n 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 what is a pretty simple solution to the problem the first is we have over one million hosts so it's the obligation of companies like ours 0 verify thoseizing is in compliance or registered properly it is simple for a company any platform but more importantly you can lock and see we're here participating ♪ process many other folks in the fold in this marketplace are not here

participating in this process when it comes to rolls we'll 0 ignore or sue to take care of that that is the case in other cities we say emigration from our platforms theirs less interest in politically this takes folks that are you know ever unwilling to comply and drive underground but not a city's enforcement i'm fascinated former commissioner doug was here itch earlier and had an example he feels is not in compliance with the san francisco and couldn't be in compliance with san francisco law and not taking a lot of

effort to find out personal details using internet tools the traditional mechanisms that works the city what avail itself of for today technology in washington, d.c. of all places that opines on policies published an insightful blog on the issues you'll see from the companies not in this room they'll tell you they have no intent to comply with anything like this municipality indeed that is the case even randy shaw seemed to agree with small business he wrote it is a simple growth mechanism is simply won't work >> what could work you have a number is the host puts that you

wouldn't advance it without that number and leave it up to the city but verifies the number is a legitimate number and you know, i get it - >> sure if there are significant fines and penalties associated with that number if it is listed on a platform it is in the river the number to the listed it is onerous on us to look at the law enforcement position of the city some folks might be here having this conversation others are not interested in the conversation wouldn't expect that it won't work we've seen a little bit of practice those press we regularly screen from a quality number of cities around the world trust is important part of

the platform and in los angeles this is a press around a number of folks removed and within twenty-four hours it popped up on a platform if the city didn't have an effective enforceability policy i think it does for the private right of action and using the tools for investigation and bring folks not in compliances withenforce time. >> will they not put their number in and the city goes after the platforms. >> i can say no evidence whatsoever they'll comply and, in fact, in other cities their fighting particular enforcement

you'll see nothing but lawsuit they'll sue to void it and most scholars feel they'll prevail. >> we'll enforce if someone is voigt and we are host a platform we'll work with the district attorney's office to make sure it is enforced. >> this is not something we have to comply with. >> that's matter for the court. >> councilmember johnson's. >> this one is difficult it is linked to a recommendation that was not published user picked up when we talked about hosting platforms i'm role challenged by this one probably not going to

be supportive i don't feel how would we provide the information that what numbers are in good stand; right? what's the mechanism for it to be the numbers checked on a realtime basis. >> so as the ordinances is crafted it would just is that the hosting platform as verified it is on the platform it could contact our department we have to work out a process. >> i'm sure we can work this out so we have have a solution. >> certainly the hosting mrafrpdz knowing the address can plug into the information map and it comes up and shows whether that property as a

short-term rental registration number associated with it it will not give you the number but verify that's a unit open the register so for the platforms that have the address. >> for the hosting we think about craigslist what's the city plan to enforce there; right? you see great short-term rentals on craigslist and no number on that what happens? then that will be a enforceable matter as well >> my idea for how to work with craigslist platform it could be put in a field you have to do that for the listing to be alive it mobility maybe it is too much

to check on the website they'll require the fold if there's a registration number not valid i did. >> what you post there's standards this is something new for them to diesel with and we'll work with them to implement it. >> i would half hour disagree what's the address you'll add another fold if they do want to put their number they can audio that listing as some other type i feel like airbnb and home away and other sites are endeared towards did use and list anything to who is going and

checking this this gets to i don't want to prolong this who - what is we're trying to get them to do and what's the universe there how are the new rules applied and we're getting them to not post units on the register to be a partner we're not foreboding them requiring them to ask them for a hosting number. >> to not facility violations. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner richards. >> im- when a host puts in the registration number there's a easy way whatever platform we

popularity we can say comes back aboard do not we change every jurisdiction particle around the world that is not hard stuff everyone goes to this address this is a $20 million technology company we havealities associations let's agree other than the concept and move forward i know regarding platforms you, mr. owen awhile a couple of quick cases and fines we'll see where this goes i will think the word is essential it is the key to any type of enforcement or we're back to the february 1st legislation. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i don't have a problem with pitt a fold in there to

allow the number to be entered but if there's a number wrong or absent it should be up to the city to go over after the host the violator of the platform open the listings i understand the logics i don't believe this was part of farrell's. >> this was only in the supervisor campos legislation. >> i'm against this i understand it is only a fold required that's one thing but when we start to get into problems it's the host that should be the one that bears the burden of the fines they're operating without listing without a license. >> commissioner moore. >> i agree with the staff of verifying someone's professional

business license you put in the number and if the number is verified are not a click of a bottom there's a mature responsibility between the hosting platform and the one who looking at room and there's a business transaction and the city should be able to see that and make sure who is within the rules that the city is operating by. >> commissioner hillis. >> yeah. can i require a field is different than who is responsible for the actual validation of the valid registration i mean we get plans to market we don't check to make sure they're currently you know

valid it says the number but again nobody goes and checks. >> to which hair registration holds they can't there's a seal. >> they can't. >> oh i think we're a little bit saying we're not somehow going to have the platforms enforce the law we have to commit to enforcing the law i'm for the fold for the registration number to make sure it is valid or no point revoked we can easily do that to check to make sure you know i think it is too easy we're going to have airbnb give us this information when we know others other platforms are going to have the information someone can

put the registration and move their registration it is no longer valid who is keeping up with the registration numbers to make sure their valid it is going to be a constant enforcement effort. >> this will be a enforcement and for our staff to look at the listing to see which ones are the registries and which ones don't the listing is up in violations of the code and not effectively enforce that because of the information we can't get

so i think this is an important part of our enforcement program. >> i'll go one step farther this is the link pin of our program many of the public xherpts think they're a small person trying to abide by the law we're clear we're expecting those small players to abide by the law we are asking for companies to make a significant amount of money off of that to demonstrate they're interested in self-policing the market they want to self-police the market there are thousands of listing on single website hosting platforms and as you've heard from the gentleman earlier those valid listing is significant

they're removed not a valid registration right now we would have a few hundred available for listing. >> i'd like to say i like the zircon and throughout this effort we're trying to have a leveled but the platforms are different i think this is one that there create a level the playing field. >> anytime you land a site and put in a credit card this is exactly you put many the sfoeld fold is shots it out to the credit card company and you just bought this is exactly what we are talking about it is the city responsibility to maintain the database and if the shi