing for the insufficient . there is a whole problem-there is money then red here right now and some clients also just never got money because by the time they- >> my question is were the second set of checks delivered

to thetenants? >> they went to cover the first checks because the first checks were already cashed at a check cashing place. the first checks as mrs. malgar was stating, the first checks were made out to cocounsel, so he put that in the trust account and had to write the checks individually to thetenants because the conlsal at the time for the landlord just wrote the checks directly to my cocounsel and because sthof time frame the tenants were supposed to be out within 24 hours of the checks so we had to write the check tooz the tenants, they went to the check cashing places and they cashed the checks and then started finding out there were insufeshant funds because the money in the cocounsels account bounched because the lands lord

cachbsaled the checks. the tenants got a initial payment, some of them not all because some didn't immediately go and cash the checks. when we did get good checks from the landlord that wnt to cover the bounched checks they gave the first time, didn't cover the fees. didn't cover the full amounts because they didn't give replacement checks in the amount equal to the amount that bounched. >> that helps but i want to make it clear that what we are talk bth is just the fees for the emergency relocation from dbi, not-and you guys are continuing to fight about the in the

rolocation money. so they just gave a lump sum and never clarified what the follow up checks were for and didn't give an amount or breakdown. 3 4 f1 >> thank you. there is no motion on the floor. commissioner walker do you have

a comment? >> i have a couple comments. this case seems complicated and don't think it is that complicated as far as i can see. also note with irony if we were talking about llc and it was talking at [inaudible] living in over crowded condition it wouldn't have gotten this far. i think there is a rosen why there is not a lot of president. i think san francisco does have pretty stringent rent control ordinances that people mostly respect when investing in disstressed properties. there is reason for that and i would really like to be on the record of the commission of sending a strong message about what our expectations are are as a city. i think the real estate is

very valuable in san francisco, it is a big business to invest in property, but there are rules and there are human beings who live in these properties and they need to be respected to their rights. >> thank you. >> commissioner walker. >> i agree 100 percent commissioner malgar. i think that when people purchase buildings it is a god good thing, but there is a responsibility to look and investigate what you are buying. we have very strong rent control rules of the city supported by a pretty large majority of our population and effecting just as large a population in our city. i think that i would like to make a motion to uphold the

directors actions in both counts of both the assessing of emergency relocation fees and in the amount for the utility deposit returns that are included and that along with the motion we request a clear accounting from both the property owner and the tenant representative to determine how much is still oweed. >> i 2nd that motion. >> i recommend the motion include that the commission will consider and adopt written findings at your next meeting setting for the reasoning for the decision. >> that is very good. it is a important issue and i would like to have assistance from our counsel to craft the

findings based on our discussion here. >> so the smogez uphold the directors determination from april 24, 2015 with written findings to be adopted at the next meeting? >> yes. >> the motion and second. have a roll call vote on this. >> president mccarthy, yes. vice president mar, yes. commissioner lee, yes. commissioner mccray yes. commissioner melgar yes. commissioner walker, yes. commissioner clinch, yes. motion carries unanimously. we are on to item number 5. discussion regarding water saving devices and process for on demand water heaters including recommendations for gray and rain water.

>> good floon commissioners my name is steve punely chief plumbing inspect. was asked to speak today but some of the gray water, black water now, reclaim systems. different types of water types. rain water collection systems we have in san francisco on water heater kwz what wree tying to do in san francisco in order to help with the drought and energy wise. when it comes to the on demand water heaters just quickly, like to explain a few things. on demand water heater run on energy and high gas, larger gas lines compare today what we have now, so 23

somebody is row lacing the water heater they have to increase the gas line to have leck tistry and change the sflus and it is a little more expensive. the problem with on demand water heatericize the size of thewater heat squrz the price and location and that they do run on power. if you have a earthquake like [inaudible] in 1989 where half the marina didn't have power for 3 or 4 days you wouldn't have hot water. the recovry isn't there. you don't have storage as well. on demand water here're is coils, there is no storage. electric water heater is the same thing, you have coils that go out and one is on. it isn't as fast as gas so gas is the main water heater you see installed throughout the city. on demand water heaters are popular because one of the most expensive things in san francisco is space. real estate becomes prime,