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 breakfast but if

it's not the route i don't see another way to make this enforceable and another code that difficult is not a good reason to make t this difficult to enforce this is not a reason to make this weak and allow the thing we're trying to prevent the extubation if the human resources because the housing units are off-line that's might primary concern i don't see a clear paths that being said i feel comfortable to pass the first amendment supervisor wiener i'm comfortable with the

second and third but we may be fudging the numbers we could make all ass changes but definitely the first amendment i'll support it and i see our john gibner, deputy city attorney i john gibner, deputy city attorney. just on the fee amendments the increase in the proposed fee would trigger a new noticing i know you have look over a issues to resolve our talking about come back next week if you're going to consider the fee amendment i suggest you make the fee amendment next week and then not it another that point for a couple of weeks out you can't make 89 amendment today and have a 75 there's fee

once you make the amendment to increase the fee you-all you'll have an issue a new fee. >> it's about a two week taller than. >> yes. it's a 14 day notice plus additional 3 days to submit. >> so that's more than like 2 and a half weeks. so on the fee one why don't we. >> i'm a little bit confused we want to have an option to hold the hearing and we'll have to do a 3 week continuance. >> because our talking about holding the hearing next week if you adapt an amendment the hearing next week will be off the table if you want to hold

the hearing next week we can also work with the city clerk's office i'm not sure there could be advance noticeings if they want to make the advance. >> i thought that would be a 10 today not a 15 day. >> it was notice as a 14 day notice with the planning it touches on planning there's a conveyance but it moved on to forbidden day. there are a lot of folks confused we're do i believe checking. quietly have a continuance it's in the significant i'll suggest we would there's a possibility if there's agreement if we wanted to do the one piece as trailing legislation i don't think it has to happen as part of the

legislation. >> why not as the city staff is figuring out supervisor kim in addition to the process around enforcement there's a hearing process where the hoff will weigh the evidence and on top of there's an administrative evidence whereby it could be taken so there's a number of paths to make sure we're endorsing those rules but again, i'm open to the conversation with regards to supervisor wiener's and supervisor farrell's amendments let me say first of all, i definitely support increasing the fee for the planning department to the level to my left that the planning department needs it i know that hearing and discussing with director ram $75 or or 45 i

$85 is there a particular prospective on that. >> we don't know exactly the director was suggesting we keep it under $100 and conduct a fee study after one year or going see going through the prospective to make sure we're charging the appropriate fee. >> your literally not recommending but something less than one hundred and more than 50. >> we don't know there's too many variables of people participation and how difficult the enforcement because the legislation is not resolved at this point we think it's a good policy goal to keep the fee low. with that, i'm fine with supervisor wiener suggested

absent $75. first of all, i is where really believed we shouldn't try to reach into landlord a tenant leases. i have been asked by the landlord and tenant community to propose different things that tip the balances with that said, i've heard the idea that a landlord who made a decision to whereas out to a particular tenant for the landlord not to have or the individual might not be involved it could be unfair so i understand the perspectives of supervisor wiener and supervisor farrell and with that prospective from supervisor kim and supervisor cowen to address this i think supervisor wiener has proposed is something i

could be okay with if we want to move that in the spirit of moving those issues forward to grapple with them i'm happy to do that on the issue of the general commercial liability whether one hundred 50 or 2 hundred thousand is enough has been championing but again out of the spirit of noticing those issues has been one that folks want to be sure it was addressed accurately and again in the spirit of addressing what we've heard is a sense that one hundred and 50 thousands of liability insurance is not enough more than that tripling it should be adequate so with that said, i'm happy to support that day moving forward. >> president chiu in terms of where the $150,000 came from any

know there's no science to the exact level but does that get borrowed if another example like more than a year ago or - >> my understanding it was second-degree murder my aid said it was suggested by the city attorney's office when people talk about the car insurance this is in the housing complex to all of our points 24 is not an exact science but any feedback from the insurance empty we take that with that said, the prospective is one i'd like to address. >> so what i suggest we adapt the 5 hundreds thousand today hover it will be hopefully to me

in the next week is to have, you know, this is a product that although some people have conform for this but there's coverage or development it would be interesting or useful to know what the likely difference between how do thousand policy and others for the premium it's not an over and overly dramatic experience insurance the lower level is per units are more expensive but want to make sure we're not putting an unreasonable burden on hosts so it would be hopefully to have a better sense at least on estimate of differential in terms of foes do we have an

answer. >> yes. a 14 day fee when the board adapts the if i to go to support the work special notice rules will apply for 14 days plus 3. >> so oh, yes supervisor kim has a question. my question in the original legislation is it 50 there's per year. >> over a 2 year period one suggestion i want to make on the fee i want to leave this in the hands of the planning department we could sever out the issue of the fee and give them time to do that and move that if it really turns out this is going to take a few more weeks for the planning commission on the one hand. >> so duplicate the file and

continue it to the call of the chair and if trailing legislation it will be pend for the fees. >> we don't need to make that discussion today, the planning director could fourth and your department could figure out that and sever it out. >> i'm going to make a motion to adapt the amendments offered by myself and supervisor farrell for landlord/tenant notification and the increasing for the insurance from $150,000 to 5 hundred thousand those two and over the next week think about how to deal with the fee situation so that will be the motion that i make. >> supervisor kim. >> i'm happy to second that amendment one other amendment i'm ready to make today is adding to page 11 interested

parties the interested parties it the current party of the building the city and county or any property exemption for the purpose i'd like to include the hoa and the cc&r but i'd like to include hoa as to no, they can't say be an interested party. >> deputy director there's no entity that the caesar it's only the conceptual restriction that's pushed. >> okay. so suggest hoa the homeowners association. >> i'll second that motion. >> so we have two or 3 amendments and they were one was the landlord notification and

one increase in the loiblt insurance required and one adding the homeowners association both comedy and single-family homes to 0 the definition of interested parties those are the 3 amendments. >> actually can you ask the implementation of adding that to the interested parties supervisor kim do you have a specific language or only want to insert that one. >> only that word anywhere in those line 24 through - 24 and 25 to page one and two just say it's the last one homeowner association is after the u.s. code it and matter which order of the interested party. >> it needs to be spechified te

hoa. >> the only one that is covering the units. another question is the hoa listed in the listing i'm thinking of the condo building they only registration their building. >> that gives me a opportunities to clarify someone else when we're talking about posting the information on the database it is the only address and the entitlement that actual owner the property is not listed on the public website the taxi accessory has the information it's not part of the online posting if you look at the condo it will show up whether that's

an address but not name associated. >> okay. so colleagues any additional discussion on the amendments? so supervisor cowen back as a number great. so we have the 3 amendments i've described and sure - so the 3 amendments are the first one is a requirement that landlord 0 notification of the notice be sent to alert the landlord the tenant as registered for short term rental and the increasing the liability insurance and third is to add homeowners successors to the definition of interested parties. those are the 3 amendments they've all been seconded. so any questions or

comments colleagues. nicole can we take those amendments without objection oh, yeah. question by commissioner rosales. good evening this is a clarifying question for second amendment you've listed increasing the liability shiners >> current the election requires that anyone who say, oh short term rentals has to have gentle you commercial insurance of lease $150,000 it increases it to 5 hundred thousand for hosting and some condominium conversion we heard there are currently not existing a host that could purchase but several condemners they've been able to obtain insurance for the

activities so there's may currently be insurance that needs to be listed. >> deputy director i'd recommending you'll going to be approving that we make the language more general your amendments would make that general liability i think we could say insurance in the amount hundred and get feedback from i know maybe the city risks manager's office will clarify the language or better to keep it general. >> i wag that so let me rephrase the amendments it would be maintained insurance or maintains liability insurance in the aggregate of not less than

$500,000. >> so i recall the gentleman that was speaking from an insurance prospective and i also recall from the testimony earlier in the day a lot of people saying sharing has allowed them to maintain their home i understand of increasing the liability to protecting ones asset but increasing the liability is a barrier of entry that would prevent people on the edge that are struggling to hold on to go ahead and reach this threshold to carry. >> and i agree that we don't want to create artificial barriers there is a balance of concern that i think especially by landlords that's unclear

whether their insurance will cover it so and that's why i'd like to get more information over the next week to see what the likely premium dlaept will be between one hundred $50,000 or the 5 hundred thousand we're going to have to continue it guarantee again next week anyway it will be good to get more information there's no mask only $150,000 seems low especially, since some of those units or rooms maybe render out quite frequently. >> actually, the fees maybe someone has renters insurance at

$500,000 but what if that doesn't cover short-term remedies do we want to make it clear whatever insurance whatever it will clearly sure short time rentals up to 5 hundred thousand. >> we'll cover the uses in the ordinance that should be clear i think that the points were made earlier a homeowner will be covered let's keep our retirement more jeopardy to give people the forget e flexibility to cover the uses at the numbers that the board said maybe some people it will be commercial liability insurance. >> i'm not sure this committee

is ready to pass this language but if we do let's include that language. >> so the language would be maintains liability insurance co-sponsoring those uses. >> let me think john gibner, deputy city attorney suggests that we craft the exact wording tomorrow it's late but understanding your goals here. >> so the goal being the increase to 5 hundred thousand and liability insurance in general but not necessarily commercial liability insurance and insurance covers the short term the act short-term rentals so that will be an oral amendment. >> i know we have 3 amendments it seems like there are two we can pass right now route objection the third i'm not sure

we want to pass that but we can pass it and amend it again. >> let me ask a question to mr. gibn gibner i don't know what's going to happen maybe more amendments or not amendments the insurance amendment is a substantive. >> make that amendment technique to pass it out of committee. why not hold off open the insurance company and do due diligence over the next week and craft something with whatever the right amount is. okay. >> mr. gibner i understand the platinum is susan substantive

but the other changes around the liability insurance that is also non-substantive. >> the other languages is get to accurately describe what i think is there in the legislation. >> okay. >> okay. so then with the permission felt seconder i'll withdraw the insurance amendment so the two amendments are the landlords notification and adding hoa to the definition of interested parties supervisor cohen. >> actually we've taken care of my concerns i ask we pull out the general liability and pass the first and third rirs the landlords notice and addressing interested parties that definition. >> okay great so over the next week we'll look at the insurance

and also at the key issue how to handle that so the two merriments are the landlords notification and the definition of interested parties can we take those amendments without objection? okay. then mraikd so supervisor kim >> so just a couple of comments in terms of what i want to accomplish one i'm still stuck on the 90 day i want a legislation we what enforce during that time the interested parties can come up with the days i'm open but the time period will be able to address that question. the question of the fee i completely understand what the planning department is coming from without england what

the final legislation city manager we allow an unlimited number of days to host rentals i think the fee should be a lot higher the we're asking the planning department to do a ton of work where they look at the number of nights if we are asking them to evaluate evidence and send investigators he used to do this as the school district and 50 and $75 is not going to cut it. so if i know we're going to go allow the hosted days the fee should be higher portland is one hundred and 80 days per year. but anyway, i think we're clearly

kicking that ball down the road and look forward to a continued discussion we need another answers before we pass the dbi issue it's not nell on the agenda for october 2nd but if their discussing the two departments and how they enforce on a variety of issues they can clearly discuss the issue at october 2nd so at minimum we need to continue this item until the monday after that hearing that's what i suggest there's a nuke of open questions i'm not sure we can answer the insurance question i'm not sure we're going to get the draft of the legislation the budget and the source of funding i understand that planning can't come up with a complete budget but where the

dollars are going to come from and finally i am interesting in flushing the concept out of the politely or sunset i do think there's sequa issues if it's not a pilot but if there's certainty for our counter host i get kind of passing this legislation sooner or later but i'd be opposing open to the checking point so we really understand the full ramification of the protective my suggestion is a 3 week extension i appreciate the work clearly leave work happened to have the legislation before us i think several months ago i didn't have a policy framework

how to address this framework i'm healing happy to see this a lot of things have been answered but there's clearly lose ends and if it's the will which the committee we're going to have many more hearings so we'll have to hear this multiple times i serve at the will of the city and the residents of san francisco so i'm happy to hear this steno times and do ten times of 6 hours of public comment but that's exactly what this committee will be doing. >> consulting. >> so i wanted to repeat for supervisor cohen sake some of the discussion on the issue of the continuance there's suggestion on september 2nd

they're going to be talking about short time rentals i discussed with the dbi director the october 2nd hearing was set months ago for the two departments to talk about gentle enforcement issues as well as the common software platform not intended to be a discussion around short time rentals but my discussion with the director he's willing to come to the committee to talk about those issues with planning staff so that's why i suggested we come back technique we needed to grapple and understand what the departments think about this before we make amendments and move this out of committee it will take us two more competent hearings here before this moves to the full board once we