happen we see cases that spend an numerous time in court they don't get quickly thrown out very often it doesn't happen it's not how the federal or state particularly in the state system is set up that's my concern if this is this were narrowly drawn against the actual egregious actors isle i'll be for it but the way it's read it is dramatically broader than that and sweep in small homeland security were not expecting to get suited and pay the other side feeds. >> the current legislation already allows for f this after you've exhausted your remedies

by the way, this is not going to happen this amendment will not architectural gate that further but provide the opportunity for a narrow group of both targeted xochlt and also nonprofit organizations and i know that the amendment to make sure it the nonprofit in existence for six years helped to secure the universe of actors that will be able to take advantage of this amendment and i think we know who a lot of those actors are and we have seen very responsible litigation that goes against our worse actors and finally, i would say that you know, i really struggled a lot with this legislation not because i didn't want to legalize short-term rentals but everyone agrees that legalizing short-term rentals is the right

direction for the city and if i don't i think as supervisor wiener said the jean i didn't say out of the bottle we have to regulate this my concern is also been about b be the cities enforcement of the legislation to make sure we're supporting the positive activity out of short-term rentals really creating a strong hand over the bad actors that existed this type of short-term rentals that is taking unit off the mark is not new even prior to airbnb coming into existence and in fact, i remember when we were having the debate around washington at golden gateway one of the actors that were permanently taking unit outing off-line and representing for vacation it's been completely

illegal for us to use short-term rentals in our rental housing stock we have not been able to enforce against this illegal activity i really building that this narrow amendment is going to help to make sure that we have going after the worst of actors i don't see a somewhere under which kind of the more strom works with going to be occurring if it passes along with the reflection. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much as we continue to have the discussions there is certainly one entity that is missing the treasurers office we put in a couple of calls he's not been able to join us so supervisor campos i want to strike a couple of questions in our eloquent and

lou kwshz remarks you spoke about the back taxed money on the table why leave it there and not solve the problems how do you know that there are back taxes due particularly i ask that i'm under the advisement that the legally the city tax collector is not able to confirm or deny which entity has does owe back taxes. >> maybe you can speak to that. >> thank you thank you supervisor cohen and what i would say is that a couple of things first there is

a dispute among the parties as to whether or not a specific amount t is owed but as a city with have to speak with one voice any comments about the back taxes owed are based on what the city treasurer said specifically - >> i'm sorry tax collector said is or. >> it this a tax collector remark 20 two years ago. >> he indicated back taxes would be owed in this situation and so i believe that without prejudging the merits in terms of what is owed or not owed we've done in consultation with the city attorney to simply is that this legislation will be effective upon a certification

by the tax collector that the host approach or platforms have paid the back taxed without any violation of privacy to who those individuals are we understand clearly there are privacy concerns pledged it is simply a certification by the tax collector pursuant to the regulation they've issued i believe we should take down didn't that regulation the payment has been made and my point supervisor is that we have an opportunity right now essential to resolve this issue to provide the various parties an opportunity to put this issue of back taxes behind us, if you will, whether through litigation

or something else that will sure every incentive for that litigation to be soefld in if the litigation of the companies decide not to a pay; right? and i think that consistent about the idea that everyone should pay their fair share we're simply saying we as a city have previously said to companies that come to the body requesting a benefit that i have to follow the rules in place if you want this benefit we also want to confer to you it is fair you do what every business 40 in san francisco does pay the taxes you owe the city. >> colleagues are there any further discussion supervisor avalos. >> just wanted to go into the the amendment i offered for a

long time it's been the process for people who have space in their houses they want to provide for people to stay in they would have restrooms or with the technology we have that around provides or b rb o i think that's their name that there is another possess process that brings in short-term rentals and people staying for short periods of time but over the course of a year occupying precious space for a long term tenant i'm proposing a cap of 90 days so it person can have an option to have a short-term rental that adds up to 90 days or a permanent tenant and rules in place for people that want to go

into the hotel business or the bed-and-breakfast business to apply for a cu to have people stay longer than than the short-term rentals that have past 90 days the option is still vail with a 90 day cap we have the planning department ann marie rogers who is here to talk about how we currently apply the cu for folks who want to have a bed-and-breakfast type of business in their home how often we actually approve and what are the rare instances we don't sea the types of conditions where the planning department didn't approve the cued. >> thank you skoopz planning department currently before the

residential district other than the rh1 d you can seek the authorizations to become a hotel this is subject to the requirement the dwelling the process can take time but the quickest the is probably about 4 months with the anytime fee for a conditional use authorization is less than $2,000 despite the complaints we've received for short-term rentals informing people the process most people don't choose to pursue that that i abate the violation we had one that was approved at the planning commission. >> it was. >> it was correct. >> thank you so for the purpose of my amendment is really to show

we're incentive vision zero is that a for long term tenant we're facing a shortage in affordable housing so maximize that and for short time stays we're pretending folks that actually have a great deal at stablg whether schools over and over jobs they'll not have the availability of housing to help them stay here i people's it. >> any comments from the colleagues on any of the amendment. >> president chiu i was speckling to the city attorney there's one additional technical amendment to clarify in the civil actions in the subsections and ask the city attorney to clarify that on the record address move that amendment and

take a moment to thank mri run burn through working with the department through this point close to one hundred amendment thank you for your tireless work. >> deputy city attorney merlin burns through the chair the additional change to section 41 a .5 subsection d and a number of small tweaks were made to the section to clarify that the hosting approach is liable for violations of the noticing requirement under this chapter any violations of the tank code is enforced in the tax regulation code not under this chapter that is an additional clarification in the entitled civil action to the second sensitivities that begins with

in addition that language changed to emission to a business owner or entity in violation or a hosting approach in violation that may be subject to penalties subsection g-4 a the noticing provision that the platform to provide notice of the cities regulation regarding short-term rentals there's been a motion is there a motion? >> supervisor chiu. >> okay seconded by supervisor breed thank you and do we need a roll call vote over and over we'll take that without objection. and supervisor farrell. >> clarification another technical amendment you want to okay sorry didn't hear the preamble. >> on that amendment that was just spelled ousted we'll take

that without objection. that amendment s is adopted. >> supervisor avalos i have a process question i last year, i worked open legislation that had a number of amendments made on the floor here at the board of supervisors and it actually waited a week before it had it's final vote because of the amendment made and i i think we're in the same situation a lot of the amendments are being made on the floor i'm wording what's the difference between i'm hearing that is prevention that's vote on in the past if the amendments pass the first reading is today for this ordinance so i wanted to have clarification about the differences between what happened last year especially, when the amendment considered were ones that were talked about for you know months

although they hadn't been drafted but the discussion through the process and this process today. >> thank you supervisor avalos we were aware there were going to be several amendment today so some would require another reading and a at land use or planning commission we're going to seek the advise of the city attorney to get that with that, said mr. gibner. >> sure john gibner, deputy city attorney to our question supervisor avalos i do recall the due process for all ordinances and that process i can't remember steak which amendments need a continuance but we've drafted with the state law we wanted to feel comfortable with before the board adapted it on first

responder generally, if an ordinance if the board all the times open ordinance we call substantive outside of the general issues that were noticed at the committee he meeting we'll recommend that the board send the item back to committee but from my understanding there were 14 amendments that are floating out here right now not including the two technical amendment we've will suggested earlier many of those meantime can be adapted and the board can pass it on first responder some of the amendments need a further meeting in committee and some a further committee hearing at the planning commission that doesn't have the opportunity to consider the items supervisor tang said we can republic through the

ordinances and see which ones that will require a continuance. >> i see a real difference in how this ordinance is being considered this is an i've experienced than working through the due process but i somehow will reconcile that with myself. >> i'm happy to talk with you afterwards i can in terms of the 13 amendments that the preponderance of the evidence and i understand conceding may make the amendment she's calibrated although you've not made the motion yet but makes up for me or mri in a to round through those now so the first is and we can talk about supervisor breed's

amendment to come on that list the first is supervisor breed's amendment requiring the planning department to require a respondents with the department finds in violation after receiving a complaint they have to respond to the complainant that didn't require further hearing you can make that amendment today and number 2 councilmember taylor's to add the owner didn't require a continuance and supervisor farrell also proposed an amendment that would clarify that as an interested party hoa is defined as a neighborhood hoa as well as a building hoa i believe that amendment has been adapted in the amendments that we proposed supervisor yee proposed a

creating a special rule for rh1 d where those units in those zoning district is subject to 90 day limits open hovered and hosted rentals only the hosted rentals could take up no more than 50 percent you can adapt it today supervisor wiener the timing of foes and the regarding the rh1 d districts also you can adapt those today without continuance and supervisor mar proposed an amendment that would exclude city subsidized housing we can continue that discussion in competent that amendment will require a committee hearing and referral to planning supervisor mar also proposed an

amendment to exclude in-law units that amendment will require another committee hearing but not require a hearing to the committee and supervisor kim proposed the private right of actions that's requiring a revel refrl to planning and commissioner dooley's proposed a 90 day cap on all short-term rentals that could be made today director ramos proposed making the ordinance operative only by the treasurer that all hosting platforms are current on their occupancy taxes that will require a referral and a continuance at the board for an additional hamburger and supervisor campos talked about the ellis act evictions in the past 5 years from short-term

rentals that will require a further hearing but not another planning commission hearing because the planning commission considered that proposal and finally, i understand supervisor breed as you mentioned at the grinning of the meeting you're considering proposing an amendment that will allow a private right of action without waiting for the administrative native action to cloud when the unit in question have had ellis act viethsz within the last 5 years that amendment will require another mags hearing and a continuance so happy to flag those as you go through those voting on months ago but that's itself aufrs thank you city attorney's office supervisor breed. >> i'm good. >> supervisor campos just a

quick question in terms of how the issue of continuance going back to committee or planning relates to a file that's biff indicated are duplicate thank you. >> any simple or single of the board can dip a file if i haven't. >> through the chair supervisor kim's state she want to say duplicate the file. >> you would have two versions what i suggest is that you first class make all the amendments that require referrals to planning in one versions so that package goes back to planning whatever you adapt and another version that has the second version that has the amendments that don't require a referral

back or require another committee hearing but frankly that's your call what you want this ordinance to look like in the end but come out with two ordinances one you pass today and one back to the land use committee additional they'll refer to planning. >> supervisor breed. >> for clarity i want to did you want the number one substantive amendments into glow the process. >> is there discussion or objection to that supervisor chiu. >> no objections i have a question on a different topic. >> so supervisor mar and i were talking about his amendments modest be sun active and require another hearing it was the intent that the amendments that supervisor kim and i made we incorporate all induced housing so part of my questions to

supervisor mar with the changes i'm not sure there are additional categories we're not capturing i want to be true to the spirit to make sure we're capturing all the induced housing we thought we would do it in committee but the city attorney and the planning department are we missing anything or whether the language needs to be twoekd and if there's a way to do it that we intended. >> deputy city attorney through the chair that it so the currently pending amendments in front of this board include that a residential unit that is subject to the inclusionary affordable housing under planning section 415 the blow market rate that we require and that mayor's office of housing enforces on can't be short-term rentals it also include any

rental hotel units are subject to the provision of 41 so the single room occupancy at the can't do short-term rentals and if not otherwise designatedful below market rate under the city or state law anything it the income restricted under the city, state, or federal law is in the amendment that are pending before this board not allowed to be a short-term rental and in addition another restrictions in federal or state or local law or regulation that prohibits someone under sub leasing they can't be a should've so the intent those are the amendments that are part of the legislation intent of that in drafting to capture units that is income

restricted aid prevented from law whether or not we're calling it out specific from being a sub leased unit the idea under your current affordable housing program for example, our inclusionary housing program those units are not allowed to be sub ladies unless you get permission from the mayor's office of housing you have to file an application the idea if you're getting this benefit you shouldn't be able to profit from the unit and if they allow the subletting the mayor's office of housing riekdz the people that quality as income riefbt for the income qualification so many of those restrictions exist the proposed amendment that supervisor mar has put forward is boarder than what i described i described right now links it to units that are restricted by

law or have some other legal restricts that prohibits subletting or sub leasing language that we've seen today states it's housing that has been quote acquired or rehabilitated from the city that restricts occupancy to middle-income is not an item of art we've defined in our municipal code so we recommend delegating that i think the intent so restricted based on what i've already described in the code to be redundant, however, under legal construction principles you don't want to have something that has not legal effect we read this as capturing something that is broad than what i've

described. >> through the chair thank you, president chiu for raising this i guess in my conversations with the planning staff it's unclear whether or not prop c as like 1950 mission is built is that under the inclusion. >> i'm not familiar with the 1950 mission project but fits its part of the mayor's office of housing they would not be allowed to sub lease. >> he the other small site acquisition program i i know that the city and the mayor's office of housing is utilized to make sure we have enough affordable unit throughout the city is that type of program covered as a residential unit. >> i'll recommend if those are

the types of specific uses instead of concluding the language we call out those specific types as you've described them as opposed to this general language. >> that's any intent and hopefully with the support of the board and if that's accepted by the author of the main ordinance i'll withdrew my amendment but i would ask the president in my conversations with the planning staff we can insure we're going to include those types of unit we've discussed. >> so colleagues just to clarify supervisor mar your wrooug your amendment. >> through the president is that your intent to be as boarded as we can about excluding the bmr's and the sro's and the city induced unit.

>> that's my intent i seemed mount prop c and small fund income restricted and involve the lo low income rate that leaves the question around in-laws and that is one we should vote on. >> i withdrew the part of the amendment that refers to city substituted housing but lease in the part of new mexico's. >> and colleagues any other questions or discussed on any of the amendments last call for amendments no other amendments so as our city attorney mentioned we have a disappointed file unless there's objection the way i think we precede we'll adopt each separate amendment that