and planning housing police planning but we want to give the planning department to spend a suspend a violation until it's secured. another amendment will require a permanent member to offer a unit and a sixth amendment to maintain records of tax paying records to the planning department upon request those are the amendments i've calculated one additional amendment for the record to clarify something around cover amenities and conditions and restrictions again to clarify cc&rs will not be over ridden by the legislation on page 19 subsection 5 line 15 i'll read the subsection in the second

sentence this quote didn't confer a right to over a unit for such use is not allowed by law a homework associations or rental amendment i want to add covenants or restrictions or other restrictions or enforceable things cc&rs are part of the category of agreements we're not intending to impact. so >> 1 and 75 days. >> hold on one moment and one - go ahead. >> so sorry to interrupt deputy director i think i had a

drafting error i believe that tax records are comfortable making those available to the tax collector not to the planning department and so that's the sixth within you read in and i had inveterately saying the tax record should be available to the planning department that's an error. >> on top of that one additional change in subsection g one a to state point residential unit is occupied by itself permanent resident for 2 hundred and 75 case or proportional share if they xnt have not owned it for the year there's a suggestion 2 hundred and 75 days in the preceding

calendar we're going on that the proximity resident it required to occupy the unit for at least 9 months of every calendar year with those changes colleagues i'll ask we make those amendments that are promoted by the planning department to clarify those issues. >> okay. so those are the amendments that are described by president chiu with the one change by ms. burns. >> i'm happy to make a motion. >> we'll take those we'll take that without objection. >> supervisor kim. >> okay. there's a lot of comments that were made over the last 6 hours now i do want to appreciate everyone that shared their personal stories and also your feedback on the legislation i want to especially appreciate for those who waited for their

names to be called and i appreciate that. a number of things i want to address one comment that came up the most from the air b and b hosts is the restriction of the 90 days i want to delve into that issue. my thinking around the 90 days my preliminary concern is around putting forward this set of regulations it to enforce against the bad actors there are is small group of actors that have taken units and rooms out of housing market and are permanently using them as short-term running hotels where they're not supposed to be that is e bart the inflation rentals so if we're going to separate

between those actors and many of you who are co- hosts we have to have a set number of days to dlaefrt the people that have unit renting them out illegal and co- hosts that general winning are supplementing their income if we look at it from a hosting and non-hosting days how about the particular time know if the person is on sightly and how they would determine it if we delineate between hosted and non-hosted days. >> good evening supervisors emry rogers planning department this is an area we have concern we would like to condition to work with the supervisor chiu on that issue and in particular

where someone slept we would like to ask that in and of itself might be the intrusive government that people don't want to hear so - >> any ideas or feedback you may have heard to validate the number of nights so the landlord or tenant so the bad actor is permane permanently renting it out what are the suggestions. >> we haven't heard other than signing affidavits. >> so for me thinking about this as a policy, you know, we have to create a policy that's enforceable and while i'm very interested in making sure that people are able to make the additional income while

protecting renters in order to do that we need a legislation that's enforceable if we have no restrictions on the number of hosted or non-hosted days we might as well not pass 24 legislation we might as well do what we're doing currently there's no way to know when the hosted is there that's why i've been pushing so hard to the planning department can make sure that the bad actors that exist are not taking units off-line so unless some smart person can articulate how to value indict that i'll support that legislation it is a clear 90 days hosted or non-hosted i wanted to address some of the feedback about 0 folks that are

doing that for more than 90 days which is roughly about 7 and a half days a month you're clearly running a business it feels like a full time business and we should talk about the other all of the elements watching planning commission i'm not a familiar with how one views it some folks should apply for a bed-and-breakfast certification if you live in your home i want to encourage you to do the work but the appropriate avenue is to not the legislation that's before us today but i go before planning and use the process to apply for a bed-and-breakfast and go down to route it needs to be regulated the issues i'd

bring up for that for example, bed-and-breakfast have exists for people it's a hotel and i should be regulated the way we regulated e regulate other hotels. a couple of other things i do support passing legislation i do time to make sure we're legal listing this activity because people like it b people will continue and it has positive outcomes for the host and the folks that come to the cities and small businesses that is clearly outlined i want to be clear we set exceptions for the city and tenants and landlord in the process of how it happens what i hear the accelerate is build nor affordable housing it

assume a lot of people had to do this if they couldn't do this they couldn't pay for their market and childcare and for this what armed services articulated we're not building enough affordable housing that's loud and clear it's something we is a city we think to work on. finally, i want to delineate there's a lot of people that are loovshth a lot of money if you want to regulate that and what seems like a business and full-time john we need to set a separate route for folks that are doing that. so i made it clear at the beginning i support

a continuance i think there are a number of issues and amendments that i'd like to clarify before we approve this legislation. i imagination there's a variety of how much time i don't want to drag those out so some members of the board will not be here to pass this but want to make sure we have clear answers the other issues i want and perhaps dbi needs to be here at the next hearing or take this up on october 2nd with the planning commission under would set of codes are building inspectors going to be looking to when we come and spicket hours under a short-term visitation go are they going to

use the commercial hotel code or the residential code it's clearly a mix of both we need to understand where dbi is going to be and the other issue that's in the legislation that dbi has set maximums on a number of tenants per unit 3 per one bedroom it's not clear whether we need to reexamine those in the codes if we're allowing the short time visitation rental as a legalized activity so it's important to hear from beginning on those issues to be passing a complete legislation. thank you. >> thank you supervisor kim. >> supervisor wiener do you mind if i respond to yours. >> supervisor kim i've certainly heard loud and clear

from your comments and some of the questions around dbi and i actually was on the phone with tom huey the beginning director first of all, i know that a few folks mentioned this october second hearing i want to the director conformed what i thought that hearing was actually the hearing requested many months ago that has nothing to do with this legislation or short time rentals it is hearing to discuss general enforcement issues between dbi and planning. and they were also going to talk about the that a computer system set up between the two departments that's not the place for those issues if f to be verified with that said, the director 0 said he would be available to come next week to talk about this if the committee wants to discuss specifically the issues about the standards

used around enforcement and how many residents would be permissible in various spaces we can discuss with him and his staff i suggest that if the members of the committee they ask director, huh? i didn't to look at those and review them he hopefully at the next hearing. let me say i certainly appreciate the desire for some of our colleagues to have a little bit more times i said at the outset of this evening or aforementioned discussion this is legislation that's been two years in the work we introduced it of months ago it went through a thorough discussion during the latter part of the summer and here at the board. i will not unless colleagues you feel differently will not ask you to push this out of committee but like to bring this back next

week for two things one to hear from the department of believable and have discussion with the planning staff and that zoning matters needing need to be set out and supervisor kim and others if there are other amendments that we ought to think about i have offered two rounds ever amendments i suspected supervisor wiener may have others we're at a point we've throughout through some issues but if there recent amendments we think the majority of board might be willing to vet them at the next hearing with the idea if we can make them that will require a third meeting to happen two weeks out but like to move the process along as the public is focused

and as everyone i think who cares about this issue is thinking hard on it. >> thank you president chiu. and i agree we should continue this to one week it's fine we're going to end up having presumably 3 hearings it's not as many hearings as sequa i don't feel as bad we didn't go of and a half hours on sequa. i said supervisor kim's concern about the enforceability of the hosted aspect of legislation in other words, to be clear for the members of the public we're using those terms hosting and non-hosted the legislation has two one basic rule you have to live in the unit for 9 months

out of the year you can go away for 3 months and rent it outs without you being there. however, if you so long as you are in the unit whether it's 9 months or 12 months you can rent out a room in our home for as many days so long as our there there's the reason for the difference between the two. first of all, when you have a situation when you're not there are and have that limit you'll end up having more and more units convert entirely to short term rentals that will can only lists the housing stock we don't want to have many, many people are in agreement we don't want situations where a single-family homes or condo are being used as

short term rentals being as lucrative we'll be asking for trouble on the other hand, if you have a home that's occupied the in a multi unit building or single-family home assuming there's no issues with the police or caesar it's a different situation you have something that is living in their home and rents out a room or two whether they're doing it for 020 or thirty days a year or a heck of a lot more at this point by telling people you can't do that you're getting into a situation i understand the argument to the some point it's more of a business but on the other hand, you're getting more and more into the situation we're saying this guess your home and we're going to tell you you can't rent out that room whether you have to rent it out

for this period of time it becomes uncomfortable to venture into that territory. i also know that i've talked to many, many hosts over the last number of months and months this issue has heated up people stopping me on the street or other meetings i've talked to a lot of people i think this is a little bit of stereotype someone says about being a home share is realty is those are real residents to a real need and talking to those people the things you'll hear over and over again are the things we hear people can't show up at the hearing about, you know, i'm a widow and living on

a fixed income and doing this i've got to put a new roof or electrical system or this has allowed me to put my kids through college or the lady that's divorced doing it more than 90 days a that's 0 how she kept annexed float with her kids or people that is really how they make their mortgage yes there are more extreme situations ladies and gentlemen, he says he rents out to 10 people a invite i'll be the supportive of the 90 day maximum for people in the situations that are people living in their homes i completely understand the enforcement challenges. this whole area is just fraught with

enforcement challenges and they exist today. so, now moving on i do have a few amendments i've prepared relating to the issues specifically around insurance and around landlord notification and around the fee i want to describe them do not if we vote i'm happy to give you two copies and those copies are from me and jointly from supervisor farrell. and regarding insurance, you know, i don't pretend to know the adequacy level of insurance seem like that one hundred and 50 thousand is on the low size so the amendment increases that to 5 hundreds thousand dollars i don't know if $500,000 or 750 i

don't know i'm interested in hearing about that in addition raising the annual from me fee from 50 to $75 to give the planning department some additional resources to do the administration and enforcement responsibilities again, i don't know if or 85 or the right number and finally, i said this during the hearing i believe i do agree with landlord permission should be required i don't want to get into rewriting it predicaments sub at large but there's a strong argument that landlord have the ability to know whether their tenants are doing short time rentals and we've heard from tents there are

plenty of landlords that don't have an issue and on that do so the final amendment that supervisor farrell and i put on the table is to require that when a tenants registers that the planning department will mail a notice to the landlord. there will be no further requirement from the planning department i know they should wait thirty days to see if the landlord rejects this is only notification. i'm open to other forms of notification there's no magic but there's some things that don't feel right about putting the on news on landlord to repeating do the sunset

questions every week there should be a better better system so those are the 3 amendments i'm going to put on table i'm fine with dialogues over the course of the next few weeks supervisor kim. >> so i have two questions the first is do you want to include i saw in the planning department recommendations looking at giving landlords or property owners thirty days to respond or not setting a deadline. >> no to me it's not i don't think that the planning department issuance of the registration should be contingent whether the landlords says yes or no what's respect it the landlords has the ability to know and if the landlord has a subletting clause if they had

they can choose to enforce or not going enforce we hope the tenants will talk to the landlord first. >> so the concept is another any point the landlord can go and directly communicate with their tenants my second question i certainly heard from the folks that live in their home and want either no restriction on posted nights or a longer set of nights vs. 90 days for hosted nights i guess my question is to you supervisor how will we dlaefrt between that type of host vs. the landlords that has taken their home off the market it's the evidence that the planning department could look to enforce

against one behavior and not enforce bins the other behavior. >> i'll i'm going to turn it over to i think that supervisor kim's faenl is asking about how the planning department's will enforce the requirement you have to be living in the unit for 2 hundred and 70 days i'm not going to set here and say an affidavit is one under penalty of perjury i'll have to sit down but i'll bet we could list a lot of ways you you've got comboshth and allowing people that be truthful about perhaps president

chiu. >> what i've enlightened first of all, we will have a hotline for people to provide complaints and whether they be a complaint that a next door neighborhood is looilth their space way more than 25 percent of the time. and at that point, the planning department could investigate and ask the resident to provide evidence that they have been doing this in compliance and if that evidence appears suspect they could provide a subpoena to air b and b and they're required to turnover the information and having had the discussions i understand that air b and b will provide that information back to the city to conform if those timelines have been met. >> so again that only brings us did day to the number of nights

the host has rented out their units that doesn't clarify whether or not the host lives there are not i'm concerned about pga protective that x baits air b and b is not the reason this is happening this has happened before them the landlords and tenants that are permanently renting them out on a short time basis f this protective if we don't regulate the co- hosted dates we're no way to prove whether i've slept in my home i don't know how to prouf prove to the planning department if i slept i disagree with the intrusion we do regulate a number of things you do at our home today, in fact,

it's prohibited to be able to do this i'm not sure we're venturing into this weird kind of big father world i want to make sure we're protecting our existing housing stock if we don't have a way to do that it's clear by the number of nights unless we come up with another way that legislation will be completely unenforceable and i do see a point to pass it we might as well keep doing what we're doing today. >> what you look at for example, under the tax lay people to dairy their prim primary residence for taxes.

dollars other raiksz situation under pencil of prejudice there's challenges around that but to me that's not a good enough argument to say we not going to let people rent out a room are home when they're there for a limited amount which time. to me that's the way too far when people are living in their home we're going to limit the amount of time. >> i'd like to fourth a way to support people and living in their home we actually already have an avenue to go to the planning commission and apply for a bed and