one hundred 20 we're not expecting them to say hey, we have the data i went on line and can - i saw the calendar it was available this and that day i my in question how do you know what those red marks are they've reached the one hundred 20 is my concern it the consistent based on the data plasmas but even having the numbers we're going to have to struggle when we hit the cap. >> it is a start but it is an incompletely supervisor farrell said wanting to create without a doubt without a doubt there's a doubt in his mind we have an enforcement issue without someplace. >> commissioner antonini and

ultimate it is up to the host to report every year and they we'll have to reporter honestly like the tax the tax malia cohen to report the number of nights to a limit to again we have to find a way to do it ever airbnb for instance, reports 90 days and go to someone else and grabs another from craigslist and someone else we'll not know ultimately the host is going to be the one that has to say i'm against we're supposed to vote not way you have a phrased. >> does not require. >> does not so we're voting yes on do not and commissioner wu.

>> i agree with commissioner richards thoughts for enforceability is only don't need this type of information. >> commissioner hillis. >> can you remind me what the host have to report so unanimously they need to send a report to the planning department kind of signed under oath the number of days. >> yes. >> again, i that one hundred and 20 days we're trying to achieve this everything is enforceable it is not just liquor the planning code it is not it takes . >> o'connor a room is not

available there is a meter to stop after one hundred and 20 days or whatever there is no more room to rent it technology is available not necessarily worked on by the platform itself but the accounting mechanism built online reservations and commissioner richards. >> i think commissioner hillis point resonates around one airbnb for the first one hundred and 20 days other rental worries me we have look at of enforcement we can psychiatries. >> commissioners shall i call the question open recommendation 11 to not require platforms to report quarterly.

>> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore no commissioner richards marry no commissioner wu no and commissioner president fong that motion will be forwarded a recommendation of a vote 4 to 5 commissioner johnck's r /*. >> recommendation number 12 is to do not remove the owner the residential owner in which the tourist or trinity use is to occur for the supervisor campos ordinance going back to the previous recommendation we added owners or residents that live within one hundred photo of the property those provision strikes

out party the owner the residential unit the department feels the owner of the unit has an inherit interest in what goes on and by depiction an interested party we're recommending it not be removed. >> commissioner antonini. >> i'm in favor of does not remove the owner this was this discussion came up the owners were saying we're somewhat reticent about our tenants be able to sub let those units for short-term rental and said to have authority over those people to do it is a little bit different issue but still have to gain permission from the owners to do this thing if this year violations they should know about them this only make sense

commissioner hillis. >> don't you remind us there was a lot of information absent about the owners consenting the renters. >> previously beforehand get their permission or the other signed affidavit and it was put into the ordinance i believe a certified letter to the owner that your tenant has listed the unit. >> that's what we recommended the last time. >> we minded like approval from the owner. >> i thought we were recommending. >> some mechanism to notify the owner. >> sent e send a letter to the owner or someplace. >> shall i call the question oppose recommendation 12.

>> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu no and commissioner president fong so moved supervisors that recommendation moved forwards with commissioner wu voting against and do not allow the private right of action for any interested party after 90 days if the department has not instituted civil action that significantly expands who can take action and it will include anyone that is defined as as interested party i voted on the owner and previously anyone within one hundred photo of the property as well nonprofits and

whole litany of other people. >> commissioner richards the question we've heard a speaker early on i had something happened next door to me i went crazy go to work and it was in russian hill that allows the neighbor they were because they were going crazy this was a nuisance and do this after 90 days and yes they wait 60 days and another thirty days. >> you know if something it not happening it is kind of like a safety valve to me commissioner antonini. >> yeah i want to hear your recommendation you said do not allow at the griffin. >> i will say that are the

mayoral ordinance has a provision like this in that as well but the number of days is significantly longer than one hundred and 20 i think. >> do not allow. >> do not expand the private right of action to include interested parties after 90 days. >> interested party after 90 days they have to take their angling action before that. >> it is on page 20 commissioner moore. >> commissioner richards. >> what type of abuses do you for see i think we were concerned it would open up the door for anyone who wanted to foil a

lawsuit against their neighbor it was taking responsibility away interest the planning department from enforcing it's on law. >> i see the deserve our enforcement happens after. >> within the 90 days determine an ax. >> deputy city attorney i think there are two issues one is that supervisor campos ordinance expands the definition of private right of action and allows any interested party that meets that one step back supervisor campos expands the definitions of a interested party and any interested party to file a lawsuit if they filed

a complaint with the department and no written determination no violation they'll give our office thirty days no, if we toil a illuminate u lawsuit they can't bring your their private right of lawsuit one is supervisor campos legislation allows any interested parties whereas bred and kim or so only to housing nonprofits and supervisor farrell's ordinance force the expedited right of action to permanent resident of the building and apparently resident within hydrophoto of the building and hoas associated with the building and the timeline in supervisor campos timeline is short 60 days and our office thirty days the other

is one hundred and 05 days that allows the administration to finish within one hundred and 4 days they don't get the expedited private right of action so i'm sorry if it confused you more but some of the differences. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner richards. >> i guess the question i was out for one the votes number 5 did we take action on all the other actions with the different provisions city attorney you're aware you. >> you mean the 3 different. >> - we're dealing with one. >> the staff has organized this by issue than by or ordinances

because staff recommending a mixed bag not just talking about supervisor campos it is in piece. >> so part of it it has to be one hundred 4 days for farrell ordinance. >> we can talk about the farrell's provision we weren't away that was in the ordinance. >> so the longer period seems nor reasonable to me. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i tend to agree i'm going to think the violation occurs and then there's a 90 day period of time there might be private right of action but after that time exteriors there

are can't be private right of action reverent are you farrell wanted one hundred and 5 instead of 90 making it a longer period of time. >> actually, the difference continue sxomz is 60 days and the interested party gives a 60 days past the department basically hadn't made any form determination so this is a or not a violation within 60 days of complaint if this happens this in supervisor campos legislation the interested party has to give the doves thirty days notice of their intent to foil a lawsuit their private right of action is cut off and they have to go to the regular private right of action they have to go dot whole

administration process with the city and then file a lawsuit under ferals the timeline is long-range his it one hundred and 5 days this tracks the timing of the mosaic process to essentially under the private law the only private right of action becomes right only if taser a hearing and the city says there's a violation we have a determination under all of those expedite private rights of action you don't have to wait for the director to make the determination so supervisor campos and supervisor farrell's setting aside the definition of who can do that but in terms of the timeline farrell's is one hundred and 5 days thoerl

diverse the city enough to time to through through the process that a violation has are has not occurred if the city finds no violation no private right of action kicks in alternative if the city finds a determination and files a lawsuit no private rights of it kicks in because the city takes over. >> the process sometimes is slow and if it tracks the light period dpem staffs open. >> we've not discussed that we want previous a longer timeline. >> i'm going to support one hundred 57 is that the number.

>> that's included in sxhaermz because plus a thirty day to file a utility if that time passes. >> so in total one hundred and 35 days of action and if something happens in the interim submittal or foiling a lawsuit they can't do it that cuts down open the litigation it's one hundred and 5 and another thirty days. >> i'll recommend that as a separate item and voting on the supervisor campos 90 days. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you also for commissioner antonini that was on the list to add.

>> commissioner richards so a vote yes to support the departments recommendation no is a different alternative. >> shall i call it. >> to not allow private rights of action for trrtd party if the departments in instituted a civil action. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore no commissioner richards no commissioner wu no commissioner president fong so moved that will move forward with 4 to 3 moore rishgd and