kim hers was a duplicative. >> the lapsing is slightly different drafted in october and i did a slightly better job of crafting it the intent that the city can institute enforcement and civil procedures at any time. >> commissioners shall and call the question on that recommendation. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes that recommendations will go forward unanimously unanimously. >> so recommendation go number 4 is to allow private right of action for nonprofits as outlined in the kim ordinance that will allow a nonprofit it is chart to protect housing in

san francisco to sorry to initiate private right of action against unit with a ellis act violation or 3 or more registering or rent control united if there's a violation thirty days but basically after a period of 90 days they can initiate the private right of action. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, i'm not supportive of this i think it is encourages litigation and the city should be the litigationer why do we give nonprofits a special privilege above and beyond anyone else i mean you know we should stick with a firm controls of the city has and we

should be the endorseer some groups get different motivates and you're not sure you've got all those lawsuits going on that makes the process more expensive i'm migrant it. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i have a question for the question for 13 about the private right of action my question is what would on outdoor party not the city bring to the court essential they bring a private right of action before a judge what information to add to have a cocktails essentially i'm struggling with how private right of action supports our enforcement because they're not going to have definitely not more information than the city i struggle with how this is

effective so locating the city attorney or mr. star or ann marie or mop i'll defer to the city attorney i don't know what it brings to the >> deputy city attorney to find a violation of chapter four 1 a if you foil a lawsuit it opens you up to soak discovery defines against the opposite side you can request their records have the court case subpoenaed such airbnb and those types of things to get records on the party those are obviously the city could a seek when we were involved in civil litigation so i don't know if there is information different than what we get it depends on what it

person choose to go after. >> i'll add the enforceability capacity more people able to move growth cases forward and additionally some of the best information is from those close to the growth or the gentleman earlier who gave a great information that allowed us to pursue the illegal unit in his building so - >> i'll say generally had this is recommendation 13 i'm struggling ear a little bit early in the game if there was more information how do you prove that someone is violating the law i would be okay with having a private right of action to anyone if they bring it but i think it i'm not seeing how i'm

going to vote but the city needs to be the one to figure out how you prove that someone is break the law and allow others to bring subsequent private rights of action for the first sort of wave i don't know how to say that that's my comment. >> commissioner hillis. >> so on this you know i'm generally supportive can you walk me through it it is kind of getting into the recommendation i'm at 3 unit building i live there i think the upstairs folks moved to oregon and they're representing their airbnb out more than 60 days the city is to the doing anything how does that

work actually, i take them to court. >> for this recommendation first, it is only for the nonprofits so you being a. >> so on the private right of action we can get into who does it. >> you first file a complaint with the city depending on the private right of action you will wait thirty days after foiling the complaint. >> the city didn't have - >> after that thirty appeared hasz passed nothing happens so i accepted a notice to the city saying i'm going to institute civil proceedings against those person you have not done anything and wait another thirty days and institute it in the court. >> i was asking the court to

enforce law they have residents be say this person is breaking the law and the city is taking too long. >> to answer that last part of our question it is different under the owners unfortunately, it is a little bit complicated so under supervisor jane kim's and supervisor breed ordinance it was voted on by supervisor breed that concerned the ellis act i'll go in order. >> the one that involves the ellis act the first one listed in supervisor jane kim's and supervisor breed ordinances that

one allows an interested party to get an injunction for damages and but can't get civil penalties and the same with supervisor jane kim's an joungs but not damages and not civil penalties under supervisor campos they can sue an interested party and for his i believe any interested party not limited to nonprofit and the interested parties are you should have made a table hair permanent residents of the building in which the it is occurring any homeowners association any person within one hundred and photo and nonprofit organization either some place that is offering the

building or hosting the building violating their conditions under the owners and be able to get injunction damages and civil penalties and the civil penalties are set at one thousand dollars a day and under supervisor farrell's only interested parties in the building living one one hundred photo of property and the homeowner association may foil a private right of action only entitled to joungs not damages and civil penalties. >> what's the planning staff recommending what's the recommendation. >> we think that limited private right of action for nonprofits is okay. >> for the whole thing what are the damages and a lot of this information we didn't have time to evaluate so in the supervisor

campos and in the mayoral ordinance those details were not given to us so - >> okay. did you make a recommendation of the thirty days? >> on the time limit. >> imfor notice of the city attorney. >> thirty days after the complaint you can foil a civil action. >> those are different and each ordinance is different not a uniform thirty days. >> 45 dies in one and one hundred and 5 in farrell's and thirty days in other one so i think the museum of days probably the longer than the better to have time to do it but i am not their splitting hairs over days and commissioner richards you i think we heard

from supervisor kim that is a 35-year-old precedent so probably laws of action by a nonprofit so to commissioner johnsons point this is five or six other example if you're a nonprofit start suing someone the nonprofit has a mission statement around affordable housing or whatever the specification that is common sense for me and commissioner wu i think on building what commissioner richards said there's a long history of sro history where people live and a lot of illegal hotel going on to stop the bad actors from shift the home rentals to hotel

rentals there is some good. >> of the professional guardian i think we should do something about the veterans enforcement i'll willing to support. >> commissioner antonini. >> i disagree u disagree i've seen in my years many years the mayor's office and the city administration were foreboding money to are coming out and bringing people into opposed what the city's position there's probably a reason why we haven't taken and action to get someone else into the act is not a good idea there are political motivations so i'm not voting for this one. >> commissioner hillis a

followup is the hotel conversion the only place this is loud im. >> it is in charter 41 a bit border an interested party may isn't a legal procedures this veto innovative the city attorney's office it is no civil perpetrates. >> your housing our pdr for officer those policies i mean it is a little bit od we're singling this out from the other policies to allow it that's it. >> not ellis act elsewhere but i'm familiar that chapter one it

does at least relate to hours it is similar that was charter 41 and this is charter 41 a preserve the housing. >> even if you ellis act and your spoerpd rerenting it sound like we don't have that provision. >> i don't know if people can do something for the licensing given that. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i will say i will still i know the precedence of the trinity i'm troubled by this the cc&rs are a different circumstances that sro's i'll be supportive we're talking about adding

things at the end i'll say we ask for the recommendations pursued i'm i'll be okay with the extensive right of action with damages but not civil penalties and have a longer length of time for the city to review a private right of action could be pursued this is where the department didn't make a specific recommendations i want to add it to be in support of private right of action. >> i can answer a couple of questions one is that under the ellis act and under our local administered chapter three 7 a tenant who is demand from the ellis act and they can bring an action for damages against the landlord and provisions under state law it if you rerent

within 5 years after you've done ellis act violations you have to offer it to the tenants and there are restrictions how much rent you can acquire for it unit i wanted to circle back. >> commissioner antonini any nonprofit or specific nonprofits allowed to do that and it is a nonprofit organization that has the preservation of improvement of housing as a stated incorporation and has existed for no less than 5 years. >> i think a lot of them it may say theoretically but they oppose a lot of projects in poor neighborhoods i'm not voting for this some of the major option comes out of those groups. >> so commissioners on

recommendations number 4 to allow the private right of action commissioner antonini. >> no commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes with a vote of 6 to one. >> number 5. >> 5. >> don't take away progress. >> (laughter) the next department recommendation to add permanent owner residing within one hundred hundred photo to the interested in the supervisor campos and mayoral ordinance that depends on how you take the private right of action if you don't expand the private right of action to any interested

party someone living within one hundred photo of the unit to take action after the city finds a violation so bringing those that are directly effected to the short-term rental the impact on their neighborhoods into the definition of an interested party. >> the clarify the difference between this one and the last one. >> we're amending the definition for what on interested party is and expand the private right of action to the interested parties then everyone within one hundred feet. >> there's mud. >> deputy city attorney again if i could offer a little bit more explanation in addition to where mr. star said the current

law and i'll the owners include one private right of action for any trrtdz right of action it has been exhausted and it violation has occurred so all the current law that private right of action retains in place if you exhaust the private right of action then any party can sue based on that violation each of the ordinances before you now adds a second private right of action in the case of kim and brood owners it has two private rights of action that kicks in prior to the director determining a violation has occurred this is just the lion private right of action you don't have to exhaust the city's process and wait for the director to determine a violation has occurred that's the difference.

>> commissioner antonini. >> so it's an interested within one hundred feet or a difference. >> you'll amend the distinction of an interested party to include a recipe within the one hundred feet. >> under stale we can only offer a private right of action to private parties that have received some kind of harm from the violation so we have to limit it to the definition of interested parties under the current law if i could find the definition of interested party a definition of interested party includes the permanent resident of the building and any homeowners association and the owner of the residential unit and nonprofit

organizations that has a housing housing issues those are the parties that exist under the legislation those get tweaked and supervisor mark farrell adds permanent residents one one hundred photo and under supervisor campos he add adds that but desolates the owner of the unit and i'm sure if there's a change to the interested party in kim and breeds. >> owners should be included if you're going to have you'll see groups including someone next door i'm not how it causes harm. >> whether the owner should be included will come up. >> this is the one that doesn't have the owner.

>> correct a resident or owner. >> there's - supervisor campos is proposing to take out opener from the definition just a party we're not dealing with that question right now. >> so owner is in this. >> correct. >> commissioner moore. >> mr. star can you give a little bit more explanation but supervisor farrell and supervisor campos wanted to duplication of what is already there is it extra tell us and add as a second layer of something being sound like it is the same thing happens a little bit earlier i'm asking.

>> a resident within one hundred photo of the property is not in the definition of interested party right now. >> so the the main thing. >> yes. and. >> to add residents within one hundred folded not included today. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you we're all- hedge fund photo if you live in a large building and you live on the thirty accounting floor and someone on the sect floor. >> one hundred photo from the property. >> that's a speculate type of interested party in the none of the code any permanent resident

of the building in which the violation occurs to if you have 2 hundred foot story this is in addition to that it actually slightly worded differently than the planning staff memo is a permanent resident or owner of a appropriate within one hundred photo that is property to be added it would be an owner of a hundred photo but that owner lives in new york they don't have to live within feet and that's in supervisor farrell's legislation. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i have misgiving i've seen incidents this is only our actions it not giving them the power to you know have a private

right of action we're often discussing things like mandatory discretionary review often mergers and everyone in the whole neighborhood comes up and supports and staff in support the one person that will come up and object they don't like the problem but we're giving that one person opportunity for legal action that's why i am opted to it. >> commissioners shall i call the question on recommendation 5. >> yes. >> to add permanent owner residing within one hundred photo. >> commissioner antonini and this is adding the owner i thought that was. >> we're adding permanent owner residing within one hundred foreboding photo to american people interested party.

>> the interested party is there already we're adding the owner. >> parties in section 41 a a owner residing. >> then later on we come up with supervisor campos we take that out i change my position. >> on that commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner president fong. >> so moved that recommendation will move forward 6 to zero. >> so recommendation 6 from staff is it prohibit hosting platforms prosecute listing short-term rental that don't are

register a host to submit their registration number to the hosting platform i believe they'll have to verify the number. >> commissioner wu. >> what was the implemented on february 1st our is there already a requirement to put the registration number on the website. >> yes. they're required this makes the hosting platform a team player, if you will. >> the host is responsibly. >> at the could lift a property in san francisco without the rental number. >> under this did host has the responsibility to not have anyone open the website with a number. >> right. >> does the department have a

represents to engross for purposes on the platform. >> i believe if they are in violation of 41 a we're allowed to seek penalty against the hosting platform i'm looking at the city attorney to approve. >> the violation of this requirement is subject to penalties so we'll keep that to insure that the host platforms are in compliance with that request thank you. i'm supportive and i have a question mr. star so in this case of craigslist how this sound like it is good how does that work more of a transaction. >> craigslist didn't track the

transactions but stop something from on their site listed. >> i believe that the ordinance as supervisor campos drafted it does require the hosting platform to verify with the department it's a valid registration that is part of the requirement. >> thank you commissioner hillis. >> we just on the craigslist examine those are short-term rentals so one the problems you don't know if it is less than 30s. >> more than thirty days is a residential use and it's the short-term rental not being able to be listed without a registration number. >> was portland doing something

on this i was reading i was following the portland registration. >> so i'm hearing from the law enforcement of portland they'll start feinstein if they don't - >> can i ask the gentleman a question question. (laughter). >> welcome. >> so i imagine you can't drive for uber but i don't know if uber has a verify the driver's license what's our take and another field what is our registration number you know in san francisco it comes up in san francisco this is it. >> sure two significant concerns