not that's not that's not the san francisco that the people of this city deserve so i will be proudly going against the amendment (clapping.) >> supervisor wiener. >> supervisor christensen. >> thank you madam president ii ran a small business for thirty years and the probability all kinds of reporting i don't know if supervisor campos has talked with the home sharers and those are not afraid of reporting or running a small business and as a matter of fact that many of them prefer it it gives them control of the information rather than doling out to platforms i want to make sure

that nothing preincludes a platform from reporting from home sharers this is made between the platform and the home sharers they can do that frankly is a a great business model we've got something platforms can with distinguish their platforms but i think as people who that might have more legal experience than i do will know that the problem is we do have any platforms in the city and to the point that supervisor farrell made earlier there's a chance many more to come and don't priority operates on the same business model they don't collect fund and not directly involved in the registration or the number of days they can't report that information and we, in fact have legal persistent that mrofrmz that act on this as

a connect our as people in commercial transactions don't have responsibility so passing a law based on a single business model focuses on perhaps a current large player that may or may not exist self-solve the problem and my genuine interest so come up with a solution that applies to all platforms to all types of listing conditions i don't know if supervisor campos proposal is to outlaw craigslist as a listing source or force platforms to collect money and tablgs i don't know but under the current circumstances with those different methods of connecting home sharers and renters i'm trying to come up with something that is universally applicable and the thing i building is constant a sharer involved and if those are shareers are

willing to register and operate within the law i think we can count on them to take on the responsibility of reporting their actions to the government and that's a snapshot that will apply regardless of the platform or rarely whether someone is posting a note at the local safeway we've got many ways we have real estate agencies with their own websites there are a number of cases where the idea of making a particular platform responsible isn't going to work and this is an attempt to try to provide something that is universally applicable and that's honestly the goal. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you madam president. >> i will be supporting both supervisor farrell's amendment and supervisor christensen's amendment i do want to just first, i guess a slightly

different prospective to what supervisor campos mentioned in terms of the argument that somehow the legislation now is putting on us on hosts as opposed to on the multi billion dollars corporation i think that that is a red herring when it puts a hard cap of 60 days on outline host even though you're renting out a bedroom in our house that is a much, much bigger deal than requiring hosts to be responsible to report and innovative the city of what they're doing this is what matters that's what is going to harm many, many san franciscans that are using this income out of users not environmental impact anyone or

displacing anyone think that are using this income to make ends meet i don't think in his mind it is make sense that so sort of distract attention hey you're getting screwed by having those responsibilities instead of airbnb hfa having those responsibilities but i'll limit you to 60 days i have a different prospective on that and frankly you don't want i don't have a problem with requiring hosts to have certain robots under the legislation if you're doing short-term rentals whether airbnb or craigslist or all on your own you have a responsibility to keep records and report to comply with the law and so on and so forth so i wanted to express that a different prospective on that issue

i also wanted to follow up on the question of supervisor cohen asked of supervisor yee i think that is a really important question we have had discussions in the past about rh1 d frankly a tiny group of neighborhoods in the scheme of the city of very nourishing structured neighborhoods that are concentrated in supervisor yee's district in the past i have been supportive of systems addressing the specific needs of our rh1 d neighborhoods you know this amendment goes well beyond that i understand the rational and not critical of supervisor yee but when you add in rh1 and rh2 you're talking about a huge squatting ever san francisco zoning map i have it in front of me mr. sanchez can tussal off

the top of his head it is sizeable and goes beyond district 7 i'm going to support addressing the unique needs of our very, very discrete and limited neighborhood that rh1 and rh2 goes very, very far and that's not something i would consider and, in fact, when some of the rh1 advocates contacted me including the rh1 i thought rh1 was a big squatting of the city goes too far i want to express that through the chair to supervisor yee that is just overboard for me so i can't support supervisor yee's amendment in its current form. >> okay seeing no other names on the roster we'll first take i'm sure you're aware of supervisor farrell's amendment for item no. 7 passed without

objection and now we'll take a roll call vote for supervisor yee's motion which was seconded by supervisor mar madam clerk call the roll. >> commissioner avalos supervisor breed marry no supervisor campos supervisor christensen no supervisor cohen no supervisor farrell no supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor tang no supervisor wiener no supervisor yee there are 5 i's and 6 months with supervisor president london breed supervisor cohen supervisor farrell supervisor tang and supervisor wiener in the descent the motion fails madam clerk supervisor christensen has made another motion on the unduplicate file specifically and those

amendments were passed around and seconded by supervisor farrell madam clerk call the roll. >> commissioner avalos no supervisor breed supervisor campos no supervisor christensen supervisor cowen supervisor farrell supervisor kim no supervisor mar no supervisor tang supervisor wiener supervisor yee no there are 6 i's and 590s commissioner avalos supervisor campos supervisor kim supervisor yee and supervisor mar in the descendants the amendments pass madam clerk on item 6 please call the roll. >> oh supervisor kim. >> okay i believe that since we've finished the amendments i want to speak to both proposals. >> yes. >> so again i want to state

my thoughts about the proposals i know i've stated them a month ago when the items were heard i want to provide a larger frame for the debate before the board right now this conversation today is not just about short-term rentals but about a larger conversation of that that 0 body vision and save city should provide through the planning code this city has been granted power by the state to regulate land use and development we determine the uses ethnicity and how much use to provide a healthy balance for instance we answer the questions on how much residential hours where we build it and how many j.p. morgan and what kinds of jobs how many office jobs versus merchandising. >> how many open space and parks for the people to exercise

or walk their dog and programs for youth and seniors those for example in the downtown core the citizens determined we should have hotels and jobs and in other neighborhood how to buffer segregating the manufacturing from homes technology has about this challenging across the government and as a new product a rapid old idea like cap intelt any individual can participate in airbnb b rb o are examples of those types of services and u.s. bancorp and lyft are examples of other kinds we race to keep up with the technology that depends on primary the infrastructure our density, the tourist attraction and roads this creates products that

creates the process for the private companies and absorb new uses often defying local and state law are those wider scale ones that we want to support and do they help to us to continue it build a healthy and safe neighborhoods how to regulate that and if we regulate it how can we enforce this is the question we're talking about today this board has largely responded to the practice of short-term rentals that was perceiving illegal and one we want to support we understand there are tenants and seniors and property owners that rely on the income to stay in san francisco and really enjoy the activity to enjoy new relationships throughout the world there are bad actors that take advantage of this and take how's off the

market when a city is building maximum 2 thousand units a year even the practice of taking a couple of hundred unit off the market it significant what makes it sixth the mayor has stated that housing affordability is the number one issue in the city i want to be careful about the exchange of affordability we're talking about housing affordability when we're losing a few hundred housing this exacerbates and raise the prices we have tenants if come to this board and say i've been permanently evicted from any unit because the pertain has decided permanently to airbnb my home we also determined that by passing any short-term rentals that we accept there should be limited commercial use in

residential neighborhoods and acceptable for neighbors to use their homes for business prospers we have zoning solis as long as hotels we're okay with expanding this use in a limited fashion to homes we have to remind you zone parts of the city for residential zone self-important a city to work there has to be a number of housing units available only so many individuals what thrive in san francisco we know that we are a factor and center for jobs we also know that we need people to live here in order for the city to work once that feature small businesses and visit our parks and museums but the question that i think we have to talk about because we believe that the activity should exist regulate it what can we

impractical enforce there are a lot of ways i'd like to see this city actually regulate short-term rentals i actually think that is somewhat possible to go to the process going through the various levels of the hosting platforms to provide a ton of data but the reality is for this regulation to be actually enforceable we have to put of those key pieces of into the legislation to make that work and legal one decision that i'm glad we're moving forward with ass surveillance a couple of weeks ago now that the majority of this board agree the city can only have hosted activities in the year - we've found it is onerous for the planning department to determine what

nights are residents spends on his or her beds and what nights not those ordinances propose a hard cap on different nights to allow again, i'm commit to the 90 day hard cap i believe this covers up to one week a month for any other residents with that said neither of the options are before us we're looking 75 to hundred days i can't support hundred and 20 days we tip the scale of primarily residential we're essentially rezoning the city residential should prioritize residency once we tip the scale beyond a week or month we need to have a dialog of what we're requiring of the will homes this is a conversation we had at land use committee 2, 3,

4 september do we need to rethink the insurance or require fire access, extinguishers other building requirements of units that have significant business use like our bed-and-breakfast permanent residents may know their home if there's a fire of earthquake i support a higher number of nights than 75 can't support one and 20 but tip the use from commercial to residential what comes up over and over many of the hosts are san franciscans struggling to make ends meet that it is student stumentd their tuition and senior it is

arguing their pension or the social security if you're income depends on short-term rentals it is no longer an inquickly convenience if you're income depends on short-term rental host than using your home as a business you can do that via our planning code you can apply for a bed-and-breakfast and i've not seen the planning department reject one of those of you go through the legal royalty you'll confer with the department of building inspection to run a business in our home to upgrade it and protect yourself from liability and in them liability like a trip or fall on a stake or even a fire and notification to the neighborhood and you can run this hosting business

last piece i spoke about before the concept of data sharing with private companies i continue to have general policy concerns how this body legislated latest and larger discussion when and how to share the data on the general activities i don't believe that the data sharing component accomplishes the legislation is overly burdensome or unprecedented we asked businesses to help enforce our louis laws everyday and ask the small businesses to do if i gave the example of the grocery stores they have to purchase alcohol we hold those business owners liable for selling to increase angel customer they should host this is a base

minimum and support the platform sharing day on registration using the enforcement work from your planning department that makes the regulation enforceable i do question, however, the ethnicity of the thoeft platforms that rent over the number of nights from the city that targets airbnb that acts as a mediator between a renter and host the around acts as a connect our don't know how many renters so they move from host toe host i want to acknowledge this is an important conversation around the planning code and continue beyond today, there is a ballot measure that can't be counted at this point, i hoped we could resolve this in june when we -

we've continued this post the july 6th deadline when voters had to submit this discussion is moved until november you don't think i don't see any issues to negotiate a unidentified continuance in an effort f to bring one policy before us through pause quote/unquote the decision-making process and that is why we're in the situation we were in today, i know it is an up and down vote i'll be supporting supervisor campos proposal around short-term rentals and not sport supervisor farrell but i hope this conversation didn't end today we've got a long ways to go on this proposal. >> supervisor kim the cap from item 7 was removed to roared rearview mirror to the original cap we voted on previously and

also for clarity supervisor christensen has duplicate the file and the unamended version of item 7 and back to committee supervisor yee. >> thank you supervisor president breed i realize i appreciate people's comments on my amendment that i presented earlier and i was trying to explain to my colleagues that i choose to pit rh1 rh1 d and rh2 to cover most of my district but where people's comments i realized that this extends into the other people's districts quite steven and i think i'm thinking at this point that my still have district 7 but no impact on anyone else's district is two

introduce the same amendments and to delete rh1 and rh2 and only thing that impacts is the notification is where the rh1 d in which basically really only district 7 that has that and few or little of that supervisor farrell's district so i would like to make that amendment again and offer that amendment to supervisor farrell's legislation. >> okay commissioner low has made a motion to amend is there a second. >> seconded by supervisor campos supervisor farrell. >> thank you supervisor president breed and supervisor yee's revised amendment while i certainly had issues with the prior version in a similar fashion mentioned earlier work with a lot of folks in any

district around the rh1 d and incentive to those neighbors and want to respected respect this so this is something i give full support. >> supervisor cohen. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much thank you for making the amendment to the amendment supervisor yee i would like to direct the question to the planning department staff pardon my back director ram. >> i want to make sure if you could briefly describe the rh1 d zoning most significant in san francisco. >> supervisor i don't have a map in front of me the rh1 d. >> can i please identify yourself. >> john ram with the planning department the rh1 one are the twin peaks area and sea cliff

and so it is around sea cliff and west of twin peaks primarily the concentrations a few poshthd in the southeast part of the city. the court: thank you, very much. supervisor wiener. >> thank you very much i also want to thank supervisor yee for making that amendment before the amendment went way too far encompanionship parts rh1 and rh2 and from the staff rh1 and rh2 two other are 38 percent of the housing stock and 72 percent of the parcels that's broad rh1 z is very unique areas the city i'm happy to support in amendment. >> supervisor yee. >> i'll hold off on my

comments. >> wholesale. >> thank you. i too wanted to just acknowledge i thought the original amendment went too far and gathered too much of the residential parts of san francisco but i'm happy to support this new amendment which only enincumbrance rh1 d. >> thank you. >> seeing no other names on the roster colleagues, can we take supervisor yee's amendment without objection without objection supervisor yee's amendment passes item no. 7 and madam president for clarity sake your refer to the duplicate item and the remaining item in committee that's that had been the subject of a motion to be sent to committee. >> well, i'll be to - is this year to the duplicate file as well? supervisor yee for clarity.

>> yes. >> yes thank you okay supervisor yee. >> yeah. i want to make a final comment i know that earlier supervisor farrell asked me to be supportive of his legislation month likely not there's part of both legislation i like and don't like and that was i was hoping during this period to continue the two items that we'll accompany with compromises we didn't get that plaster of what i don't like about supervisor campos legislation is the 60 days limitation i feel like for me listening to some of the stories that i note that all of us have heard similar stories 60 days is too short and that is something

i prefer not to support 65 days is better than 60 and supervisor farrell's there's a lot of things in it there but and it is just a matter of a difference of opinion it doesn't feel like it's enforceable at this point, i'm hoping if it passes it i could be wrong but want to be clear that there are good about the points to both of the legislation and thank you u thank you supervisor yee for clarity supervisor christensen duplicate the file in other words, to send the duplicate file back to the committee with the amendment that passed by supervisor yee we must take a roll call vote so colleagues it was moved by supervisor christensen to send it back to committee seconded by supervisor farrell and amended by supervisor yee to include rh1 so

with that is that clear okay madam clerk please call the roll specifically on sending the duplicate file back to committee. >> commissioner avalos supervisor breed supervisor campos supervisor christensen supervisor cowen supervisor farrell supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor tang supervisor wiener supervisor yee there are 11 i's. >> the duplicate file used amended going basis to committee supervisor campos. >> thank you madam president and in light of supervisor yee's comments i'd like to make one final amendment to my ordinance amending that 60 day cap be 75 days i make that motion. >> supervisor campos has made a

motion to amend item 6 from 60 to 75 days seconded by supervisor yee colleagues can we take that without objection without objection this item passes. >> at this point colleagues seeing none, no other names on the roster does anyone need a recap on what we're doing here today so item number 6 we'll take item 6 first and for clarity item 7 will does not have a cap specifically it will remain as is for the existing law in existence today and the duplicate file with the cap will be going to committee for discussion and item 67 has a hard cap of '75 days for host and not hosted. >> supervisor wiener. >> sorry madam president my understanding is item 7