rental can be rented for 90 days and an unhosted has no limitations so whatever cap through this process applied to both the reason the department is recommending it is difficult to determine if something is hosted or not hosted. >> if you don't mind staying available commissioner hillis. >> so we are going to i mean, i think it maybe difficult it is himself on enforceable ability questions for me to make a recommendation i'll ask some questions first of all, this is one where we made a recommendation last time that a hosted rentals be capped and noted taken by the board of supervisors was a mistake but i'm troubled but removing the distinction between hosted and non-hosted airbnb is aware if it is hosted or not hosted you have to put in where your listing the entire unit or not we get additional information that makes it easier to look at this issue the trouble with the nuances we see a lot of folks when we locked this people coming down and saying their hosts and ben from airbnb is hosted rentals we don't see a lot of folks come forward and saying i'm taking the unit off the market and

unhosted to 90 days and allows hosted rental with limitation year rounds. the planic department clearly told us it is virtually impossible for them to enforce the 90 day limit for unhosted units because it is impossible for thim to know for sure whether a unit is hosted or unhosted. they have said it would greatly improve enforcement if sthra clear guideline for both types of rentals thmpt 90 day limit will help protect the supply of permanent housing available to san francisco because it limits the total number of days in a year a home or apartment can be offered for tourist rentals. we want those units to be offered for housing in san francisco. the second item that this amendment does is it requires hosting plat forms to provide data to the planning department regarding the number of noits a unit or room is rented. the planning department stated repeatedly that they need more data to enforce the law. the asked to provide that data and the response from [inaudible] has been we will not provide itinous you subpoena the information and then they would fight

conversion from short-term rentals to hotels my analysis as i mentioned we looked at 3 thousand unhostedround unit of 9 thousand grazing list found based on this estimate a cap of about one hundred and 20 to days incentive vision zero almost no conversions i'd like to through a few caveats the statistic i mentioned only talks about the profitable amount of work people are doing what i'm saying we're incentive vision zero landlord when the cap is much higher than indeed and 20 days this is not all the impacts and the rental bedrooms are taken off the market or roommate situations removed and third this data is reliable but acknowledge not perfect accurate i ask you to view this as an economic guidelines and not a scientific estimates so i'm still work on a report a full version complete in mid-may hosted on the planning department website i'm available to answer any questions to sum up the two conclusions one the loss of unit from the long-term to short-term rentals conversion matters and the 90 day cap revised for the long term rentals thank you. >> thank you. >> shall we open up for pub

is a great decision about the appropriate number of nights but the question is between hosted and unhosted we need to have that be no distinction only a separate discussion about the recommendation of number of nights perhaps it is a higher number and there could be a separate discussion. >> from a policy prospective different nights we're relying on love of this you know a lot of the planning code is difficult to enforce is not enforceable i mean we have provisions that the bona fide establishment based on sales of liquor granted you can audit and get f that information and the same thing for hosts get some of the information that's how taxes work you foil taxes and audit selected you know, i i don't want to make bad policy it is hard to enforce but a lot of the planning code is hard to enforce i think if we want a number you want to put a number to deter the hosted versus non-hosted we have a few people that are doing non-hosted and commissioner richards i agree with the recommendation do away with the distinction of short-term rentals whether hosted or non-hosted one the xherpts said ho

the making consistent unhosted and hosted and making that definition requiring the registration number with those recommendation we thought the data was frankly less critical combined with the fact that the concerns about privacy issues and the inconsistently of the data because they don't get involved with the data the combination we suggest not a requirement not to say the data wouldn't be helpful but to make a a requirement is not needed some point if the other action are in place it seems like the proposals that the department made in the past was not necessarily that the data be required but we get the data somehow other technologies we can use given the fact the hosting platforms don't all collect the data it seems like a shifting in the platforms that's what is being said it will be inconsistent from the platforms. >> commissioner hillis. >> i didn't watch the board hearing what was their reason for taking if out of - >> it was never in so it was a recommendation that the department came in with and supervisor david chiu decided not to put it in. >> they debated it. >> yes. i wa

i think they deserve one 20 or more if we are going to do this kind of posted and hosted address unhosted i'll go with the one hundred 20. >> commissioner antonini and yeah. i'm favor sounds like the one hundred 20 is where our decision will be on the higher end we're providing other ways to police this for the host that is using it as you know number two, of full-time rentals i think we've got a lot of checks on the whole thing it does allow for the hosted people to have they'll have to go into the bed-and-breakfast but i'll fine with the one hundred 20 and commissioner wu. >> commissioner richards sorry commissioner hillis raise good points i'm in favor of one fabulous but to me one hundred 90 and one hundred 20 is how you're out of town so i would be supportive of idea of some sort of streamline bed-and-breakfast we've not researched it. >> commissioner hillis. >> i mean, i have questions on the breaking points of 247 is way and hasn't the brook point to be lower non-hosted you'll run is it as a rental property i have to dig through the numbers i don't know it didn't seem right to me t

other amendments 3 you'd like lee to make the first thing remove the distinction between hosted and unhostedhe supervisor campos and other and prohibit the units subject to the ellis act from registering in the short-term rental respiratory and allow the city to institute the hosting platform owner for all 3 ordinances allow the private action for nonprofits in the kim action and within one hundred hundred feet for the supervisor campos ordinance and mayor ordinance and prohibit the performance from listing you units not having a good business and adding the short-term rental to have the mayor to have a department staffed by the tax collectors office and make maximum number of nights it can be used a ass a hosted or inhosted one hundred and 20 days and if should use sensitized the illegal conversion to tourist and remove the provision in the administrative code for the hearing of violation of s

caps on short-term rentals will do nothing for growth it makes no sense to cap all rent hosted or unhosted the estimation to bleed that the source of income for low income families the expansion of the prior action to include the hosts is truly offense i have the right to take hosts suspected of violating the ordinance directly to court so extending the rights to neighbors pits neighbors against neighbors a southern so preserve the quality of neighborhood that flies in the face of those concern the bureaucratic is not more effective we oppose to the private information and those of our guests this data disrespects our privacy right and there is less to achieve those enforcement ends the ordinance already requires hosts to report out data annually a same change for penalties for miss reporting plus the - >> thank you, sir our time is up. >> hi and keithi livebuena vista park it has been a problem in san francisco so it is not a new problem people make it ought to be i brought a copy of my home sharing registry i'm a law-abiding accept i went through the registry as i was supposed to and fil

of them to support of the one hundred and 20 days limits and to make it applicable to hosted and unhosted it is hard to make the agreement that hosted rentals take away from rentals in the city so it is important to regulate this by the planning commission their own estimate someone has to rent it for 2 hundred and 57 days short-term rental basis and in order to break even so the one hundred and 20 days i want to regulate this incredibly it will introduce one hundred and 40 days i really want to draw your attention to recommendation 11 the planning department is recommend to you don't mandate the data so they can royals correctly if you do that people will migrate to other platforms that will hurt comboermentd /* comboerment endorsement. >> good evening i have come before you several times in san francisco since 1969 i was part of a latino democratic club for the agenda for airbnb that relates short-term rentals and requires the hosts to pace taxes and very strong mechanisms added to it this included clearly the penalties against non-compiling short-term rental entities including short-te