then states if it's a nonprofit housing interested party that has also been in existence for 5 years from the operative date of the legislation they can susan sue an owner or enlist entity with a rent control building with 3 or more units with in 45 days of filing the complaint i read this to indicate regardless of whether or not the planning department has decided to move forward with an physique active they have to file a notice to the city attorney's office but they could do that this mroeptd amendment changes the penalties provision it will indicate that only the city attorney the city rather could receive the civil up to the present time for one thousand tailors and day for violation and other interested

party can get damaged the housing in time appears just make sure i'm reading this correct correctly. >> actually, i think i'm characterizing it correctly. >> through the chair. >> actually, i'm let the city attorney reopened and let me make sure i'm characterizing the damages correctly

just to clarify further the holy ghost nonprofit is limited to injunctive relief and any party including a housing nonprofit or the city can get attorney's fees. >> so right now in terms of what housing nonprofits can sue for what are the i know the residential hotel ordinance for example, has that right of action by housing the nonprofits what are some of other works. >> in the part the municipal code those are the two i know but john gibner, deputy city attorney may know more. >> around housing issues i know this housing ordinance is one are there others. >> we believe there are the two. >> so the residential hotel and this one.

>> the exist code allows for the nonprofits to obtain monetary damages. >> yes. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney there's a pending ordinance as well that i think in the budget and finance committee tomorrow the bio legislation that is similarly lowering the housing nonprofits. >> but in terms of the universe of where the housing nonprofits can sue to what extent does it go beyond the residential hotel. >> it's just the residents hotel that is the chapter four 1 we existing 41 a also. >> okay. and okay and so right now this and typically under the current law when a housing nonprofit has a private right of action to

enforce the administration active code whether in the residential hotel code there's a city administration active process first. >> actually in chapter four 1 it doesn't require the city producing process but in that chapter the relieve is limited to the city attorney's feeds. >> when is what we're talking about. >> supervisor kim is proposing what the same penalties as limited for the nonprofit to injunctive relief and attorney's fees. >> and so help to clarify for me in terms of the exist law you're saying it is already in there then why is this amendment necessary for what's in there vs. what's been proposed. >> the difference in the current code a nonprofit would

have to wait to go through the entire city process before it finally - and so you right now for housing nonprofit to be able to file a private school private right of action through the city process. >> and the director has to determine a violation. >> so what commissioner adams is proechtd in the amendment is a new thing in terms of saying that a city housing nonprofit did not have to go through the process only file a complaint and 45 days later go to court. >> it meets the definitions of also having been in existence for 5 years. >> that's a new mechanism. >> yes. >> okay. so this would also cover every rent controlled unit in san francisco and a this with 3 units or larger.

>> i'm sorry, i apologize. >> this will apply to every housing unit in san francisco that is subject to rent control and that's in a building of 3 unit or more. >> a that's how i read it. >> i don't know off the top of my head that is a huge housing stock in san francisco other question would be so there are a lot of owner occupied unit that are subject to rent control say a 3 unit building that's not been condo converted i don't know if those would be under the language here if those are covered as well or if 3 in a building where the lymph gland lives in would unit and it is including. >> i read it as the rent control seemed to be madam clerk, the world building so it

does appear a portion of the building is rent controlled. >> this will allow the nonprofit to file a violation of any of the short term ordinance new. >> a violation by a owner or business entity. >> and the nonprofit will get injunctive relief and seek their attorney's fees so for example, if the owner is an individual who is engaging in short-term rentals and has a nonprofit to sue them and if they prevail they get their attorney's fees that's any violation of the ordinance large or small even a minor violation. >> correct. >> from a minor violation from an individual that owns a unit

and is small building and engaging in short-term rentals can be sued has to pay attorney's fees for a minor violation and subject to the order of the court. >> of course if they paragraph if the housing nonprofits sues you as an owner you retain a order it's a baseless lawsuit do they have to pay our attorney's fees. >> that's not provided for in the amendment. >> that's a one paw way situation this men and women strikes me as pretty extreme it creates a new mechanism and basically a housing nonprofit could file and make complaint against a huge number 6 building and would not have to wait for

any kind of city process to give the city the first crack whether to determine a violation and simply has to wait 45 days he ever we staff up the planning department 45 days is a short time and go into court and basically fund users and your attorneys by getting the orders of attorney's fees if there's violations against the small business owners if you're over filing or doing dry by lawsuits and win only a small percentage you don't have consequences for having to pay the attorney's fees in the ones you louses losses this is an esteem amendment and not one i'll be supporting and then finally through the chair to supervisor avalos so

i'm clear this amendment that supervisor avalos is proposing would provide if someone it'll in their single-family home for 3 hundred and 65 nights a year you never leave you can't do shrlz of your spare bedroom for more than 90 days am i reading that correctly. >> thashlg. >> i won't be supporting that this amendment will hurt a lot of people in the city that are truly relying on short-term rentals awhile their living in their unit to make end meet i don't think this is a good move thank you. >> thank you supervisor campos. >> thank you very much i do want to speak in favor of the amendment offered by supervisor kim you you know supervisor wiener uses the word extreme that extreme is in the eyes of

beholder one of the things supervisor kim rightly noted an flying question with regard to the scheme is the issue of enforcement i've yet to hear my stubble financial resources to our planning department which as it is t is struggling to deal with the various projects that are before it i think that our staff is doing as much but what are the resources they properly enforce this law in the absence of resources one thing we should do is make sure the third party's venting to point out a violation or at least bring that forward what's extreme in my view is that we are creating a new regulatory scheme without actually providing the resources or the legal tools to insure

there is proper enforcement if extreme is the word i think that qualifies and extreme let's talk about back taxes and let's be very clear about what's happening here ask any small business in san francisco whether or not the city would allow them to operate n and open their doors before paying a licensing fee before paying a permitting fee now extrapolate that to what's happening today, we have a finding by the 0 treasurer of the city and county of san francisco that million dollars dollars $25 million about is owed to the taxpayers of san francisco and yet as we are deciding whether to provide an additional

benefit to this corporation let me say i believe we need to legalize home sharing that it has a rule to play in san francisco but it would be wrong in my view for us to create a separate set of rules for one group of people and a separate set for another we were here not too long ago when we saw the developers on a major transportation project that were trying to get out of their obligations under that project beyond how we can say that they should meet their obligations with respect to that issue and say we're not going to delve into the money that is owed leave that up to the treasurer we crafted the language that's before you

with the advice of the city attorney 3 has made it clear that this body as ever right to make an enforcement of this law contingent upon the payment of back tax someone said i think it was leon hellly didn't have to pay takes on the little people pay tackles in san francisco it shouldn't be the small businesses that pay the tackles etch that benefits from being a part of the city that paid their fair share pay your fair share that's all we're asking and if we vote today without requiring that of a corporation that is worth temple billion dollars i think we're not only making a mistake about the policy we're making a mistake in

terms of the message we're extending to the rest of san francisco we've been talking about the enar equality in this city we're the weight irrelevant city in the world and on the other hand, have the fastest growing inequity e equality that didn't have to do with our system of rules and laws that inequality is simply as difficult economic equality but to go beyond the inequality and is the rules that we have good not apply to certain people that's not what we should do in san francisco it goes against everything we believe if this board passes this without requiring the back tax to be paid we'll go down in

history with one of the worts decision home sharing a good but we've predicted a new set of rules on a foundation of inequality that simply can't work rules are supposed to apply to everyone whether or not their politically connected or not applying to everyone that's the san francisco way (clapping.) >> all right. supervisor yee. >> thank you i want to just say for i need to support the item the amendment i proposed to basically is a that rh1 d should be a set of housing that we should look at

through a particular lens i'm sure you're aware of the rh1 ds we my district has a lot of them and probably we have the bulk of san francisco's rh1 ds but the issue here there's been discussions whether we support or not support my amendment not in this chamber but that is only for particular things as if this hadn't happened before in san francisco it happens all the time because people like my colleagues in this room would say this is important to my district and it doesn't impact the rest of you, please support it we've done this several times since i've been here before in-law units loud to be built or

whether it's about issues of formula retail stories or where it's about development feeds in particular areas so i just want people to think when you make a decision the argument that this is a car bomb i suggesting this is not the negative argument because it has been used over and over again in this champ. >> thank you, supervisor kim. >> i had question open other contemplates e amendments i'm going to be speaking about my amendment it's reasonable and it is saving water down to target in the actual situation we're trying to enforce against our office has spent days negotiating with the mayor's office to get to an all the time to get this target the e greshdz

bad actors in san francisco landlord that are taking unit off-line it's more lucrative to - i know with have the department of building inspection restraining order rose mar their department has the enforcement of chapter four 1 that is a hotel conversion ordinance i have questions for her i'm currents in terms of the amendment we've old do you find this is helpful with enforcement from our experience? >> supervisor kim and supervisors provisions that is in chapter four 1 that deals with residential hotels has no pro condition to filing on action except for noticing the city

attorney's office you don't have to wait 45 days i have to tell you that provision has been in the ordinance for the last over 25 years it was put in after the ordinance was initially adapted and been effective in helping this city enforce that ordinance because it allows the individual that have the expertise in given that the consequences in violating the ordinance be able to make their argument in court depending on the action from a regulatory standpoint from that standpoint it has definitely helped us in ways we've not expected one of those to be able to enforce something like that it is similar to chartered 41 a recordkeeping is an important exponent so one of the things we've found over the years and

experienced with the possibility of residential guest rooms being converted when people got suited by a nonprofit for not compiling with the remaining those residential guests rooms they did a better time historically of keeping adequate records for our monitoring so that's one example there are many others. >> thank you it's my understanding that after the hotel conversion ordinance passed in 1990 one of our nonprofit organization was able to get preliminary injunctions after 25 hotel and after that the aviated majority were able to cure their violation and the city sued 5 right of owners helping to save the city hours

and hours. >> that's correct those action helped to encourage those are individual to change their business plan. >> thank you, ms. boss my question for the city attorney i know that supervisor wiener had brailth brought up concerns of frivolous litigation before i ask my question i have to say that the federal judicialy has been clear frivolous litigates is not a probable invading and in fact, a survey of 2 hundred and 70 court judges they believe that frivolous lawsuits were a small problem and 15 percent on top of that said they're no problem and 85 percent of the judges said that affirmative list litigation is a small problem having talked to a lot of folks open the side they're

worried enforcement with the short-term rental legislation this amendment will not be helpful to them they don't have the resources to take open lawsuits and that they wouldn't it can take it open without a can say they don't have the resources they'll lose in court and clearly not been able to recruit those costs, in fact, the only individual that talk about the rob pro of frivolous litigation has been the bush mifrths everywhere administration the unconscious brothers and the heritage fountains that being said our office worked to carefully more narrowly there will this amendment which we didn't want that to be the infraction frame of the amendment so we took out moderny damaged or any civil penalties from being that

nonprofits could seek they could only seek the injunction and in my experience this is now my questions it's any experience that courts and judges don't typically afford the costs of the attorneys and they use their discretion when a court order to pay back the fees. >> deputy city attorney marilyn burn i'm not a lit gator but, of course, it's also in the courts discretion as to what penalties or damages it's part of the trial process to determine what the appropriate remedy is. >> maybe to get someone to address that my understanding that would be extreme for a judge to order payment of attorney's fees when the violation is so minor but that i

have to address if the violation is truly that minor the person that is the target of the litigation has time to cure it so let's say the violation they didn't register with the city if that person then registers with the city their supposed to anyway, the violations is curd and the court will not hear a that very lawsuit; is that correct. >> you know deputy city attorney marilyn burns through the chair i think it depends on the fact given in the case but that's part of the decision making that the court going through whether or not the violation is part of the calculation of any determinations by the judge. >> i've never, ever heard of a case where our over-burdened court will here a mute case

because the violator you curd their violation. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney i agree with ms. burn that's hard to predict what's going to happen the cases are going to turn on the fact the court will have reasonable attorney's fees if the nonprofit prevailed so there's a number of factors that is reasonable as you know, from seeing the settlements before the board there's a low moderny dangle award and attorney's fees are high in terms of the injunction relieve under the the amendment you've proposed the party that's going to be sued would have 45 days to cure before a lawsuit is filed once it's filed if there's a claim for injunctive relief

and the folks change their practices it's possible under a type of litigation that the plaintiff the nonprofit in this case would be considered a prevailing party because the lawsuit forced the change and then petition the court for attorney's fees he again hard to exactly predict. >> i think historically is that courts don't give fees for a minor violation i want to make sure that folks said the amendment that i have been offering and why it is so limited in scope and also more limited than what has think effective competed right of action that would be already in chapter four 4 in our hotel conversion which dbi and the city has said it effective and make sure that people are

following the laws and saved did city tons of hours and dollars making sure we're endorsing our litigation even from that, we have made the change that this nonprofit entity could not win any civil perpetrates or any damages because they didn't incur damages this will sure any financial incentives incentives from nonprofits to file frivolous litigation the amendment given to us assuring with the nonprofit has been in place for 5 years prevent the concept that maybe a new nonprofit would inform and establish specific for literally migrants the short-term rentals

violations we did narrow it as quickly as possible and maid mayor it of the limited to property owners of 3 unit or more in building we're going to see when this legislation is actually passed and in place is the structure the outcomes are going to be fairly fairly limited we'll be going after our really e greshdz bad actors i know that the eviction has revealed it's top offender that landlord are doing average and short-term rentals and restricting one of the top issues in our city that is our housing supply so i think this very small and reasonable amendment is going to make sure we're going to be able to enforce against the e entrenches offender and in supervisor

chiu's legislation will make sure that legislation is enforced overall. >> thank you, supervisor wiener. >> thank you madam chair and thank you to ms. boss can he and supervisor kim for your comments i guess and i agree if this amendment were actually limited to situations where a landlord was evicting buildings go and airbnb being them and the esteem situations we see that's one thing the way i read this amendment and granted i received this amendment after i sat down in the board chachlgdz it goes well, well beyond that and includes owner accompanied building that have not any evictions this is not