as soon as a particular company pays the back taxes he, they get to continue to the services. those that do not pay cannot continue the services. >> deputy city attorney jon givner again. so, the current law that business and tax regulations code provides that individual taxpayer information is confidential. so, currently the treasurer could not disclose to even the planning department which is responsible for enforcing this law, which hosting platforms are current and which mayo taxes he. ~ if supervisor campos' amendment passes today, as i mentioned last week, the ordinance would go back to committee and ultimately also back to the planning commission and map it for certainly that

possibility and [speaker not understood]. but for today i would recommend that you go with the amendment as proposed. >> thank you. supervisor campos? >> thank you very much. and i want to thank supervisor yee and, again, i think the amendment on back taxes passes, it goes back to committee where we can draft something that tries to strike the right balance between what you're saying, supervisor yee, which i actually would support. i'm just not sure legally how to do that. but i think that -- i know there are a lot of things that have been thrown today, grandstanding, politically motivated. i don't think that senator feinstein is grandstanding. i don't think that senator feinstein's comments are politically motivated. i think that she, like so many people who have raised concerns about this legislation, have legitimate concerns about what this mean for san francisco.

and i know he that some people are very passionate. and i guess some people are especially passionate when it comes to making sure $10 million companies don't pay taxes. but let's keep our conversation measured and really focus on the facts. the fact is that we have a determination by the treasurer that a platform, which they describe as an operator, is liable for taxes. that decision was issued on april 3rd, 2012. it doesn't focus on anything -- it's talking about the operators. that's exactly what i'm focusing on. and the fact is that as much as the treasurer has the tools, ultimately policy around budget and taxation subject to the approval of voters is within the authority and the power of the board of supervisors.

we are the ones who set policy on those issues. the treasurer and tax collector is there to implement that policy and it is entirely appropriate for us today as a matter of policy to say that if a company wants to avail itself of these benefits that we simply require that they do what everyone else in san francisco, every other business ha to do, which is to pay the back taxes. and while it is indeed the case there are tools available to the tax collector, the fact is that the opinion that he issued was issued 2-1/2 years ago. and to this day, the taxes have not been collected. i think it is appropriate for this board of supervisors to step in and simply say, let's make sure that we provide a benefit which i think everyone acknowledges that it is a benefit, that we simply require what every other business has to do. and now to the extent this may

lead to litigation, it's interesting, because we have had a number of discussions that the possibility of litigation has not prevented us in the past from holding corporate entities accountable by this board. we have certainly not been afraid to hold corporations accountable when we believe that they owed something. and the fact that they are threatening to sue us has not stopped us in the past from actually making them play by the rules. and, so, this is an opportunity for us to actually say what we -- to do what we say we want to do, which is to actually require that these back taxes he are paid. if you believe that, this is your opportunity to do it. i'm glad that folks have identified the excellent work that is done by our city attorney. i agree wholeheartedly. i used to be a member of that office before, so, i know that they're great people.

but i know that the laws, the amendment that is before you, is an amendment that was actually crafted in close consultation with the san francisco city attorney to make sure that everything we do is legal, to make sure that everything we do is within the parameters of what the charter allows this board of supervisors to do. this charter allows this board of supervisors to do the very basic thing of rehe choirtion someone pay their back taxes. this is the time to act and i believe that what senator feinstein said is absolutely true. this is a common sense amendment that really makes companies do what every san francisco business does on a daily basis, play by the rules. >> supervisor kim? >> thank you. i was going to comment on supervisor avalos's amendment, but i think that it's worth stating that while i know that

our treasurer and tax collector office is very aggressive in terms of its work of collecting our taxes, the fact is that they have not been able to collect a single dollar of those back taxes in the last 2-1/2 years. so, if it had all the tools that it needed, then it should have collected them by now. and i do think this amendment is important and i voted for it two weeks ago and i will vote for it again, the board of supervisors supports their efforts in their office's ability to do this work. and the press statement that was released by jose cisneros, i don't see any single sentence in this press statement saying he does president need this amendment. he merely states that he collects taxes and that is part of his authority and job, which we all understood to be part of his office. so, if i'm missing that statement, i'd love to hear that directly from mr. cisneros. but i did want to speak back to the amendment which i think is actually far more substantive that has been introduced by

supervisor avalos. i know that i talked at length about this amendment at both land use committees, but not everyone watches our land use committee. so, i will reiterate some of my feelings on this. first, there is a statement made that if we do only 90 days hosted and nonhosted, that that will lead to seniors and long-term residents no longer being able to afford their homes. and this is what i have to say. they will get roommates. if you need someone for more than 90 days, you will get a roommate. that has long been the history of san francisco and that is how we have often all afforded to live here in the city. i have a roommate in order to live in san francisco because i cannot afford to live here by myself. i have never been able to afford to live in san francisco by myself, even when i lived here 15 years ago. and if you do want to do short-term rentals for longer than 90 days, you can actually apply for a permit at the planning department and get a bed and breakfast permit that will allow you to do it full time and be under the

regulation r that the planning department ha. i've seen it every planning commission meeting there ha never been a bed and breakfast permit denied by the planning commission. it sails through, it allows you to do it as a full-time job. i believe that is a route you can take in order to do that. but then i want to get back to some of the facts that we have and they're limited because our hosting companies do not share the data they have before us. out of the 4,798 units that the chronicle found through their commission that they paid for and air bnb units here in san francisco, two-thirds of those rent out the entire unit. this is not a couch, this is not a bedroom. this is the entire unit. and in those cases i think it is really important that we make sure that we have a measure that we can enforce. the planning commission, the planning department ha all said the only way they're going to be able to enforce this legislation is if we do 90 days

hosted or nonhosted. they made that clear in august. they made that clear in september. and that if we do try to figure out whether it's hosted or nonhosted, we actually have to investigate whether you lived in your house 275 nights a year. and let me tell you why that is challenging and actually far more invasive for the city to enforce on than previous. i had given an example when i served on the land use committee. when i served on the school board that we often had parents that suspect that had other families at lowell high school, our most prestigious high school in san francisco did not live in san francisco. it is a requirement at lowell that you live in san francisco in order to go to one of our most highly sought after schools. this school district conducted very expensive investigations where we knocked on family's doors at 6:00 in the morning and even followed kids home to see if they truly lived in san francisco. that is incredibly expensive and very difficult to do. and if we pass a legislation as we do today, which is to say

only 90 unhosted days will open the planning department to do that kind of work on our residents in san francisco. and i would much prefer that our planning department did not have to engage in that type of investigation. and i imagine many of the people in this room would not want to be investigated in a level that is that invasive. so, i will make one final argument as to why i think a 90-day hosted and nonhosted is incredibly important in order for the city to enforce this and that's second, if you want to do it for more than 90 days, that there is an opportunity, a legal existing opportunity pathway to do that through the bed and breakfast route. and finally, in explaining my vote two weeks ago, i think it's important to mention that i knew that the votes to pass this legislation existed and one of the most important amendments that was brought to me, particularly by a tenants group was if we're not going to

have 90 days hosted or nonhosted which is my primary policy preference, that we at the very he least provide a expedited right of action whose mission statement includes affordable housing and tenant right protections. while i don't think this amendment is as strong as the 90 day hosted and nonhosted amendment, i do believe this amendment will allow us to go after the worst actors, the actors that are permanently taking units off line and not putting them out to tenants and residents that could live here in the city, further exasperating our housing market issues. and i'll just give you a -- one brief example of that. in april of this year, the tenants union who we will be talking about later today actually filed four complaints of the department of building inspection stating that there were units that had permanently been taken off line, were not renting to existing residents, and had permanently done either full time air bnb or short term rent alley sanctionly turning

those residential units that should have been homes to real people into hotels for tourists. this filed in april dbi finally held a hearing in june three months later, and then sat on that and did not make any determination until end of september. now, keep in mind one of the landlord even admitted they were doing a full-time short-term rental and yet after six months of hard work by our tenants union nothing came of any of those four case which is why we fought so aggressively that if we're not going to do 90 days hosted or nonhosted that we would at minimum have this expedited private right of action by organizations in san francisco that have for decades fought on behalf of our residents and tenants to make sure their housing stock is used in the way that is most appropriate. but i will make one final plug because i do think supervisor avalos is strong early than the amendment i introduced last week, but at minimum i'm glad that we will have the private

right of action included in the final legislation. >> thank you. president chiu, were you on the roster? okay. supervisor breed. >> thank you. supervisor kim, through the chair, i just wanted to make it clear that in my comments i also mentioned that i spoke with both the treasurer cisneros and the city attorney's office so my comments included information from the memo as well as information in discussing this particular legislation or a possible amendment to collect tax -- back taxes with him. and that's why i mentioned that he clearly -- he made it clear to me that he does not need legislation to do his job. so, i just wanted to make sure that that was clear. thank you. >> thank you, colleague. any further discussion on these amendments? okay. why don't we take them one at a time. the first amendment was by supervisor avalos for a 90-day cap on hosted rentals, seconded

by supervisor campos. madam clerk could you call the roll? >> supervisor chiu? chiu no. supervisor cohen? cohen no. supervisor farrell? >> no. >> farrell no. supervisor kim? >> aye. >> kim aye. supervisor mar? >> aye. >> mar aye. supervisor tang? tang no. supervisor wiener? wiener no. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed no. supervisor campos? campos aye. there are five aye and 6 no's. >> the amendment fails. [gavel] >> and on supervisor campos' -- (applause) >> supervisor campos' amendment regarding back taxes, seconded by supervisor avalos. madam clerk, could you call the roll? supervisor chiu? exhaust no. supervisor cohen? cohen no. supervisor farrell? farrell no. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang no. supervisor wiener? wiener no.

supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed no. supervisor campos? campos aye. there are five ayes and 6 no's. >> that amendment fails. [gavel] >> and supervisor yee? >> yes, so, i want to just reintroduce the amendment i tried to get passed a few weeks ago. so, i won't argue about it [speaker not understood]. the amendment is just asking for additional requirements for rh1d districts, one family detached dwellings that is. following shall apply to short height and bulk term residential rental users located within areas of zone rr1d ~. and the residential unit and any portion thereof may be rented as a short-term residential rental for no more

than 90 days per total per calendar year. the permitted resident must maintain residence in the residential unit during any short-termes are decksv rental. ~ permanent and no more than 50% of the bedrooms in the residential unit may be used for the exclusive occupancy of the short-term residential renters user. so, that's my amendment that i'd like to ask that you support. >> supervisor yee has made the amendment as he described. is there a second to that amendment? seconded by supervisor mar. any discussion? roll call vote. >> supervisor chiu? chiu no. supervisor cohen? cohen no. supervisor farrell? farrell no. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang no. supervisor wiener? wiener no. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed?

breed no. supervisor campos? campos aye. there are five ayes and 6 no's. >> amendment fails. [gavel] >> colleagues, with that, any further discussion? okay, at this time, madam clerk, could you please call the roll for whether this ordinance shall be finally passed. >> on item 9, supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar no. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee no. supervisor avalos? >> n-o. >> avalos no. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos no. there are 7 ayes and 4 no'ses. >> this ordinance is finally passed. [gavel] [cheering and applauding]

>> thank you, colleagues. with that, why don't we proceed to item 10. >> item 10 is an ordinance to amend the business and tax regulations code by revising and clarifying common administrative provisions for the business registration for the payroll expense and gross receipts tax and deleting obsolete provisions. >> roll call vote. >> on item 10, supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye.

supervisor campos? campos aye. there are 11 ayes. >> the ordinance is passed on first reading. [gavel] >> item 11. >> item 11 an ordinance to amend the administrative and subdivision codes ~ regarding tenant buyout agreements. >> supervisor campos? >> thank you. thank you very much, mr. president. colleagues, i'm very honored today to be the chief sponsor of this legislation that was actually the brain child of someone that i know we will be remembering today and honoring today, and that is the late and great ted galokson. i believe this is the last piece of ted gal acson inspired legislation of the san

francisco board of supervisors. ~ my office and i and i want to thank hillary rhonan in my office, had been working with ted gal acson for many months to develop this legislation ~. i know that it was something that was very important to him. i'm sure that he directly spoke to many of you about this legislation. and today i hope that you will join me in passing this legislation and allowing ted to make one of his last great marks on this city and had i endless quest to protect tenants in san francisco. despite so much discussion and attention on san francisco's affordability housing crisis, the truth of the matter is we have no idea about the true scope of displacement in san francisco because tenant buyouts are not regulated by the city in any form. buyouts are when a landlord offers a tenant a monetary sum in exchange for the tenant

vacating the unit outside of the eviction process. buyouts are in essence a loophole and are just cause eviction loss. under san francisco's rent control ordinance, a landlord must have one of the 15 just cause reasons for evicting a tenant. some of the just causes are based on the actionses of a tenant like failure to pay rent, and others are considered no fault evictions, like when an owner decides to move into a unit. the san francisco just cause eviction scheme was carefully crafted to protect rent control units in this city which is san francisco's rent control units are san francisco's largest source of housing that is not vulnerable to the whims of the market. buyouts are a loophole because they allow landlords to aloe v-8 an official eviction by offering a tenant a monetary sum to vacate a unit without having to go through the eviction process and assert one

of the 15 just causes of eviction. we know that protecting the rent control housing stock in san francisco is a major component of addressing san francisco's housing crisis. in fact, rent control units compose more than 50% of the city's price control housing. given that efforts to amend the ellis act in sacramento have failed, we must continue to act locally to develop and pass legislation to protect renters in san francisco. like ted, i believe that regulating buyout is a critical way that can -- that allows us to act locally to address this crisis. while we do not know the exact prevalence of buyouts, tenant and advocates have reported and actually the budget and legislative analyst included this in his report that for every ellis act eviction there are a number, perhaps as many as 7 buy outs that take place. more over, ~ as the report that

was released by the budget and legislative analyst shows, there ha been a significant increase that essentially proves the point. between calendar years 2009 and 2013, we went from having, based on [speaker not understood] done with thea community based organizationses, 76 clients who were involved in a buyout in 2009, and then 179 in 2013. the legislation that you're voting on today strikes the right balance. it requires landlords to provide tenants with a disclosure of a tenant's rights before the landlord commences buyout negotiations. and at the time that the buyout agreement is reduced to writing. it requires all buyout agreements to be in writing and allows a tenant to rescind a buyout for up to 45 days after he or she signs an agreement. oftentimes when a landlord

offers a tenant a buyout there is an imbalance in negotiating power between the leant lord and the tenant. this is especially the case where tenants have limited english skills. i have heard many stories of a tenant accepting a tiny buyout offer to vacate the unit. a buyout offer thats was substantially less than the relocation assistance that the tenant would have received if evicted under the ellis act. or under the owner move-in no fault just cause eviction grounds. by requiring the landlord to provide the tenant information about his or her rights before commencing discussions regarding a buyout offer, the tenant will have the time and resource he to be fully educated about his or her rights when negotiating with the landlord. i hope that this provision will help balance out some of the inequities that occur with buyouts as they presently exist. often higher incomev tenants acknowledge their rights are able to negotiate large buyouts

while lower income tenants leave rent control units without a meaningful relocation assistance. this legislation also requires landlords to file a copy of the buyout agreement with the rent board and requires that the rent board make those agreements publicly available on a searchable database to buyout agreements -- buyout agreements. it also requires the rent board to report to the board of supervisors on the frequency and nature of buyouts. by requiring the registration of buyout, we will finally in the city have the data to fully understand the level of displacement that is happening in san francisco. this legislation also imposes the same condo conversion prohibitions that are already in place for other no-fault evictions. this provision will help san francisco's rent control housing stock by preventing landlord from converting condo rental units after a buyout in the same manner the landlord is prevented from condo converting

after a no-fault eviction. this means that a landlord would be unable to condo convert for ten years if he he or she ha made multiple buyouts in the same building and will not be able to condo convert at any time if he or she makes a single buyout to senior, disabled or catastrophically ill tenant. finally, the legislation allows tenants, nonprofit c-3s or c4s [speaker not understood] or the san francisco city attorney's office to enforce provisions of the law in california superior court. in the original version of the legislation, we were actually going to have the rent borden force the provisions of the law. but after speaking to the director of the rent board we did not feel that the agency has the resource he, the capacity at this point to actually play that role. today i'm making one small amendment to this ordinance, to accommodate the very reasonable request from supervisor norman yee. i agree that landlords should have more time to file a buyout

agreement. i would like to amend the ordinance to give landlords a two-week window to file the agreement after the agreement is final and that amendment is, by the way, on page 7 of the legislation on line 10. with that, i ask that you join me in supporting this law. and again, i want to thank ted gal ogg son for being the inspiration for this piece of legislation, for his guidance, for his ~ passion and for never giving up on his effort to protect tenants in san francisco. so, with that i make a motion to amend along the lines that i described. >> supervisor campos has made the amendments that he's described. is there a second to the amendments? seconded by supervisor kim. colleagues, any discussion to the amendments? okay, without discussion those amendments are adopted. supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. i think that for some accepting the buyout might be the right decision. for individuals and their

respective family. i think this legislation does a good job of not precluding that. my primary concern with tenant buyout agreement is it's an unequal barringing position that the parties often are in. now, while some tenants may be sophisticated about this process, not everyone understands the complicated regulatory framework. i'm not one of those individuals who believe that all buyouts are bad, but i do believe that we he need more transparency in this area. i don't think that it's unreasonable to know which buildings have buyout agreements or to give tenants an opportunity to understand their rights and make the best decisions for them self-and their families whether or not to accept a buyout, which is the reasons why i'm going to be supporting this legislation today. >> supervisor farrell. >> thank you, president chiu. colleagues, i did not support this legislation at committee last week and won't be supporting it today.

two becky quick comments on it. and i appreciate we have differences of opinions on this one. first of all, i think i do have a fundamental -- buyouts are bad thing here in the city of san francisco. i know many tenants, many low-income tenants as well who have taken the proceeds of their buyouts, one because they were leaving town anyways. two, taking them a down payments for their own homeownership opportunities here in san francisco. so, i personally do not subscribe to the idea that all buyout should be treating this class of priority agreements as evil, if you will, here in the city of san francisco. i certainly do not subscribe to any of the abuse he that have anecdotally been talked about, coercion and intimidation [speaker not understood]. i think it is a statement against buyouts swore networkly. secondly, as someone who introduced condo conversion legislation a few years ago, including the prohibition on

condo conversions in buildings where there have been buyouts as well just because there was a buyout, again, from my perspective makes no sense at all. so those two reasons i will not be supporting it today. >> supervisor breed. >> thank you. i like some of my colleagues here, i don't agree with the premise that all buyouts are necessarily bad. some may be problematic, some may not. the mere fact that a tenant and the landlord agree to a cash transaction does not mean any harm has been done. in fact, i think you can make a strong argument that in the vast majority of cases two informed consenting parties are engaging in a private transaction. and the government does not need to tell them what is best for them. i have support and had introduced many measures to protect tenants and preserve rental housing. if buyouts are happening under an ellis act eviction, let's keep reforming ellis act and discourage its use. to the extent some tenants are agreeing to buyouts