be the answer. this is not going to be easy, this is very complex as we can see, we've been dealing with it for two years. so, you know, i was uncomfortable with that rhetoric. i feel the passion and i certainly understand the direction but i just want to be sure that, again, we're not using a sledge hammer when we should be using a scalpel. >> thank you, supervisor tang. >> thank you. i just wanted to add on to some of the comments from my colleagues. i think that today i will be supporting a continuance as well and really because, again, as some of my colleagues have already said, i do see pieces in both legislation that i would agree with. so, for example, as supervisor cohen just mentioned, in item 38 in the mayor and supervisor farrell's piece, one of the issues that we're trying to address is with evictions. his piece, their piece says a unit cannot be subject of eviction within 5 years of an application if the eviction occurred after november 1,

2014. are there ways we can strengthen that provision? i do like in supervisor campos's piece in terms of upon registration application that there must be notice mailed to all residents in a building, to an hoa, to groups that have requested notification. i like that there is sharing of information from the hosting platform including a registration number and we can use that information against information in city data bases. one point i want to make in terms of the dialogue and how it started out, there's this stop there are many, many egregious actors but there are really those that -- many in my neighborhood who are perfectly fine residents who have not disturbed any of their neighbors, who own single family homes and have made many friends throughout the world through this type of a program. and i think to characterize

that everyone is a bad actor and it's all about air b and b i think is absurd. i think as supervisor christenson said, it's many of our single family property owners who have come to me in our office saying we wouldn't like any sort of cap but i'm willing to compromise on both sides and say, sure, we should consider some sort of compromise, respecting boat sides. so that's why i'm supporting the continuance. >> what i'm hearing, and i'm going to take people's word for it, i'm hearing discussion about whether we could or could not come together in the next few weeks to compromise something. and what i'm

hearing is that this willingness, i think there are pieces of supervisor campos' legislation that i would definitely support and like to see as a compromise piece of it. i'm hoping that the sincerity i'm hearing today of people willing to do that especially what supervisor katy tang said in regards to the sharing of the information of who is registering, i mean who is actually advertising and so forth, is an important piece as far as i'm concerned in terms of being able to enforce anything we put up there. so i will be supporting the continuance with the caveat that i feel like there's some sincerity in the discussion to compromise. >> thank you, supervisor yee.

supervisor kim. >> so, speaking specifically about the continuance, i mean the one thing i will say is that my understanding is that over the last 8 months, since october there has been discussions between parties about coming to one ordinance that would come before the board. and over the last 8 months we have not seen those discussions to come to fruition yet. and i guess i'm not convinced that one more month is going to get us there and i guess i would ask the initiator of the motion to ask for an additional month, whether he has indication that there is going to be movement between the two parties. if there is, great. i have to agree with supervisor katy tang. i would love for one ordinance to be before the board today. there are aspects of both pieces of legislation, i am ready to vote on the stronger piece of legislation, one that would address our housing crisis and would address what we are seeing which is housing stock that's

actually being removed from the city. and that is exactly what we're trying to address through passing regulation of short term rentals. it's not that we're against short term rentals, we want to make sure that is exactly what people are doing, that they are merely using a room, a couch in their house for folks that are coming into the city for tourism reasons but we are not actually taking units off of the market. and that's something that we're not just seeing here in san francisco, we're seeing this in cities around the world and that's why cities globally are acting on this issue because they're seeing a shortage of housing units for people that want to live in the city. that's why we have a planning code. we have places where people get to live, we have places where people get to have hotels, where people get to have businesses, where people get to do manufacturing and this legislation will get us to that place. so this legislation is actually a solution to the

housing crisis, not just a pause. but what i would ask supervisor farrell is if he has indication there will be movement over one month and we can get to ordinance in july. >> supervisor farrell. >> i appreciate the question. i think from my perspective i will go back a little bit to what supervisor wiener said. to me it's not parties on both sides. i also don't care what one company or one advocate says. to me it's also about giving us on the board of supervisors, some people haven't focused on it as much as i know a lot of us have over the past two years, if you will, but there continue to be good ideas thrown about and from my perspective i want to get this legislation right. so to me a continuance is as much about hearing from community members without a doubt i will continue to do so but also having a dialogue with members of the board of supervisors to make sure their ideas are

vetted and so forth when we have the vote. >> supervisor kim, is that it? >> thank you. >> supervisor avalos. >> thank you. colleagues, i don't have a lot of faith that in a month's time we're going to be able to find a compromise version of this legislation. i see this legislation is clearly taken a side about how we're going to protect or not protect our housing stock, our rental housing stock in san francisco or doing it in favor of air b and b a vote for continuance is really a vote for air b and b >> no, it's not. >> i've never seen one of our colleagues continue another person's legislation. if a colleague wants to have legislation to be voted on, that's the colleague's prerogative to have his or her legislation voted on. that is being denied someone today, one of our colleagues mentioned being offended because i terminated the vote. i think what's actually offensive is that we're actually saying, forcing a continuance on another colleague's legislation. that to me is

what is at stake here. that's what we are willing to do to make sure we green light air b and b's legislation. we had 7 hours of people testifying last week how hard it is finding places to live and seeing people lose their housing and what we are losing in terms of housing stock. if we had those same people here in this room this week we know there would be a lot of pressure to do otherwise. they are not here so we don't feel that pressure. imagine them here, they are still seeking a way out of the dire straits of losing housing stock in san francisco and if we vote to continue today, if we vote against regulations against air b and b we're saying their voices don't matter. that's clearly what we're saying and what's at stake in san francisco today. i appreciate the work supervisor campos has made on this legislation. i appreciate our willingness to come together and look at compromise, but waiting a month is not going to provide the

compromise and not give us the answers that we seek. >> thank you, supervisor avalos. supervisor campos. >> thank you, madam president. i want to thank my colleagues for all their comments and i certainly want to say to supervisor cohen i actually appreciate the question of the pause and i think in support of your pause around the mission, i can see your point. but let me put it this way. i think i would be in a different place as a supervisor for district 9 and specifically for the mission as a neighborhood if the vote last week had gone differently. the reality is that as people are asking to give air b and b 30 days the mission was denied 45 days last week. and if that 45 days had

been given to the mission so that they could have at least as a community had a fighting chance to find, to preserve land that they wanted to build affordable housing on, then maybe i would be in a different place. i also would be in a different place if the concept of a pause didn't just expand to, apply to this board of supervisors pausing action for 30 days but also apply to air b and b pausing the illegal listing of thousands of units so that maybe if that happened the hundreds of people that are being evicted in places like the mission would have a chance to stay in san francisco. the thing about a pause is that when you do it or not do it, there are consequences. and so i am here with a sense of urgency because of what's happening in my district. you know what? i trust supervisor

wiener that he knows the castro better than i do. i know the mission better than he does. it's just the nature of district elections. but that's the thing about the pause, is that given the totality of what is facing this neighborhood, we need to act. and i will say this: that i actually feel bad for the people on both sides that have been coming to this building because i know it's not easy whether you are for or against air b and b rentals to come to this building as often as people have come. i feel bad for them. and it would be a different story if i saw that we actually have the ability to find that middle ground because when it comes down to it, this is really the key question here. do you believe that air b and b and other platforms

should share in the responsibility of enforcing the law? if you don't believe that they should, then you are not going to agree to provide data requiring them to provide data, you are not going to agree that they should only list units that have been registered. so, you know, pauses are things that as a general rule i would be open to but in the context of this neighborhood, this community, the mission which was denied a 45-day pause i say, let's act today and if we can deny the mission 45 days why should we give air b and b

days. >> supervisor farrell. >> i will say two things. one, i take the point about continuing another member's piece of legislation. let me remind my colleagues two years ago i introduced legislation around tic's on condo conversions. this board voted to completely gut my item and continue it. in my opinion voting to continue this item is less than half of what happened to legislation i introduced. to come back and say continuing an item is egregious. i think as we move forward i will reiterate, i don't care what one company, air b and b thinks or what one advocate group or a group of they will

thinks together. as supervisor wiener mentioned, we are here to represent our constituents. we are also here to represent the city of san francisco as a whole. and when air b and b right now, an easy political scapegoat, represents less than half the total listings here in the city of san francisco, if we continue this item that we look at legislation and parts of the legislation that will address this issue as a whole. if more than half the units listed in the city of san francisco are on a different platform that are not regulated by this legislation or are not touched because they don't own the data then we need to take a more holistic approach. if we continue this item which i hope we will, that we address it in that manner, as a whole. >> supervisor campos. >> supervisor farrell, you and i have worked together and i respect you. it happens we

have a different perspective. i think what's challenging about the point is that air b and b wasn't talking about other platforms until now. it wasn't saying that when it was air b and b that was writing the law, wasn't thinking about other platforms at that time. and the reason why we are talking about air b and b is because it is the law, they wrote it, and it's having an impact and beyond that the numbers that we know based on the analysis that was done shows that air b and b as a company is impacting the housing stock. so, you know, i respect your position, i respect where you are coming from, but i think that we owe it to the public to act. thank

you. >> thank you. supervisor christenson. >> to summarize, so last week we heard the moratorium, we heard from people who thought the moratorium was going to stop evictions, was going to protect art i haves, was going to preserve the flavor of the mission. i didn't believe that the moratorium was going to do those things but i was told that if we just had 45 days some ha that would magically happen and i just couldn't believe it. today we have we're being told that in 30 days or 45 days we can't hammer this legislation into something that will really work. and, frankly, this legislation only addresses a portion of the problem and not even the major portion. and i think there are things we can do. i mean, supervisor kim more he he eloquently listed all

the reasons why. is this the final step that forces people to come to the table and hammer something out? i've seen this board do that repeatedly. if there's a way to bring something good out of this that actually addresses the issues then i think we should try. and i continue to think that paying lip service to the concerns of the small shares while not actually dealing with it, it's more magical thinking and i'm looking for real thinking. >> thank you, supervisor christenson. supervisor kim. >> i just want to correct two things. one, we're comparing apples to oranges. continuing legislation for 30 days is not the equivalent of a 45 day moratorium. it's not the same thing. and this legislation actually addresses evictions. we're actually trying to protect our rental housing stock by putting in place regulation on short term rentals which is raiding our housing stock here in san

francisco. so the longer we put off putting actual enforcible tools and mechanisms to make sure that people aren't incentivized to not rent out to long-term tenants and therefore use their residential units as hotels, we are actually exacerbating our housing crisis and the incentive for eviction for another 30 days. i just think those are two different things. secondly, i did point out some concerns i have about both proposals. like i said, while neither is perfect i think moving forward with one is incredibly important for the reasons i already enumerated. i shared some concerns that i have about the overall concept of data sharing. i don't think there's an equivalent between the example that i brought up about sharing people's private emails and the content of that email to sharing the number of nights that a host rents out to

a tourist is the equivalent type of data sharing. that being said, if we as a city government are going to dive in to that policy area of data sharing, i would feel more comfortable knowing that we had a larger policy discussion in the long-term about when we do that and when we don't so we set parameters to make sure we are really protecting the valid privacy and security rights of our residents. so in this case i don't think we are overreaching. in terms of privacy matters but as long as we're going to delve into this policy matter i think it's important for us as a city and a body to have a long-term discussion about when we decide to do that and when we don't. it would have been ideal to have that discussion prior to moving forward on this ordinance. that being said i think there are so many things at stake, we know this is impacting the housing market, we know people are getting evicted because property owners have decided that short term rental is more lucrative or

easier to do, so that is why i think we should move forward today. >> supervisor campos. >> with all due respect to supervisor christenson, and i certainly with respect where you are coming from --. >> i'm sorry, i need you to remove your signs. signs are not, they are prohibited in the board chamber. can you please remove your signs? thank you. supervisor campos. >> with all due respect to supervisor christenson, i know that you disagree with my perspective, but i don't think it's appropriate for you to refer to what i'm doing as not thinking. the fact that you disagree with someone doesn't mean that we haven't thought about what we're proposing. you may not agree with it, but it is thinking, respectfully. we have put a lot of time and

energy into this and not just me and my office, but a broad coalition. and i think that we have to be careful how we interact with one another and we can disagree and still be respectful of the positions that we're trying to put forward. i think that we owe that because it's not just me that is here, i'm here to represent a community that has a perspective. i just want to note that. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor campos. supervisor tang. >> thank you. i just wanted to clarify one point because i've been hearing some of these points talked about and i want to make sure we're all clear about it. one thing we are all concerned about, all parties, no matter which piece of legislation you support, is about the evictions. from what i read only one item contains an item around evictions and that is the one sponsored by the mayor and supervisor farrell. planning department can correct me if i'm wrong but

i want to make sure that is a provision i would like to see in there, i think all of us would like to see in there, so maybe someone can confirm on the record. thank you. >> deputy city attorney marlena burn, i appall jie, can you repeat your question, i was conferring with a colleague. >> i think one of the pieces all of us care about is about ellis act evictions. the only piece of information i saw was.

(captions transitioning).

>> it's wrong. >> it's simple.

>> okay, the board is now sitting as a committee as a whole. we will hear from the redevelopment agency on this item. >> my apologies madam president. >> ocii. >> i forget that we have this new successor agency. so welcome. >> great. members of the board, i'm senior development specialist with ocii. you have proposed a amendment to the redevelopment plan to the redevelopment project area.

given market and other conditions, ocii has determined that a general office development is the preferred scenario for the publicly owned land on block five in zone one of the project area. the minor amendment will facilitate the development of general office which is permitted under the redevelopment plan. the redevelopment plan authorizes general office development on two sites. block 5 and block 10. the zone one bulk control are applicable to residential uses. they are not appropriate bulk controls for general office development. the minor plan amendment will clarify for general office development in zone one are those based on the c30 district downtown was a. they they will be consistent with the planning code, sections 270 both limits measurements and 272 both

limit specials in c3 districts. zone one is zone in gray on the map. block 5 and block 10 are the cross areas. the minor amendment will only affect block 5. the amendment will not affect block 10 because the western portion of block 10 must be developed as open space and the eastern portion of block 10 is already developed. this slide is the block 5 site. parcel n1 in the lower left hand corner will be the site of the office tower. with nearly 767,000 gross square feet and over 81 square feet of ground floor retail area. street state improvements including an extension of a portion of notamas street.

block 5 office tower and retail development will provide many benefits. it will maximize developable square feet and create general office tower which will generate significant tax increment. the development will also generate $172.5 million in sales proceeds for the development of the transbay tran set center -- transit center. over $10 million in transit impact development fees. the project is subject to all ocii contracting policy. to date the project has achieved 50% participation. the ocii commission has adopted the environmental review findings pursuant to ceqa.

the planning department found that the minor amendment is in conformity with the general plan. ocii has submitted the amendment to the board of supervisors and recommended the board's approval of the amendment. we ask the board of supervisors to take the following action. make the findings in ceqa certification. the ordinance will become effective 90 days. we have with us today, representatives ocii staff, the tjpa and the development team. >> thank you. supervisor kim. >> i apologize. i thought we were moving on to other items. i did want to