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 or maybe opening a loophole for frivolous litigation this will sure a a small group of nonprofit to pursue those bad actors have an competed route to deal with the actors and support our city in one obligation to make sure we're protecting our housing stock and in particular our 0 rental housing stock that's the amendment i'll introduce i have made copies for each member of

the board of supervisors to look at. >> is there a motion to approve this amendment. >> supervisor campos any further amendment supervisor kim and are those substancess amendments. >> i thought we were going to do i think it's helpful we're doing them piece by pie my false imprisonment meantime is substantive we duplicate the file and send to the planning commission and it will come back to the full board of supervisors i'm hoping to pass the amendment that are not substantive first to be in both files thank you. we'll be seeking the advice of our city attorney to figure out what procedural implementations and we'll precede based on that

and thanks i appreciate our amendment and want to know more about them i want to take a moment to thank etch that has orchid that the legislation thank you, president chiu for bringing it that's is an interesting pope piece it's gal knitted aloof people it's critically complex issue but beginning to address a very critical step in combating san francisco affordability issue i've spent many hours in committee hearings and gotten thousands thank you thousands of e-mails plus phone numbers on phone calls on this topic it's been interesting to have conversations around the city of san francisco people are will definitely paying attention and are concerned or dialed in on

the issue i believe we need to step forward and regulate this activity to protect our city rent control housing stock awhile afforded hosts that need the money that many others are in need of and continue the short-term rentals under a limited circumstance i believe that the legislation is really come a very long way after many amendments and i'm grateful that the committee accepted the amendments addressing the safety issues the san francisco affordability is complicated and my two priorities during it this debate to make sure we prevent the wholesale can onlytion for short-term rentals that take unit out of the rental market

and to develop a framework that allows responsible hosts in certain six an opportunity to use short-term rentals to diesel with their affordability issues so i don't think we have the lushths of waiting to deal with this owner we need regulation and in place right now and i'm prepared to support what come out of the discussion today so i'm looking forward to the amendment discuss. >> thank you supervisor avalos. >> thank you. this has been quite a long journey we've been on third year on this piece of legislation i want to acknowledge the work of president chiu and his office in putting this together it's a great deal of work in all sides to craft something like this we need regulation of the rental

market it's been actually apparent to me especially with the amount of advocacy offer the past several weeks i've actually he heard from any daughters friends parent about this and people so many people i know very well in the district who have been running short-term rentals out of their homes not to you know generally, the whole time throughout the year but given the several weeks to rent the spates for people to come in as tourist there's great benefits themselves in terms of having nor flexibility in their pocketbook to actually bring in people to show parts of the excelsior district 11 to people that wouldn't see this part of san francisco and people contributing to the local economy that are from all parts of the world and people talked about the great experience of

meeting people and their families from all over the world as well and playing host those are racket examiners that people have in the new economy but i also see there are huge needs we have in san francisco that remain unaddressed that continue to widther away for people feel like san francisco could be mayor home, i think it's important that we can maximize our housing stock and residential housing stock to itself utmost and building when a lot of those you know unit or rooms of residence are going for people in short-term stays or a great length of time those places in the city are given of u up for tourist we're losing people that are desperate of housing in san francisco losing out on valuable stock that helps with our affordability crisis

and our resident crisis as well i'd like to propose that we are we able to limit the actual time that can be used for providing for space in retains whether the entire retains or a portion for tourist to sty 2, 3, 4 place a 90 day cap i've actually passed out on amendment to everyone saying that it is it's referencing section 41 organization .5 this is actually very consistent with what i've been talking about in terms of how we looked the rental stock or single-family homes i live in a district like that that we

passed a volunteer program to create incomes and the need to do that is great especially with a lot of working class and middle-class properties in district 11 they're actually able to pay the mortgage by having and unit that has a tenant to help bring in fund to pay the rent and mortgage this go legislation is is supported i supported even though idea of you know enabling households to be able to do that through short-term rentals but there should be american people option to provide permanent that is a force a tenant to live in san francisco i believe in providing a cap limits the short terms and perhaps the ability to have a long term stay that could be right for a tenant in the city that helps to provide some

relief to our affordability crisis i'm offering that amendment to apply the 90 day cap to short-term rentals both hosted and unhosted rentals that's in a document i've passed out here (clapping.) all right. thank you just like to remind every one of our board rules and respect everyone's opinion the supervisor has a cap on hosted or non-hovered will seconded by supervisor mar. >> thank you, very much madam chair i want to start but also thanking consulting and all the people that have worked on the issue i want to start out by saying clearly i support the principle of allowing short-term rentals here in san francisco i personally have spoken to many people and understand and

recognize how short-term rentals benefit many individual i know that it is something that many people in my district rely upon and the benefit is not only to these individuals renter but to homeowners and visitors to our city i want to recognize the innovation behind one of the shortest short-term rentals companies airbnb i'm proud that airbnb started here in san francisco you seeing air mattresses on living rooms floors and now a company that evaluated at $10 billion according cots new york times that evaluation makes airbnb worth more than hotel changes and the hyatt they pay their taxes and it is not able

that airbnb has recently started to pay their hotel taxes it start as of last week, we thank them for that this payment is long overdue after all this is not a company that is sleeping on air mattresses anywhere this is a company that is worth $10 billion how long overdue is this well on april 3rd, 2012, the cities tax clerk issued a memo that a website company that receives rent that the occupancy of a transaction is an operator responsible for collecting the transit occupancy tax associated with that rental and remitting it to the city it's good that airbnb has started to pay their takes as required by the tax

clerk their approximately two and a half years overdue in paying the tax that are owed to the city airbnb stated at the lack of foundation that the trinity occupancy tax they've begun to pay on the existing airbnb rentals will be approximately $11 million a year therefore based on the calculation their lack of payment over the last thirty months is $25 million in unpaid back taxed to the city and county of san francisco as we consider legislation that will finally legalize the activities of airbnb and others in san francisco i believe it is only right that airbnb make good on its overdue taxes before this legislation become law

(clapping.) i'd like to remind everyone respect the discussion. >> every business in this city must pay their taxed or be at odds with their permits being revoked it's inincredibly unfair to allow this ordinance further enriching this corporation but at the same time saying that they don't have to follow the rules that every other small business owners has to fellow in san francisco (clapping.) therefore i'm introducing an amendment to this legislation i want to thank the san francisco santa fe for their assistance in putting this together and closing also to the tax collector this amendment to this legislation makes it so this law

did not go into effect until thirty days after the treasurer of the san francisco ethics commission certifies that all platforms businesses doing taxes pay all outstanding taxes including previously owed trinity taxes my amendment is about fairness assuring a mutilate billion dollar cop company has it to pay in their taxes it's about our bifrthd budgetary priorities recognizing the significant of $25 million for a city like san francisco this is not which you imagine change $25 million could improve

or prevent cut to serviced in san francisco i'll give you a few works if prop b passes it caused significant controversy in city hall and increases the population it is estimated that to there muni budget by $2 million that means that having airbnb pay the taxes that it owes for the last thirty months will actually cover that shortage we have heard in the last few days about the cities ambulance shortage that has been a problem for quite sometime if each ambulance based on that the estimates we've been given cost approximately $200,000 we in the city if those taxes that are owed were paid today would purchase one hundred and 25 now

ambulances (clapping.) i have recently introduced a budget supplemental to insure that all san franciscans that wants to protect himself or herself from airbnb will have access to the drug and my public health is for 8 hundred a fraction of the amount that airbnb owes the city in taxes seniors and others have been advocating for a free muni for strarlz and one it is model in the low income the mp a mooning u muni says this will cost $400 million for the sdrabld adults and seniors we could pay for this program for 5 years with the $25 million that are owed in taxes to the city

the estimated cost for a full police academy that will include 50 recruits with $5.4 million that money could be used inform fund 4 please academy classes having the training for 4 hundred new officers in city of san francisco so far the next few years the $25 million that is owed could be used for pay for one hundred officers at a salary rate of $160,000 but the question we need to ask ourself colleagues do we give special treatment to a multi billion dollars company but allowing them to do something in san francisco that no business has done to allow them to operate without paying

the taxes to the city do we allow them or sure that hosting platforms by airbnb play by the same rules that as follows and businesses must follow f this is similar that was championed audio supervisor wiener that was passed national anthem by board of directors at the time that provided amputee to people that had been renting out parking spaces but not been paying takes because they were unaware of the tax obligations supervisor wiener's protective legalized those parking spaces if the owners a pay the taxes in the future between us they've paid up to two years bank takes that they owe the city and agree to follow the law similarly my

legislation likewise around to move forward once the back taxes they owe the city are paid second amendment i have involves an important issue we have been dealing with in the last more than a year that that is the crisis of evictions that the city and county is facing many of the folks evicted interest under the ellis act are long term residents seniors that disregarded and people that have lived in san francisco and helped to make san francisco what it is today i believe that it is unconscious able to evict long term folks through the ellis act and allow those unite to be used as short-term rentals in recent most this board of supervisors has supported self several piece

of legislation for tenants that are ellis act evicted to allow people the opportunity to have a fighting chance to stay in san francisco because of that there is no justifiable reason that the unit subject to the ellis act being rented at short-term rentals we have stooped for you for our cities tenants to stay here when evicted we must preserve the character of our amazing city by making that possible for people of all protect levels not be reader by troufrt i'm proposing an amendment to prohibit short-term rentals in unit there has on ellis act evictions by where it is standing behind the principles in the need to protect our communities

converting residential apartment into short-term rentals only exacerbates the housing crisis prohibiting short-term rentals in a unit for 5 years following an ellis act veeths support our long-standing policy to preserve the limited housing resources we have the amendment i'm introducing specifically says that a unit that has been subjected to a ellis act eviction within a 5 year period would not quality if the eviction occurred on november 1st, 2012, i've got copies of any amendment with respect to the unpaid taxes and with respect to the second item i'm going to ask the city attorney the best way to proceed i've suggested