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 supplement their income but it would limit those rentals so that we address the issue of the proliferation of commercial air b and b's in san francisco by ensuring that land lords are not incentivized to evict tenants from those buildings. for evicted tenants like susan wetsell whose landlord evicted her, an enforced 60 day cap could have made all the difference. thee lived in a tasker unit and paid 1700 per month for rebt after living there for 11 years. her landlord then evicted her to do year round air b and b rentals. he is making five times what

she paid in rent and he now charges $250 a night for that unit. if there was a 60-day cap which would permit air b and b rentals 5 days a month, he could only make $1250 a month converting her unit and therefore would not have the incentive to kick this person out. if the cap was 120 days as the mayor and supervisor farrell propose, this landlord would still make a profit from evicting susan because that would mean he could rent it out 10 days a month and he can make $2500 a month. $800 a month more than the rent. this cap allows for casual air b and b use but would help protect tenants like susan. colleagues, bottom line is that we need strong measures and effective enforcement to ensure that this industry doesn't continue to exacerbate

the current housing crisis and what i have presented precisely does that. the fact that air b and b rentals are taking housing off the market in the middle of a brutal housing crisis is simply unacceptable to me. we need to act now and let me just conclude that, for those of you who see what air b and b is doing to our neighborhoods, the fact that this board chooses not to act today and instead chooses, if that's what happens, to continue the matter and wait and continue to give air b and b the ability to do what they have done, which is influence this building, that to me is a sign of inaction by this board of supervisors. and even though we don't want to go to the ballot, when faced with inaction by the elected body, we may have no choice but to go to the ballot and let the

voters do what the board of supervisors should have done a long time ago, which is to make sure that this 20 billion dollar corporation plays by the rules like everyone else. (applause and cheering). >> thank you. madam president i will respectfully remind the audience that the board has an adopted rule that applause and vocal expression of voter opposition is not allowed in the chamber. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you very much madam president. so you know i know that it is always very tempting to, if someone has a different point of view than you have, to dismiss that person by saying, well, you can't possibly have your own opinion based on what your constituents need or want; it must be because a major

corporation or lobbyists or whoever else you want to demonize is somehow influencing you and telling you what your opinion is. last i checked we are all elected by our constituents and we are accountable to those constituents. so i want to talk about why it is that i have --. >> excuse me. hissing is included in those vocal demonstrations. ma'am, you are out of order. supervisor wiener. >> thank you, madam president. so i want to explain why it is that i have the view i have, which is that supervisor campos' legislation, respectfully, goes too far and is not the appropriate response to this issue. frankly, i don't care what air b and b needs or wants. i

don't care what its lobbyists need or want, i don't care what brbo or craig's list or any of the other companies here want. what i care about is what my constituents need and want and that is the only thing that guides me. there were a lot of references in the previous comments to the castro. as the guy who represents the castro and noe valley and glen park and other neighborhoods i know these neighborhoods and i have talked to so many people living in my district who they are on the edge hanging on to stay in this town and by being able to rent out a room as a short term rental in their home where they live, that is what is the difference for them. it is what allows them to make their mortgage it is what allows them to put their kid through college, it is what allows them to survive in this town and it is very very real. and i'm glad to hear that supervisor campos acknowledges that there are many people in this town who are residents in

these units who are making ends meet through short term rentals in a spare room. but i think we need to be very clear that 60 days is not going to meet the needs of these people and they won't be able to make ends meet. you can't just say that you understand the concerns and the needs of these people who are using short term rentals to make ends meet. you can't just say that when you are proposing legislation that is going to restrict them to 60 days for the entire year, that's going to allow their neighbors to sue them and get penalties against them and attorneys' fees and everything else that you are going to require data sharing and so on and so forth. you can't say it, you have to look at what's being proposed. what's being proposed is going to hurt a lot of san francisco residents who are not wealthy, who are not air b and b, who are not lobbyists but who are regular people living in this

town many long-term residents, who simply want to stay here. and so the rhetoric around this issue is just extraordinary. when you focus on what people actually need and the needs of our residents it is very very clear this proposal is not going to meet those needs and is going to have a lot of harmful effects for a lot of people in this town and that's why i can't support it. i am not going to support legislation that is so restrictive. i am not going to support legislation that frankly encourages neighbors to start running around suing each other to get penalties against each other. that is not what we want to encourage. what we need is legislation that cracks down on the bad actors that are abusing short term rentals, the units being converted into pure short term rentals, the abusive behavior while allowing people who are not abusing the system, who are simply trying to make ends

meet, to do so. i want to talk about enforcement. i made some of these comments during the land use committee hearing. this legislation went into effect on february 1st and promptly thereafter it was proclaimed that the legislation was a failure and couldn't be enforced. we never even tried to enforce it and how could we have tried to enforce it when it was proclaimed a failure within about a month of it going into effect? how can people get up and say that this is unenforcable when there hasn't even been an opportunity to enforce it? the department is trying to get people registered, people are trying to register and frankly having a heck of a time doing it. people are trying to pay their hotel taxes and having a heck of a time doing it due to some weird dispute between the tax collector's office and air b and b, ad to turn around and say it's going into effect, a month has gone by, it's a failure, we have to tear this up and start over again, i just don't get that. i'm going to support this

continue answer because because i think we need more time to see if we can come up with a good solution to allow us to enforce against the abusers while not harming the many san franciscoans who are relying on these short term rentals. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. want to make a couple of comments about both proposed ordinances that are before us today and the continuance. there are 4 primary issues i want to discuss, no. 1 being the hard cap. the hard cap was the no. 1 issue for me during the discussions last fall over the debate around short term rentals. it was clear to me then and still is that enforcement is impossible the way the legislation is written short of giving everyone that registers an electronic monitoring bracelet, there is no way for the city and the planning department to know whether a host has slept in their unit that night or not. and i have brought up an

example previously where i felt that government could do overreaching in ways that would violate someone's privacy to get an understanding of that, and i don't want the city to engage in that type of investment. i'm glad to see that both proposals that are moving forward have a hard ko*p on hosted and unhosted nights. i think that will help the city ensure that these units that are placed up for short term rentals are just short term rentals and not vacant rentals being left off rental housing stock at a time when housing is at its crisis here in san francisco. while i was open in the fall to going up to 90 days which is technically one week a month, or a three-month summer, i would support at this point supervisor david campos' legislation at 75 days. i am again open to going up but i don't think going up beyond 3 months makes sense. and i'll say this, i agree

there are residents in san francisco that depend on this type of income and business in order to perhaps pay for their mortgage their children's college education, to help with their retirement. but we actually have a process in place currently for those residents to engage in that type of business and that's why applying for a bed and breakfast conditional use and i have not seen yet in my entire time on the board of supervisors any bed and breakfast conditional use permits be rejected by the planning department. this is the process that we have in place to allow residents to use their place of housing as additional form of income and to run a business. so you can stay here in san francisco, you can be a senior citizen who has that extra bedroom, you can a person on disability that may not be able to work in a traditional job that's able to actually run a hotel in your home and we have a process at the planning department to determine whether that is appropriate or not and we can keep track of that type of business use. the second item that i want to

talk about was on the requirement that hosting platforms only list units that legally comply and obtain a registration number proving they sht a vacant unit being taken out of the rental market. i think this is absolutely key to this legislation. i have heard the argument that this is overly burdensome and unprecedented to have a business account as a business entity, but i'm going to give an example of something we do as a daily basis and that is the sale of tobacco and liquor. we expect our business owners to id every customer to check whether they are 18 or 21 in order to buy a pack of cigarettes or buy a six-back or get a glass of wine over dinner. i would argue this is not unprecedented, this is something we ask businesses to do on a daily basis and i think

it would be far simpler for a hosting platform to be able to comply with this piece than what we ask many of our small business owners to do on a daily basis to enforce legislation that we think is incredibly important for the health and safety of our city. the third piece is on the private right of action. and i think we should be clear that even the legislation that passed in the fall written by then-president david shoe actually allows for a private right of action. what we see in the two ordinances before us today is actually an expedited right of action, one for 135 days the other for 90 days. the reason why i think this expedited private right of action is important is that we have seen how it was incredibly key and critical to the hotel conversion ordinance passed in the early 1990's which prevents (inaudible) we understood in

the 90's that our extra hotels were an important part of our housing stock. that ordinance was never effectively enforced until qualified community organizations won the right to enforce on behalf of the public interest and in the 25 years time since that ordinance has passed there's no evidence that even a single frivolous lawsuit has ever been filed. over the years the ability to proceed private right of action has been critical to enforcing federal and state civil rights statutes including civil rights that include civil rights legislation, hate crimes, immigration fraud and more. we currently have a backlog of 1200 xlaipblts at the planning department today, not all on short term rentals. but it does showcase a need for our private citizens to engage as partners to ensure that we as a city can enforce the laws that are here to protect our housing stock. now, in terms of why we should

have an expedited private right of action i think most of us here in this room have been unfortunately in the unhappy situation of living next to an unconsiderate or maybe outright bad neighbor. you and i know every single day in that situation feels like an eternity. without this amendment if you file a complaint with the city you may wait 75 days or more before you get to be heard by an administrative officer and 105 days or more, which is 3 1/2 months, before you even receive a final decision. meanwhile the violations are continuing and you have zero recourse. people don't want to and shouldn't need to wait months and months before they can obtain relief. the resident in russian hill who spoke at public comment land use committee back in september is a perfect example of someone who needs an expedited private right of action. she had been living next to a full-time vacation rental for a year and a half and that is frankly inexcusable and that is when

short term rentals were completely illegal. bad actors shouldn't receive months of free license to continue breaking the law before they are faced with real consequences. the final piece that i wanted to address today which is also controversial, is the data sharing piece. i do have some hesitations around this. and only because i am reminded of lava bitsio's couragous decision to shut down his company when he provided emails to 400,000 people, including edward snowden, in order to avoid handing over the password of his company to the fbi. i would like to develop parameters under which government asked for data from the companies that are within our jurisdiction. while this is not my area of policy

expertise, i'd like to really set what we believe are parameters for when we require data sharing outside of the subpoena process. i think that this is something that we can continue to talk about. i also have some hesitations about this piece because i don't think it will help with companies like home away and vrbo which do not actually facilitate the transaction. rental. parties can exchange rental, numbers of nights outside this platform and it also doesn't prevent registration number or a unit owner from using multiple platforms and therefore getting several 90-day limits. i just want to express some of my hesitations around that. it doesn't mean i will not support it moving forward. i am already committed to supporting the legislation as authored by author david campos today, but i think it is important in the long-term for local government to really think about what our parameters are around asking when we ask data sharing on a

reg glr -- regular basis from the companies here in san francisco. on a positive note, i think we are moving forward in the right direction. i want to thank our many individuals that engage in short term rental and of course air b and b for not only paying their hoepblgts taxes but also committing to pay the back taxes as well. i think that is a good faith effort as we move forward in this discussion. i still think that one proposal that is before us today is far stronger than the other. i will not be supporting the continuance. i don't see a lot of dialogue happening between the two, i think the two parties that are at stake currently will be supporting supervisor david campos's legislation today. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor mar. >> thank you, president breed. i wanted to start by just saying that i think the privacy