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

concern that supervisor kim just brought up is a bogus issue. all that would be required of online platforms is to turn over the address and the number of nightly booked nights and to verify the compliance. i think it's really critical that similar to other small businesses that's a requirement so i think it's a bogus issue. but i wanted to say i think supervisor campos has sharply framed this issue as who should san francisco -- in san francisco should be writing laws, should it be neighborhoods and community groups or should it be now from a 10 billion dollar now to a 20 billion dollar corporation whose lobbyists have been all over this building for many many months? i wanted to also say our planning department staff, not just anne marie rogers but our zoning administrator and others are here. they very clearly said to us it's really unenforcable unless we get the

hosting platforms to comply. i think the campos-mr legislation does that in a very strategic way. i wanted to say too that requires the hosting platforms to comply is really critical. also fred brousard from our budget office has the data. it shows the loss of 1,960 units or more and i think it's really critical that we're keeping that context in our housing crisis. not harming the casual home sharers but really looking at a process that's now proliferating where we're seeing displacement of tenants for luxury vacation rentals for tourists and for profit in the city. i think share better sf.com has a great map i'm looking at right now at the proliferation of air b and b, you can zone in on my own home

and i can see all the different increase in the rentals around me. i think it's a hotelization of neighborhoods. i think the process that supervisor campos with the legislation has put together is a reasonable one. that's why i'm supportive of it. but i think if anybody has any questions share better sf.com is a great place for some of that data. lastly i go to other documents as this debate has been going on. the sleezy16 is a group of people who have been profiting off the industry. i think reasonable controls as set by the legislation that is campos-avalos-march is a reasonable way for us to take back san francisco from this proliferation of hotelization and privatization of neighborhoods so i urge my

colleagues to support the campos legislation. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, i would like to motion to terminate debate and move forward on the vote on the underlying legislation. >> okay, the motion to terminate debate is not debatable and requires two seconds and eight votes to pass. is there a second? seconded by supervisor campos and there has to be an additional second. by supervisor mar. madam clerk, can you please call the roll. >> on the motion to terminate debate, supervisor mar, aye. march, aye. supervisor tang, no. tang no. supervisor wiener, wiener no. supervisor yee, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor breed, no. supervisor campos, aye. supervisor christenson, no. supervisor cohen, cohen, no. supervisor farrell, no. kim

aye. there are five ayes and six nos. >> the motion fails. supervisor christenson. >> colleagues, i'll try not to take this personally. a couple of things. i understand supervisor campos's impatience and in many ways i share it. i've only been on this board for 5 months, i was not part of the two years of discussion on the legislation this board passed last year, but as a new supervisor i've certainly seen the impacts of hoteling on my district. a lot of the tourist attractions in san francisco are located in district 3, we have aging housing stock. i've seen the lock boxes in my canvasing and walking the neighborhood. i can count the buildings within a two-block radius of my home that have been completely hoteled prior to my coming upon this board, so i get the problem. i also, like supervisor wiener, have a lot of constituents who are hanging on in san francisco by the skin of their teeth. and i've got

seniors on pensions, i have a few disabled people that i've met personally who are managing to stay in north beach because they get a little extra money every now and again by renting out a couch or a space in their house. i think we're all sympathetic to the need to distinguish the sleezy16 and the bad actors and the speculators from those small home sharers. i don't think we've found a way to do it yet and i think paying lip service to their needs is very different from actually addressing them. so i'm troubled about that aspect of this. and supervisor campos my inclination to table this is not to try to put it aside. it is because i think you've got some good things in your legislation, some things that i could support, but there are aspects that are troubling to me that make it difficult for me to vote for it. and i don't know if there is something in between and a way to address some of the on-going issues that i have that would possibly get us to something that would

meet the needs of my constituents and satsd fie the concerns of this hoteling and evictions which i very much want to stop. and i do think it's important to remember, as supervisor kim pointed out, we can demonize air b and b, but the fact is they control less than half the market and we can pass this legislation and focus on a solution that specifically focused at their business model, everybody is just going to go someplace else. the worst actors in my district don't rent on air b and b, they have their own web site. and i do think we've got a piece of legislation that's only six months old, i think it indicates how difficult this question is for the board and for this city that we're still trying to talk about how to make that legislation work and i can assure all my colleagues that i am eager to find a real solution i am just troubled by aspects of both proposals and hope we can iron out those issues and come to something

that we feel will work. there have been a lot of magic solutions proposed at this board the last couple of weeks and it's been very hard not to bow to the emotions and concerns of the people being affected by these things but i continue to look for real solutions that actually function. so let me close by saying my inclination to table these for just a little longer to see if we can iron out the lumps disrespectful or an effort to obfuscate or to drag feet but just an effort to get it right. and that's my goal. >> thank you, supervisor christenson. supervisor cohen. >> supervisor kim. >> actually, supervisor kim has already spoken and based on the board rules, those who have not spoken take precedent. supervisor cohen. >> oh thank you. i'm a little disheartened about the conversation, what i'm hearing about the way the framing of a continuance and it's interesting because i mean a continuance would allow us to

have a pause, right? just last week we had 8 hours of commentary about a pause for the mission moratorium and there are very valuable points within both pieces of legislation that i like. i think the one thing i'm concerned about and i hope supervisor campos will speak to it a little bit, the one thing that concerns me, you focused on one half of the coin, on the evictions and the displacement, but i'd love for you to help come up with a solution or a strategy for those constituents, you highlighted figures from district 10, particularly calling out port port -- potrero hill, there are figures about the mission of people who are struggling to stay in san francisco. these are not folks who can come to the chamber and listen to hours of dialogue and discussion but are still just as committed and just as affected by the

legislation. so that is one thing that i'm lacking that i'm hearing on how do we reconcile those folks that live in their house that are putting their kids through college, that are teachers and are subsidizing their income, that are seniors and that are trying to be industrious and resourceful and remain inside san francisco? so a continuance for me would help us to further that conversation. now, there are some things in here that i really like, units that have had an l eviction cannot be a short term rental. that is absolutely the right direction to go in. supervisor mar, you mentioned the sleezy 16. the one thing i want to be cautious about that we are not taking a sledgehammer when we ought to be taking a scalpel, to car of through the legislation -- they say timing is everything, ladies and gentlemen -- so for

me a continuance is not posturing or throwing, trying to stop the process but honestly it's to begin to create a piece of legislation that is absolutely, that we can all get behind and we all can begin to support and that will 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