potential nonprofit housing rights group to basically sue if the if it's found in the a building h that has had an ellis act eviction in the past 5 years rather than wait until there's a determination whether or not a violation has took place as it relates to airbnb this will give you an entity an opportunity if the city not to take action the ability to take action this will not be voted on today in terms of a apart of the current legislation but i'm introducing it so it can go through the perspective process and be discussed and added to the legislation in the future i wanted to make sure that i brought it to the attention of the 0 commission with that, i'll

yield. >> supervisor farrell. >> should we vote on supervisor breed's amendments by the way, because i have a comment oh, at the end with that, first of all, i want to thank president chiu for his hard work on this issue everyone recognizes that as a no win situation there are groups involved here across the board that rarely agree and it's been an will fascinating experience thank you, everyone for being so involved i certainly want to thank our da merlin and john gibner, deputy city attorney for their hard work i'll say general buildingly so to speak our airbnb has revolutionized things

across the city i don't think that generally in the early stages government should not get in the way of consumer demand whether uber or airbnb but there reaches a point the government rethsdz those industries and those behaviors we have reached that point with airbnb in san francisco i know other cases throughout the country i very much agree it was part of the legislation i see stationss t is core and central that's a no brainer and insurance for anyone that could be affected by behavior in my units this legislation does not peers the vail of the existing leases or the agreements already in place

a huge thing from my constituents i have a lot of people that are home sharers and not around the enforcement so if there's an issue or complaint if someone is looking at this we don't leave to the nuisance laws and quite frankly people don't have their faith so permitting this behavior our planning department is on board i know they're to work on this is incredibly important and supervisor wiener thanksgiving thanks to him going forward with a mechanism that will go along with that i like like supervisor breed have two minor amendments right now i know there's a lot of discussion around private right of action in the current form of the lvenlths there's a limited scope to some of the

ideas i've heard flooded around with that a interested party on page 12 i'd like to include in that definition a building owner and also to clarify that the homeowners the definition the homeowner association of the building in which a tourist of trinity use to our it applies to not only the unit by a neighborhood hoa that has jurisdiction or participation with that unit or home that be included as well those are my two meddles i look forward to resuming that conversation. >> thank you merlin from our city attorney's office. >> supervisor farrell has an amendment on the floor is there a second supervisor wiener

and supervisor yee. >> thank you, colleagues today, i maybe introducing two different amendments and i have to say we've had long discussions about that have involved many members of any district and ran into a discussion that touches apple fundamental tops like what cities will do what a city should be doing in terms of how we want to live in that what's itself legacy of our city zoning lauded and rights that property owners have in their own home it's been an extensive conversation that has involved many different people from different areas of the city with very different opinions on this matter many districts residents have written to me and called and

come out to testify as the mrabs and the land use commission i have similar concerns as those expressed by some of the constituents that you have all heard from i'd like to propose as many of my constituents have requested that we exclude short-term rentals in rh1 and rhd d zoning districts so that's any first request for amendment and . >> supervisor yee would i like us to move on that first. >> so supervisor yee has a motion that on the floor of rh1 and rhd seeing none, that amendment will not be adapted necklaces motion. >> so this second amendment i'm

asking for would be again trying to address some of the issues of any compluts at the same time providing compromises so that we can move forward with the legislation in an effort to will this single-family home neighborhoods i'd like to see colleagues if you could support an amendment that limits short-term rentals in rh1 d neighborhood to 90 days of hosted rentals only for 50 percent of the bedrooms with the 90 cap applying to the entire property and not single bedrooms this is a sensible compromise that guarantees that the property owners be also present

in case of the short-term rentals limiting the single-family homes in the neighborhood i hope you vote for that. >> u this supervisor yee to limit short-term rentals and rh1 d neighborhoods is there a second supervisor mar seconded all right. any further amendments supervisor yee. >> that will be all for today. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you, madam chair and i too want to thank president chiu and his staff particularly amy katie tang for mayor numerous memoriam of work this is in a lot of ways one of the thank less are issues the views around

it have insdenl technology there are ships passing in the night not only to make everyone happy not to make really some people extremely unhappy no matter what you do so i want to thank president chiu in his work for taking on this issue it's an important initial or issue to take on i said this at land use at our 12 or 13 hours of work the status quo is not working right now we know the entire system of home sharing it happening in the shadows there's this or no o oversight no perimeters it's technically all illegal but there is little enforcement because of the lack the resources and it's time to

bring it out of the shadows even some would like it to remain entirely illegal the jean i didn't say out of the bottle in terms of this happening in our city and thousands of people are participating in home sharing and many are relying on it in terms of their economic well-being and survival it would not be good to freehand it's not there when in reality it is i think it's an important step to bring it into the daylight and put perimeters around it and no matter what kind of regulatory scheme it would not go far enough and too far for some it

strikes a reasonable balance number one that we don't want to have those unite that are used just four short-term rentals that can only implies the housing stock whether it's an rental unit there's been a short-term rental or kept vacant or more and more investors are purchasing single-family homes with the intent of using them for short-term rentals that is a problem we don't want that to happen we want people to have neighbors and we don't want blocks to be turning into hotel district but we also, if you clamp down too much you'll be hurting a lot of people so the legislation i think smartly gishdz between the non hosted

rentals where the owner is not there and host when the owner is there you have to live in our home 9 months out of the year and as long as your living there you can rent out a bedroom and if you're away you can rent it out there as well one can argue in the morning two months or more than 4 months there's no magic to my of this but in my view the balance this president chiu has struck is a reasonable one and worthy of support i know there's been discussion about the hosted rentals to place a limit when the owner are resident of the home is present and running renting out a spare bedroom i've not been a

supporter of the non hosted rentals and i think unfortunately, we've had those hearings a lot of people that are engaging and dismissed them as you're being put up by one the home sharers home sharing companies but apart from the discussions colleagues i've had many, many conversations with the residents of any district over the past several years and many people that absolutely rely on the income that they derive from the hosted rentals in order to make the end meet i can't tell you people that live in the neighborhood or long time residents or retired on fixed incomes that allows them to put a new roof or single parent to pay the mortgage or send their

kids to college it is easy to be submittal off those claims but they're real a lot of people in the city are struggling right now despite our connective boom struggling to make end meet we need to are careful in terms of effort to deprive the people of the ability to make ends meet and i think this is a reasonable approach i also want to what like to put-down two amendments on the table and i want to briefly say one is a technical clear up legislation suggested by the planning department around the annual or the first adjustment to fees that will happen in 6 months we made a few different amendments to clean up this in committee and my department has requested one more minor tweak to give them some flexibility in terms

of the annual adjustment and the second i'm very sensitive to some of the concerns that supervisor yee has raised that apply to his district and the rh1 d and i wanted to sort add on an additional idea in the form man amendment we have a number of the homeland security associations with cc&rs and in committee supervisor farrell and i put an amendmenthe landlord will receive automatic notification for homeowners associations in rh1 d district they'll receive automatic noevenths when a registry occurs so an additional idea around rh1 d district i appreciate that supervisor yee is working with

the constituents and taxing their needs taking that into account. >> supervisor wiener has two amendments one is a technical adjustment for feeds seshthd by supervisor farrell on the second requiring an automatic notification for landlord and supervisor mar. >> thank you, mr. chair colleagues, i said to introduce to simply amendments before i do i want to say meetings with people from my district and others around the city has been and opening and meeting are airbnb as the company was started to explode now a $10 billion company airbnb had my interests from several years ago i'm appreciative that supervisor chiu and others in the land use commission and the

planning department and the planning commission have at an on i'm yes, ma'am authentic towards the short-term rental tourist rental advocates trying to subsidize being pushed out with displacement and the explosion of housing costs in the city i have empathy for people whether or not you call users short-term rentals or i like to say short time rental hosts if or in that way at times, i of the followed around by farmer's market in my district by people advocating for really open market use of this kind tourist rentals like cult like in their approach i was uncomfortable by that level

of advocacy and pushness so i'm mixed in how i'm addressing this any overarching concern as a policymaker as president chiu raised another colleagues is the impact of how how much regulation we should have and how much government regulation we should have i see on over oracle relationship with the marketing having a potentially horrible stock of housing stock and even our housing costs i see a potential floodgate opening up of hotel uses in residential areas in many parts of city i'm sensitive to issues that others will bring up in a moment i feel strongly like the broad

coalition of neighborhood and community, tenants and labor that are advocating for a 90 day cap that's for host and unhosted i feel stock exchange about that cap should be placed otherwise wooik we'll see more of the floodgate opened for residential units used as hotel unit and strongly has others have raised that we need a strong right of action that's competed this new quote home sharing is opening up more hotel unit to flush in areas without enough regulation and monitoring as well lastly i worry if we're not careful and i know david chiu has done his best with the hours

and hours of meeting i worry if we're not stronger in the city to hold account the airbnb to pay it's back taxed of two years and other efforts to hold them account recalling we'll see another erosion of our housing stock and see the community and neighborhoods we love change before our eyes even more than that getting that off any chest i'm going to give my two amendments the first involves city subsidized housing i know exclude from airbnb and b o sharing and f o and the low market rate units i'd like to propose that and is that the legislation as currently written despite the proposed amendments i've benedictions or mentioned

it allows san franciscans receiving the benefits for permanent affordable housing or subsidized first time homeowners to cash northbound on those benefits by using them as short-term rentals for their profit it leafs the on news for protecting those units to the landlord or the agency providing the funding i'm proposing a clear prohibition to chewed unit from continuallying of those subsidies with like projectss are the city fund like 1950 the project by the city the affordable housing or the short-term erect units like the

small sized acquisition unit i'm proposing to excused the down payment loan program it is equitable to allow this group of homeowners to participate in home sharing, however, if there's not a 90 day limit open the home sharing the city will face a crisis they will be used year-round for their gain and i'll ask the mayor's office of housing to look at this to be sure our down payment assistance promissory note program is not abused the second is on in-law units legislation that recently passed the board of supervisors both by supervisor wiener and to legalize in-law units and promote the construction of in-law units or secondly, in-law units is to provide for housing

supply for the residents not to create more smaller hotel unit the legislation as written where airbnb f t r legislation is currently written to hold out those types of in-law units and the exist ones from the permanent market to use as lucrative short-term hotel they've been hidden and difficult to monitor so any meantime as handed out and it's on there section 41 a definition for those you if you it is page 13 line 10 to 6 i've gone through the city subsidized housing and the other portion in

bold states that the residential unit is not subject to the inclusionary or after mentioning excluding the units from the down payment avoidance program continuing is not a dwelling created pursuant to section 207.3 or 715 point one is the secondly, or in-law unit references those are my two amendments pare the supervisor as two amendments seconded by supervisor yee and the second has to do with the further restrictions on in-law unit seconded by supervisor campos thank you supervisor mar

supervisor kim. >> madam chair. >> oh, yes deputy city attorney. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney for clarification on supervisor mar's amendment those amendments were not drafted by yourself our offices but understanding there are tweaks we want to make for example, the current language on the word inclusionary the inclusionary housing program we get probably delete now, it's covered as part of our new language about all induced housing the reference to middle-income housing we'll delete ways that is not a term defined in our affordable housing program but low and moderate is appropriate. >> thank you supervisor kim. >> thank you, madam chair wow. as if we don't have enough amendments i'll be interrogating an amendment

and this is specifically on the around the issue of the private right of action just to give this amendment a little bit of context it is important to state some of the statistics right now currently 12 hundred complaints filed rewarding short-term rentals in san francisco and two legal actions by the city attorney that's a state of enforcement around short-term rentals in san francisco i've also made it clear i know the public has heard from me numerous times that preserving our finest and rapidly that diminishing housing stock our rent control issues is a public interest and for the board and mayor, we have not thus far been to demonstrate we have the resources to effectively enforce

that legislation in other cases we have set enforcement around the planning code the city attorney said that the no points in particular need to get on board and help out they've been an effective means and cheaper means to help with the negotiations an example that we have giving of which our amendment is bans is the hotel conversion in 1990 we gave an competed action to nonprofits and the mission statement or bylaws states that their mission so protect and preserve affordable housing during this time tenderloin housing clinic one nonprofit get a primer junction and after that our city attorney only had a few owners that refused obey the law

this shouldn't be a reason to go after the short-term rentals and typically 5 thousand or less so what we're i'm introducing today is a concept around of putting it into this particular legislation i shared from the beginning of the debate around the short-term rentals debated i'm concerned this legislation is not enforceable unless we add effective and enforcement tools in particular i've raised questions about how the city will sure 3 hundred and 65 days of hosted rentals without a doubt a hard cap on 90 days how it is difficult to prove where one person slept last night or for 2 hundred and 70 nights a

year as i mentioned protecting our affordable housing stock we don't 0 need to look at the statistics we know that limited housing stock is naikd housing i want to insure we pass that legislation that encourages the property owners from permanently taking the unit off-line and provided nonprofit with the a tool that has protecting affordable housing in their mission statement to go over the limited group of egregious bad actors we know they're most effective when the government and officials are encounter to work together but your amendment as oriental drafted will encourage lawsuits so to encourage those we've made changes to narrow the scope one the nonprofit must have

preserved protection in their bylaws two the nonprofit must be in existence from 5 years of the braigs refrigeration of the ordinance so stop someone from stating a nonprofit today 3 the nonprofit can't seek civil penalties no way to go over a right they can soak an injunction if they're able to win the case in court and only use the competeed and seek american people scombrungs against the pretender we quell the fear that we're opening up the city to neighbor against neighbor litigation