pieces of legislation we are going to be discussing and hopefully voting on today is part of our continuing effort to address the health disparities in making our communities healthier but also better and more informed. the piece of legislation that i have introduced and that we're going to be voting on today will prohibit advertising sugary sweetened beverages on city property. what's interesting about this is that the legislation is modeled off of a prohibition that already exists. it applies specifically to tobacco and alcohol products inside san francisco. so what we're proposing here today is not something that's so new and earth-shattering. i actually fundamentally believe that we are doing the right thing and that we should be adhering to the standards that we hold for alcohol and tobacco, particularly when we know that these sugary beverages ar product that we know is

identified by science and research to be slowly killing us. our youth, our youth are one of the main reasons why i'm involved in this effort. i fear that they are heavily targeted. back in 2013 the beverage companies spent more to promote events and sponsorships specifically targeting our youth than any other food category. now, this prohibition on sweetened beverages and advertising will help us begin to move closer to bridging the gap of the health disparities that exist. i, too, would like to acknowledge a few very talented people that have been working with us. i want to acknowledge deputy city attorney anita wood for her efforts on this legislation. i also would like to recognize yoyo chin on my staff and every advocate, every person of the 56 percent of san

franciscoans that voted on this measure, we are doing this for you. we have heard your charge and we supervisor wiener and myself and supervisor mar, are picking up the mantle and charging ahead. the advocates to our research sponsors, to the research universities that are with us the medical and dental associations this has been an incredible effort and we are very grateful for your leadership. colleagues, i hope you will be able to join supervisor mar and supervisor wiener and i in this legislation. >> supervisor mar. >> i would like to thank my colleagues supervisor cohen and wiener and avalos as well and acknowledge this dpbtd start with four politicians, it started with generations of activists that are now chart of the choose health sf coalition that includes advocates shape up sf and many, many other groups. i want to also say it's not just a looming public health crisis, it's a racial

justice cies says as well. as others said my daughter's general race, she's 15, one-third of them will develop type 2 diabetes in their lifetime. one half or more of the african american and latino populations will develop diabetes in their lifetime. that means they will live 8 or 9 years less than other folks who don't have type 2 diabetes. it is literally taking years off their lives. this is round 2 of us against big soda. it came up in our hearings to approve these items and supervisor kim was in the hearings as well. they troted out a dietitian that was paid for by the mefrpb beverage association to testify don't worry about it. who are you going to believe, a paid-for dietitian or are you going to believe this broad diverse coalition for public health in san francisco that's been working for decades on this

issue. i also want toad say that besides the addressing the predatory marketing of soda companies and the right to know health warnings that my colleagues have proposed, my piece of this trio of legislation would prevent city departments from purchasing any sugar-sweetened beverages and also city contractors and grantees from distributing sugar-sweetened beverages because they are so harmful to people's health. the broad coalition is committed to not only looking at these types of legislation but also addressing other issues with hopefully next steps to pass a soda tax as sometime in san francisco. the last point i'd like to make, i think the time has come for san francisco to join other cities and this trio of legislation will help establish us to protect our young people and our public health but also

to establish that health is, there's nothing more important than health in our city. thank ?ue ?oo thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor avalos. >> thank you, madam president. i'd just like to add myself as a co-sponsor to all these 3 pieces of legislation and briefly will just say that i am really glad to see that the practices of our city departments are going to be consistent with our public health goals. i think that we've seen ipbs stases where the city has not lived up to our public health goals but now we are stating them very very clearly. over the past few years in civic center plaza we have had the mountain dew tour come with giant 20-foot bottles advertising mountain dew in front of city center. they have actually brought, i don't know, a whole acre of dirt that they have piled up in front of city hall to be able to spread out over our plaza and they

attract people to come and they give samples of mountain dew to the guests who come. this is something that i have actually been very vocal against, is this the best use of our public land, is that how we want to use our parks, even our park department has had an expression of trying to limit access to sugar sweetened beverages but when it comes to a company like mountain dew playing a lot of money to the city, we turn a blind eye. this will change with this legislation passing and i i am totally in support. >> supervisor yee >> i am going to be very supportive of it but i'm glad the three of you have been consistent with your message and have pursued these

different avenues to counter what we have to deal with in society. i know the damage it can do in terms of these drinks and how things are advertised. i mean, to me, soda is the cigarette of the teenagers. soda is to our kids as early as zero, as early as one year old they are drinking it. and we need to do something about this and educate our community about the hazards of overdoing this. thank you very much. >> thank you. colleagues, can we take these items, same house, same call? without objection these ordinances pass unanimously on the first reading. madam clerk, call the next item. (applause). >> item 35 is an ordinance to order the summary vacation of a sewer easement and authorizing sale for 16,000 for the prompt

at crown terrace. >> item 36 is a resolution to declare the intention of the board of supervisors to establish a property based business improvement district to be known as the dog patch in northwest potrero hill approving the management district plan, the engineer's report, the notice, the proceedings, the assessment and the required findings and setting a time and place for the public hearing as july 28 at 3:00 pm here in this legislative chamber, room 250. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. this is also an exciting piece of legislation. so what you have before you is a resolution of intent to form the city's first ever green benefit district in dog patch in northwest potrero

hill and a few years ago i started, began this conversation in working with groups of dedicated neighbors and property owners on creative solutions to fund open space improvements and maintenance to our growing eastern neighborhoods. and at the same time i worked to pass legislation which would establish a process for creating a green benefits district which would allow residential commercial property owners to voluntarily assess themselves to pay for improvements and also to create public space, that is so preciously needed. now this model is nearly identical to the city's process for forming community benefits or many of you may know them as a cbd, but this is the first time foes residential and commercial property owners are cooperating in a district to use them for a wider variety of

services sufrp as graffiti removal, tree planting as well as park maintenance. it's a little bit of a new answer on a cbd, hence gbd you have heard me time and time again discuss the challenges we are facing in the southeastern part of the city and we need to be focused in prioritizing our new instra structure improvements in the neighborhood. this is one creative way, one creative strategy, where both the city and neighbors are taking up the challenge to create and maintain desperately needed public improvements. i have already heard from groups across the city who are looking to form something similar and they are modeling their work on what we have done in the dog patch northern part of potrero hill. i want to thank the members of the neighborhood steering committee who have worked hard

in advance of this process, bill public for providing the technical assistance we need today, rec and park and the department of public works who helped get this effort off the ground. if there are constituents in the audience who have been working on this i wanted to thank jean personally for being part of the team that's been the heart and soul for getting this effort offer the ground. i also want to recognize jonathan goldberg specifically from dpw this is an exciting time and i look forward to having conversations with you so you can have success in your district in creating a successful gbd >> supervisor christenson. >> i just want to glom on to supervisor cohen's enthusiasm. i think everyone knows i've been an enormous supporter of

our cbd's and 's and as a supervisor and resident of district 3 i'm very very grateful for the services they provide and the leadership in improving our commercial district. i wanted to commend michael yarney luke vasquez at build inc. who i know have been instrumental in this and congratulate the neighbors. i think this is a tremendous idea and i'm looking for a gbd in district 3 as soon as we can do that. >> thank you. our clerk has noticed a typo. >> thank you, madam president. on page 6 of this document, supervisor cohen, on line 3 the date in the body of the document says june 9th. the date should be july 28th, the date i stated in my opening for this item. >> so can someone make a motion to make that correction? supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much i will

make a motion to change the date from june 9 to july 28. >> okay, motioned by supervisor cohen, seconded by supervisor christenson. can we take that amendment without objection? without objection, the amendment passes and. >> thank you. >> and on the item as amended, colleagues, can we take it same house, same call? without objection this resolution passes as amended unanimously. thank you. >> thank you, members. >> madam clerk, please call item 37 and 38 together. >> item 37 and 38 were referred without recommendation from the land use and transportation committee. item 37 is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to revise the residential unit conversion ordinance among other proadvices, require hosting platforms to verify that a residential unit is on the city registry prior to listing and removing a listing once a residential unit has been rented for tourist or transient

use for more than 60 days in a calendar year. item 38 ordinance to amend the aid minimum administrative code it revise the residential unit conversion ordinance to among other provisions limit short term rental of a residential unit to no more than 120 days per calendar year. >> thank you, supervisor farrell. >> thank you, madam president. colleagues, last year we came together and passed the first regulatory legislation for short term rental in our city. the topic is extremely complicated with a thousand points of view. since that time our city departments as well as other interested parties outside city hall have continued to look at the legislation, its impacts and its logistics all towards an effort to continue to work to get the law right. i do believe that home sharing is here to stay in san francisco and we should support home sharing, but we must short it in a manner that protects our city's affordable housing

stock, make sure that we streamline our registration process and remove bureaucratic red tape for people looking to share their residences so we can incentivize hosts to be good actors under city law. given our current housing shortage and affordability issues we must ensure we keep our city from turning into a city solely of short term rentals so our residents continue to live and thrive here but also have an appropriate ability to share their home so they can make ends meet. we know home sharing is allowing seniors to earn extra income, help people earn extra money to pay off mortgages, helping people pay off medical bills and exposing tourists to nontradition tourist venues. with eyes on san francisco and how we continue to approach short term rentals i believe it is extremely important to

strengthen and streamline our current process and i believe mayor lee's and my amendments strike the right balance that we need. with that being said our goal of putting forward these amendments from the beginning has always been to drive toward consensus where possible and avoid a complicated measure being decided at the ballot. deciding this issue at the ballot will lock the policy in stone and will be the wrong approach as we continue to work towards getting this policy right. we all know if it goes to the ballot and we want to change just a comma in the law we have to go back to the voters and one thing we have learned in this process over the past few years, this is extremely complicated but our sharing economy, which this is a part of and i would imagine over the next few years we're going to talk about regulating other parts of our sharing economy, this is a part of our economy that is here to stay but also growing and in flux and is challenging for our city government to get ahold of. we

know we are going to have to revisit this law much more frequently than other parts of the law that we continue to address here at the board of supervisors. the ballot measure also in many regards, in my opinion , has been politically driven and not policy driven. i believe there are a number of advocates that i very much appreciate a dialogue with where we have disagreed on the underlying basis but have approached this on a policy basis and not a political basis. i look forward to reenergizing those dialogues moving forward. i also understand my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have other policy components they would like to have time to discuss and sort out and i would welcome conversations on this complicated topic. from my perspective we passed a framework last year, now let's take the time to get it right. i know ultimately we will get a policy crafted that protects our affordable housing stock, which has to be the no. 1 goal,

incentivize hosts to be good actors by streamlining the registration process and fully fund it so we ensure the law we pass here at the board of supervisors is fully enforcible. with that all being said i would like to make a motion, colleagues to continue both items 37 and 38 for another month to give time for those additional discussions to take place. >> supervisor farrell has made a motion to continue items 37 and 38 to the meeting of july 14, 2015. is there a second? seconded by supervisor tang. supervisor campos. >> thank you, i would ask supervisor farrell through the chair if he could amend his motion to focus only on his item as the main author of one of the items i would like to request a yes or no vote on my

item and so with that i would like to respectfully request that out of deference and consideration as the main author that his motion to continue ply to his item but not mine. >> supervisor farrell and i appreciate the comment so from my perspective they are items, boat of these pieces of legislation i would like to continue, again the point being to make sure that we continue to have a discussion on all these items so i respect that very much so, but i would like to continue both of these items. >> okay, supervisor campos. >> thank you very much. i am disappointed by that move. i think that there has to be some consideration for the fact that as individuals we have different perspectives but i think that we have in the past recognized some deference to

the main author. that said let me say this: that with all due respect to supervisor farrell and mayor lee, i want to be very clear. the last thing that we need in this building is to give the lobbyists of air b and b more time to do what they have been doing in this building for the last couple of years (applause). >> may i remind the public that no clapping is allowed during the board meetings please. if you could allow us an opportunity to deliberate in silence we would really appreciate that. thank you. >> the reason that we are in this mess is because we have as a city decided to roll over for a 20 billion dollar corporation and let that corporation write

the laws that should be written by the elected legislators. well, we have an opportunity to remedy that and i think that we can have differences of opinion on this issue but the issues that are before us have been talked to death and there is no compromise when what the other side in this case air b and b is presenting is a line that makes it clear that even though they are making millions of dollars, they believe that they have no responsibility whatsoever when it comes to the enforcement of this law. it is how do you negotiate with someone who believes that they have no responsibility for what's happening to our neighborhoods? now, last week nearly one thousand mission residents came to these very chambers and gave

heartfelt and painful testimony about how their lives are impacted by today's terrible housing crisis. the lack of affordable housing is without a doubt the most important issue facing san francisco. the mission community and indeed communities across san francisco are confronting unbelievablely high rents, soring evictions and then to make matters worse, thousands of unregistered and therefore illegal air b and b rentals for tourists that take even more housing off the limited housing we have. the legislation i have before you today is about common sense regulation that will protect housing for san francisco residents. many of you in this chamber spoke last week about your reluctance to support a temporary moratorium on luxury

housing due to the fear that somehow that could remove possible housing from the market. well, what we are dealing with today is the fact that air b and b rentals are doing precisely that, they are removing long-term housing opportunities for san francisco residents across this city. our chief economist, ted eagan, stated even removing one single unit of housing from the city through short term rentals has a negative economic impact on the city. even taking into consideration the potential tourist dollars and additional host income. the budget and legislative analyst's report on this matter states that air b and b alone is taking between 925 to 1960 units off the

market, up to 25 percent of the vacant units in this city. the mayor recently announced a $250 million bond now up to $300 million, and we thank mayor lee for responding to the mission. and he proposes that for the purpose of creating and building affordable housing. and yet when you look at the amount of the bond if we're lucky we will be able to build a little over a thousand units of affordable housing. this means that we will be asking to take the taxpayers of san francisco to replace half of what is being lost because of air b and b rentals. it is simply not fair for us to ask the voters to pony up for the actions of a 20 billion dollar corporation. in the mission up to 40

percent of vacant units are air b and b rentals in the haight, it is 43 percent, in the castro it is 35 percent, in potrero hill it is 32 percent. it is the neighborhoods with the highest number of evictions that see the largest number of air b and b rentals. the legislation i have introduced with supervisors mar and avalos as co-sponsors creates a short term rental law by adding real enforcement mechanisms. it specifically requires hosting platforms to list only registered units, requiring them to provide quarterly data to the city and creating a 60 day limit on short term rentals. the budget and legislative analyst states an enforced 60 day cap would lead to a 27 percent reduction of air b and b units entirely focused on commercial units

which report as units taking residential housing off the market permanently. a 120 day cap that has been proposed by the mayor and supervisor farrell would only lead to a 7 percent reduction in air b and b units, leaving many commercial air b and b units untouched, which is not something that we can afford in this city. as i have said on many occasions, i support i support home sharing with limits. i support casual hosts who are using this as a way to make ends meet. i understand that for many san franciscoans this is something that is needed. however, left unregulated, this industry will continue to exacerbate the housing crisis we are facing by incentivizing taking housing off the housing market. colleagues, i ask for your support and let me go through some of the key points in my legislation.

one, prohibiting hosting platforms from listing units not on the city's short term rental registry and fining those platforms if they fail to do so. under current law, hosting platforms can continue to profit from illegal listings without any accountability for facilitating illegal activity. there are more than 5,000 san francisco listings currently on air b and b alone and 1200 on vrbo, holding the platforms themselves accountable and imposing the fines will make sure that thrill legal activity stops. anne marie rogers of the planning department as well as commissioner dennis richards and commissioner cindy wu have always referred to these as the city's linchpin rr of the city's law. no. 2, require hosting platforms to provide data to

the planning department. this is something the planning department had repeatedly asked them for for months to help them with edge *er enforcement efforts. the budget and legislative analyst also requested this data be required. this regulation brings hoeftds in line with the laws of other small businesses. many companies, not just air b and b, provide data to the city to enforce the law and why should we treat air b and b any different? no. 3, have the planning department redact private information to ensure any data collected by the planning department is protected. we want to make sure that addresses are redacted for privacy concerns. my legislation calls on the redaction of all street and unit numbers of any residents

in the short term rental registry. in addition the names of the permanent residents would be redacted so to the extent that the issue of privacy has been used as a justification we have a long history of the city protecting the privacy of confidential information and that is not going to change because of these requirements. no. 4, allowing interested parties to go to export -- court and to allow them to collect civil penalties. bottom line is people need protections. this law would allow neighbors to go to court in a timely way if the city has not addressed their concerns. this assures we are using all available protections to enforce the law. the city does not have the resources to take all the enforcement efforts that are needed. creating a strong private right of action can be thought of as a type of enforcement sharing where the city cannot take on the

platforms in particularly egregious cases, we don't want to restrict the ability of people in our neighborhoods, regular piepl, from taking those on. and civil penalties are important so that it's not only wealthy people but working class people, middle income people, who can take bad actors to court. no. 5, notifying nraib neighbors in a building when an application is completed. my law extends this notification to other permanent residents in the building. i believe neighbors have a right to know that there will be a short term rental happening in that building. and then, no. 6, limiting all short term rentals to 60 days per year. a 60 day limit would allow casual hosts to continue to air b and b their homes over the summer, on vacation or when they need to