rentable units yet the spilling split e split cap of the presence or non-presence of the host is not to think proeven and the hard cap that treats full and partial units the same seems your honor fair and not consistent with our intention and net e yet the idea of a hard cap and how great or small t is difficult to get coincidence on i've tried to retain the split cap that is rational and enforceable it is difficult to do that since the introduction of those ordinances but i continue to try to do that reporting is another issue we've focused on a single platform on airbnb and making that entity responsible for reporting but we all need to realize there are a

number of platforms in the city some of them operate on a different business model the model is not engaged go in the agreement between the sharer and renter and has no number of days involved we have the fact that many shareers advertise on many platforms 0 so the information available to any single platform didn't give a complete picture of the days rents or the activity therefore i believe that platform is fraud and not likely to give us the information that we require so i believe that direct reporting the direct responsibility of a home sharer to the city government in reporting the number of days recorded maybe the best ways for the shares to be reliable for

obtaining cap enforcement is another issue and a lot of emphasize on private right of action i don't discount that but i don't think as a day to day method of enforcing an ordinance the most practical or the most best option i'm glad to see administrative options a workable over of short-term rentals with the staff assigned to people that know how to monitor and enforce the short-term rental recollections and look at this administration solution as a way to manage short-term rentals in the city currently the planning department without adequate staff has 73 violations in the administering and going through an additional 78 complaints i'm confident with the people that are now charged with setting up the office and their ability to

register people and to enforce the regulations we're on the right path so to that end i'm going to make that a little bit complicated i don't wish to slow the process today i believe we need to pass something that our city both shareers and owe own e people hurt by home sharing are ready for progress i'd like supervisor farrell proposal to move ahead today but at the same time i'd like the opportunity to investigate in detail some of the aspects of that ordinance and see if we can't make it stronger still so first, i microwave to amend section 41 act and g to require the hosts to submit quarterly reports to the city about their short-term rental rental activities that

requires the hosts to submit yearly reports on january 1st my amendment makes it quarrel, and secondly i move to amend 41 a 5 g to remove the hundred 20 day cap my amendment keeps the exist law for host to occupy the unit for 2 hundred 75 days a year but not cap the number of days as a short-term rental for partial units the reason for this is not to less edge the strength but give us an opportunity to go back and fine-tune this difficult part of the ordinance for the responsible tension related to that i move to amend section 41 action and 1-b to add the

requirements the hosts keep the records for the calendar year they occupy the unit and keep the existing law as is and lastly i move to remove the duplicate file unall the time back to the land use commission and transportation committee to allow our board my staff myself and that committee to continue to consider the issue of appropriate cap on short-term rentals rentals. >> okay supervisor christensen has made a motion is there a second? seconded by supervisor farrell supervisor cowen it on the amendment? >> it's on supervisor yee's amendment. >> okay. >> okay supervisor cowen. >> thank you through the chair i'd like to direct my question

to supervisor yee real quick supervisor for what reason are you including rh1 and rh2 in the zoning why not rh1 d. >> in our amendment you name rh1, rh1 b and rh2. >> uh-huh as it is trying to capture this okay. >> through the chair reason why i put all three of those that's pretty much the vast majority of where my housing stock is in district 7 and much is included for instance rh1 d and yet there is rh1 and rh2 willing to the labor

association within my own district that's why i committed them. >> thank you thank you madam president. >> thank you supervisor campos. >> thank you very much madam president and again, i want to thank supervisor farrell and mayor ed lee for the proposal they have put forward and let me say that i appreciate the comments that supervisor christensen provided i will certainly vote against those amendments what is remarkable about the amendments they manage to do something i didn't think was possible that is actually they've made the ordinance that has been presented by the mayor and supervisor farrell much worse and what is remarkable is that there's a very interesting choice which to me flies a

different view of the world it is one i actually caution against planning department has made it clear that the staff until recently made it clear that you can't enforce this lay without booking data and while i appreciate that more resources are going to be given to this new agency unless the people hired have some supernatural power that the staff didn't possess those individuals will needed booking data but what is interesting about what supervisor christensen is saying is it this it is actually walking away from a fundamental principle that was present by planning department staff which is that enforcement will

not be effective unless the platforms have some skin in the game unless there's actually responsibility placed on the hosting platforms and what is remarkable will the amendment that is essentially shifts away the responsibility from the hosting platforms to the hosts i hope the hosts as a community understand the significance of what is being done here this amendment is placing on you as hosts a responsibility that airbnb has been unwilling to take upon itself it is saying we're not going to

make airbnb responsible but we're going to make you as individual hosts responsible if you look at the hotel industry that would be like local government saying the individual hoot has no rocket in terms of the hotel tax it is the individual who stays at the owe ho hotel that has that responsibility how r remarkable is that that you walk away from placing responsibility on the corporate players that not only have the resources to actually carry out this responsibility but corporate players that are making a lot of money you're

talking about turning your back on the hosting community to protect a $23 billion corporation and saying you individual hosts have to do what airbnb until this point has refused to do that is remarkable it is truly remarkable and it is truly a sign of the times if this passes today we have done not only the incredible job of making the mayors legislation worse but we have actually taken the unprecedented step of going beyond what the true did

colleagues, i is this as someone who has my own specific views about the mayors proposal i think that going down this path of placing the responsibilities an individual hosts without any responsibility on this corporation sends the wrong message not only about short-term rentals but it sends the wrong megabit the state of affairs of san francisco today we can't go down the path where we say that individuals have to follow rules by corporations do 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 big 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 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