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 does not require a committee back to committee reference or a reference to planning commission and that will be one file and the second file will be you'll have those amendments that require a referral back to committee around planning commission supervisor chiu first then supervisor kim and i want to

suggest i am wondering if we can before duplicating making the substituted amendment would be with we can agree on and duplicate the file and at this point are supervisor breed's and supervisor kim i believe those are the two colleagues that have amendments that trail and need to go back to committee. >> any outlooks. >> that was my intention to duplicate the file after the non sufficiently susan substantive files. >> we'll be making the non-substantive amendments first with that, the first one is the amendment promoted by supervisor breed that was regarding the response required for no violations so again, this is a technical amendment that was made do we need a roll call no we'll take that without objection. the amendment is

adapted the second one is an amendment proposed by supervir farrell regarding a private right of action for business owners and the second portion has on adapted do we need a roll call workman's compensation this is adapted the next one is supervisor yee's amendment limiting placing additional limits on short-term rentals and rh1 d areas and do we need a roll call. >> roll call please. mr. clerk. >> supervisor campos commissioner chiu. >> no supervisor cowen 90 no supervisor farrell no supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor tang no supervisor wiener no supervisor yee supervisor avalos supervisor breed no there are 5 i's and 6 months. >> the amendment fails

the next amendment. >>was proposed by supervisor wiener this one is a technical one that has to do with the timing for feeds do we need a roll call on this one >> madam clerk since the last one had a different vote do we need to redo this. >> supervisor campos supervisor chiu supervisor cohen supervisor farrell supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor tang supervisor wiener supervisor yee supervisor avalos supervisor breed pr there are 11 i's great that motion is adapted this men and women second one from supervisor wiener has to do with the automatic notifications to the cc&rs and hookz and in rh1 district and zones having is there a need for roll call

workman's compensation this amendment has been adapted arrest next amendment was proposed by sorry the next one that doesn't require a referral back to committee supervisor john avalos'ss 90 day cap on short-term rentals do we need a roll call vote. >> madam clerk. >> supervisor campos supervisor chiu no supervisor cohen no supervisor farrell no supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor tang no supervisor wiener no supervisor yee supervisor avalos supervisor breed no there are 5 i's and 6 months this amendment fails okay did next amendment i believe if i'm correct those are

all the amendments we could adapt that did not require a referral back to committee with that, islam i'd like to move into the dipped files and take those that go to planning commission and deputy city attorney. >> one suggestion say you could take those all in one file duplicate file e.r. did you want again, because they're two categories that requires one referral to committee and one to committee and the boards, of course, i'm throwing that out there. >> supervisor wiener. >> just to avoid confusion supervisor kim disappointed it so early on the disappointed files were adapted in both version i want to make sure we don't have a version floating around with no amendments so i

suggest we may be eliminate the duplicate the version. >> all right. is. >> through the chair to 0 supervisor wiener the item that was amended was duplicate you have two items that are non-substantive. >> right now both the original and duplicate version have all the adapted amendments incorporated my apologies for the confusion. >> 90 so, now we're taking substantive amendment in another duplicate file supervisor chiu a question. >> i want to clarify so to our point we're taking one of the duplicate files and making potential changes to trail or trail back to committee or back to planning and back to committee. >> that's correct. >> so, now we're going to take further amendments so let's see here i believe the first one

that was requiring a committee hearing only was supervisor mar's amendment regarding in-law units do we need a roll call. >> madam clerk. >> is this i'm sorry this is supervisor mar on in-law unit. >> supervisor campos supervisor chiu no supervisor cowen no supervisor farrell no supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor tang no supervisor wiener no supervisor yee supervisor avalos not to exceed no there are 5 i's and 60 notice that amendment fails the next one is supervisor kim's the proliferate right of action do we need a roll call for this

supervisor campos supervisor chiu supervisor cohen supervisor farrell no supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor tang no supervisor wiener no supervisor yee supervisor avalos supervisor breed there are 8 i's and 430 notice this amendment is adapted the mexico one has to do with supervisor campos with the transit occupies this need to be received back to planning roll call. >> supervisor campos supervisor chiu no supervisor cohen no supervisor farrell no supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor tang no supervisor wiener no