Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Land Use Committee 11116 20160112

SFGTV BOS Land Use Committee 11116 January 12, 2016

He or she phil jackson and jim smith madam clerk, any announcements . Yes. Electronic devices. Completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon today will appear on the january 26, 2016, board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated thank you very much and before we start could i have a motion to k350us supervisor cowen well take that without objection. Supervisor cowen is excused to me one. Grandfathering prediction to stanford chain to occupy a portion of the public rightofway between phil ton to construct and have new improvements with the driveways and Society Foundation okay item number one i believe the department of public works is here to present shaw. Gamechanger shaw with the public works just to briefly go 0 into the description felt major encroachment application for the 7th avenue the applicant mr. Chang an 2014 requested public works do a major encroachment permit for the driveway that was to basically grant access to the new building and the garage from the street and this bridge is basically stan over existing conditions which was a ditch that requires the bridge construction this was previously approved by the board and in 2004, however, that resolution constituent the condition this shall be constructed no longer than may 2005 and now a new encroachment is required this is why were here today so public works went through the procedures and performed the review including getting approvals from the Planning Department and another division after getting all the appropriate Agency Reviews public works held the public hearings after which the director granted a directors decision to move forward and based on the approvals and the what has been submitted public works recommends moving forward with this application. Thank you very much colleagues questions or comments on item one. Supervisor kim. I had a quick question for public works just in terms of the Public Comment that came out was there a comment in support or opposition. There was primarily opposition, however, many of the comments that came in were opposed to the actual Building Construction rather than the encroachment and therefore several of the comments we addressed we informed the people so 5ed one of the other concerns was the lack of the survey being submitted to public works, however, a survey was submitted on august 28th and after the review of the survey we determined the plans are enough to go forward. What were the objections to the actual building though not related. Has to do with with the use of building i believe one of the main complaints was that there was an unauthored use of another room built below grade that was not part of our plans so i didnt see the actual floor plans. Will there is a review. Yes. By the Planning Department staff and building inspection we dont have jurisdiction we public works didnt have the authority. No, no i understand i wasnt sure were there was in the timeline. I believe the Planning Department and the department of building inspection have thoroughly gone through those the owner of the building is here to further address that if you want. Thank you very much. No other questions or comments well move to Public Comment is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak on item number on item number one seeing none, Public Comment is closed and colleagues, can i have a motion to forward item one to the full board of supervisors with a positive recommendation. Motion by supervisor farrell can we take that without objection . Without objection that will be the order madam clerk call item 2 item 2 a hearing on shortterm rentals registration and enforcement activity with the current staffing with the shortterm rental administration and enforcement and any resources to adequately enforce it. Thank you very much madam clerk colleagues, i called for this hearing as a standing quarterly oversight hearing to be take into account enforcement efforts and status by the Zoning Administrators Office and the city in general so shortterm rentals play an Important Role in our city many residents of the city people who particularly own their own homes that rely on the income from shortterm rentals to make ends meet and i want to thank the many shortterm rental 40e69s that have really become vocational around this issue to make sure as a percolates in city hall and last year on the booklet that all voices were heard so it is important for us to make sure that people that are engaging in are shortterm rentals in a responsible and legal way are able to do so and register are able to pay their taxes be responsible residents and earn. To staying in their homes or keeping up with the cost of living in San Francisco at the same time, we need make sure that shortterm rentals are being done in a responsible way we need to make sure that the shortterm rentals are not can belittling the Housing Stock people are not evicted for shortterm rentals to happen and make sure that we have reasonable perimeters around shortterm rentals and that spirit this board of supervisors on two different occasions passed legislation for the very first time to regulate shortterm rentals never been registration of shortterm rentals in San Francisco until the current law took effect february 1st of last year over the summer the board of supervisors made adjustments to that law that law is not one year old ive been vocal about letting this law work and making sure were appropriately administering it and putting up resources into the enforcement to crack down on abuse of shortterm rentals awhile allowing legal shortterm rentals to move forward and rather than rushing to make amendments to this law give this law a chance to work it to work there has to be good enforcement that is critical this summer the board of supervisors 55 the legislation created the office of shortterm rentals under the Zoning Administrators Office in addition in the budget the mayor and board significantly theres the enforcement resources for the office of shortterm rental so that the office of shortterm rental can help people into compliance and people registered and people understand what they have to do within the confines of the law while at the same time going after the bad actors and the abusive and illegal shortterm rentals and cracking down on incentives if they violate the law theres a reasonable chance to get caught this law is in effect for 11 months and 6 months in the revised form and about of 6 months or so into the office of shortterm rental and so the point of todays here to getting an update if the office of shareholder about register or register and enforcement and generally helping going our intent to convene this hearing quarterly do get ongoing update we can go ahead informed but most importantly 9 public is informed given the dialogue around the shortterm rentals it is important that the public so have confidence that enforcement is happening and have that level of oversight and transparency and so that is really the purpose of todays hearing so i want to note i network to say that supervisor campos is joining us well to the legislative and supervisor avalos ill recognize you now. Thank you, mr. Chair i want to thank you for putting 24 item on the agenda it is the idea that we are on regular basis looking at the issue of enforcement i think that it goes without saying theres a different prospective that i have in terms of of how i see the enforcement around shortterm rentals i understand what youre saying but i respectfully disagree with our description what i think has happened ill continue to say what ive always said that the rules that have been put 2, 3, 4 place in San Francisco do not provide proper and metabolic oversight and oversight of shortterm rentals and because of that we are losing Housing Stock to shortterm rentals and to the office of shortterm rentals enforcement certainly looking forward to hearing what they have to say and report but based on you know my review of what theyve done and certainly based on the hearing we had last time ive seen them and hope it is no longer the case but as a paper tiger that has not the power the resources to have anything meaningful happen in terms of enforcing shortterm rentals i hope that is not the case well find out but i certainly look forward to hearing the presentation but one thing ill say that it was really sad for me to read i on a couple of days boo ago the article in the chronicle you had our good Zoning Administrator really strong leader being in a position which he was basically like the rest of the city begging people to do the right thing and i think this is sad that is where we are today in San Francisco that instead of promulgating rules that still requires corporations to do the right thing and actually on behalf of responsible we are begging this Year Corporation airbnb to do the right thing were afraid to require them to do the right thing but i think this is a sign of the times and i will simply and my statement by noting this issue will not go away i know that those of us who worked on this will continue to work on this and that means bringing back this issue to the full board of supervisors so we can reinvite the issue of enforcement and maybe in time well actually have enforcement that does what it is supported to enforce thank you. Thank you supervisor campos one thing i forgot to mention in any Opening Statements one thing i understand that airbnb being a local company and being the largest platform in this area this is a attracted a lot of the attention it is important when we talk about the issue about all the platforms i believe that average has approximately, one half of the shortterm rental listing this is the number i recall but we also have airbnb and craigslist and home away and perhaps others and frankly airbnb agree or disagree with their position engage with other platforms to my knowledge have not yielded clearing colleagues no additional comments ill invite up kevin the director of the office of shortterm rentals and the Zoning Administrators Office i believe that mr. Guy has a presentation for us. Thank you and good afternoon, supervisors again, im kevin guy the director of the office of shortterm rentals up to give an update if i could have the presentation on the overhead please so were going to be going specific into the registration and enforcement numbers as well as the outreach to the hot platforms that was mentioned and changes to the website so first brief background on the issue the shortterm rental program some of that recounts supervisor wieners statements but the shortterm rental program was effective in february 2013 that requires residents to rent out subject to conditions receptive of a business license so the office of shortterm rentals was established in july to administer this will the enforcement i joined the office in september a total staff of 6 people so in terms of registration we received approximately 13 hundred application for shortterm rentals so estimates of the shortterm rentals citywide varies and change over time but generally means 25 percent of the shortterm rental hosts in San Francisco as far as have applied to the register of the program issued 8 hundred and 79 certificates thank you to the members of the public who have gone to the process and one hundred and 70 applications were rejected because of the proposals were not complete and have an application that came in september 2, 00 and 69 applications pending review and that trends is continuing with one and 50 appointments in january so as you can see there is an initial surge after the program and november and december we continued to see an uptick in the number of proclamation so, now applications so, now the discussions with the hovtd platforms and airbnb for reaching out in middecember to talk about the specific items ill discuss in detail we issued a lot of the Zoning Administrator and myself issued a letter not only to airbnb but other major hosting platforms to memorize and may consist amongst the hosting websites i do want to note those are items that a arrange of opposition with the hosting platforms do engage with one probation officer more of those items these are not necessary for us to administer the current law well be as business as unthinkable or usual and getting increase on the activities regardless of the activities but with that, i want to go into detail on the specific items first, we that those platforms identify the hosts that have must not listing for multiple properties in San Francisco in definition not a permanent resident of more than one unit the user are taking multiple properties out of the housing pole and second they have the Registration Number as part of the accounts and listing third, that the website deactivates the yearround shortterm rentals at the end of the year not a permanent residents in them therefore no Eligible Program and forwarded the specific addresses the hosting platform provides a listing on the website and into the websites the majority of lions share are not tied to an address although you see the pin drops their approximations of the quarter of a mile so again, this is an absolutely necessary to do our work in some amount of time and finally, the website push the information to the hosts regarding the requirement of the shortterm rental the need to register and submit Quarterly Reports and submit their business taxes and other forms so i want to give you give you a little bit of background of the process and a brief official the first step it bans a complaint we received from the public or another agency or a proactive case with the staff we conduct on investigation if we investigate and find no violation the case is closed but if we confirm the violation we issue a notice of violation this is an important step in the from those so where we have formally transitioned into a violation and penalties start to accrue so once the owner of the property get a Ethics Commission they contact the staff the first has the right to request an administrative hearing within 30 days not mandatory so if they choose not to well work with them or require them to remove their listing and provided proof of no further listing and provided penalties from the individual requires an administrative hearing within 45 days and thirty days after the hearing the hearing officer will issue a decision for the facts of the case and typically will assess penalties so once weve approved that property into the pro and again roving the listings, etc. And paying the penalties we close that case so here are the current improvements statistics so february 1st of last year a total of 2 add and 64 cases one and 55 are in various stages of investigation 14 were issued notice of violation were waiting for penalties of payment and proof of violation has been abated so 95 cases have been fully closed that means the vertical found in violation or summoned through the assessment of penalties and theyre in compliance weve assessed 475,000 in penalties those cases involve 64 units and one and 24 thousands of those penlites are collected to date i should note the largest chunk or proportion of paid penalties revolves around enforcement case where the individual that we found in violation were up for review one and 90,000 in penalties so other outstanding penalties in older cases are reviewed with the agency were meeting with them and were looking to update the procedures without goes through the administrative hearing if they request a hearing we can make sure the violation is abated without preceding to a hearing that represented 2 3rds of the cases through the enforcements process to date and dramatically increases the capacity to go after additional cases and go through the process. With additional supervisor kim. Thank you, mr. Guy i have a question on enforcement you mentioned that a chunk of the fines were involving one case can you go into the expensive of the one case and my followup question is the trinity apartment in the news allegations that the Property Owner and developer were representative out units weve negotiated on behalf of of the city to remain belowmarketrate i was wondering if you have an update. In 3 particular case i go back to the tree of our enforcement process at the time, we issued a formal Ethics Commission that is when the process is formalized the enforcement is we find that a violation and likely 0 or to have occurred we went through the administrative hearing at the our notice of violation was issued the entities that was sub at large if trinity had already been evicted by the trinity Property Organization for not paying their rent likely there was violations occurring prior to that but at the time of our enrollment process no enforcement waterways because the tenants war evicted weve referred it to the it dont make any difference and we found though the administrative process on 93 market tennis this is pending litigation we cant commit but that represents the throw our administrative hearing assessed one and 95,000 through penalties with that decision. Im not familiar with the 973 Market Building is 3 zoned residential. Zoned rh3 it is generally residential and office space. It is regular use under planning even though it is a use under planning that is assigned by planning so is it residential. Yes. It is a building that is issued and has an official residential use so the shortterm rentals is only available for areas residential spaces that are formally defined as residential unit. Supervisor campos. Thank you thank you, mr. Chair i want to mr. Guy thank you for your presentation following up on the enforcement numbers 200 and 64 cases open in 95 fully closed can you explain a little bit more sort of when you decided to close a case i think i mentioned abatement and what exactly do you mean by that. Thank you for the question closed in this case the budget bucket

© 2025 Vimarsana