chief will be able to suspend or promote these if they indicated to they want -- if they were remitting the proper tax. there are district police stations in every neighborhood that will be able to respond in a much more effective way that fire currently -- there is only one permit office. the individual permit officers would be the point of contact for the public. i am happy to take any questions or recommendations. commissioner riley: any questions? commissioner clyde: generally, it is a good proposal. commissioner riley: i think moving it to the police department -- i make a motion

that we support this. commissioner clyde: i second. commissioner riley: all in favor? it's unanimous. next item. >> commissioner clyde made the motion, commissioner dooley seconded. commissioner clyde: unanimous vote. >> i have one more for you guys. that was very fast. item number eight, discussion and possible action to support supervisor's file number 100804. this is a resolution imposing interim zoning controls establishing requirements for conditional use authorization for a change in use or reduction

in size of any child care facility that serves more than 13 children for 18 months period. with the priority policies of planning codes section 101.1. we're also joined by vilbill b arnes. >> this is sponsored by supervisors alioto-pier, dusty and daley. you may have read there was a child care facility, part of the concern is that we have a goal with child care providers -- is not the most lucrative patents in the world. we wanted to provide some sort of zoning protection. it will consider whether that use is desirable or necessary.

there are two types of child care facilities. you have the sort of average family day care providers, the small home providers that are not impacted like -- and by this. i think they're deserving of some protection. the way they work is that it was going to place temporarily will work with the affected parties and the community to come up with permanent controls. we really do think that the child-care industry needs the protection because of some of the economic pressures. it is a necessity for workers who have young children to be able to go john's with both small and large businesses. a number of providers are actually small business owners themselves. on the one case we have been working, [unintelligible] they're running it as a business operation and it would give them

some protection. finally, a conditional use does not prohibit a change in use, it just creates an additional step where members of the public can come to the planning commission and weigh in. >> many child-care operators are in private homes, you know, in units and residential units. these controls, are there guidelines with time for those units? >> this is why we're talking about providers for 13 or more children. most are 12 or fewer. pretty much every residential neighborhood, these are allowed in the neighborhood commercial areas as well in the downtown industrial areas was larger providers. we don't think it would have an impact on residential neighborhoods, which is why we

set the size to 13 or more. >> it has an 18 month time and and then the requirement goes away? >> we anticipate that there would be permanent zoning controls that will be introduced and will be adopted before 18 months. those controls would replace the others. >> do you know how many of these child care centers there are? >> we're working at getting an accurate number. we're talking in the dozens. there are far more of the smaller providers that commissioner clyde -- is a reasonable number. commissioner clyde: we do need

to call for public comment. >> at the time, the commission is taking public comment. commissioner riley: seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner clyde: i would like to make a motion to support the item. commissioner dooley: i second. commissioner clyde: i apologize for not catching that, but in the future we will remember that. we still need to call for it. even if there is none. >> commissioners, we are now on item number nine. to make recommendations on

behalf of supervisors number 100759, amending san francisco's business and tax regulations code, attacks on occupancy for parking space and parking station. to increase the tax rate from 15% to 25%, making the total tax rate to 35%. amending section 601 to clarify the definition of operator and occupant, to add a new definition of the parking service provider. and adding a section to propose an additional tax of 35% of receipts from valet services and an election to be held on november 2, 2010. whenever presentation by the aide to supervisor mirkarimi.

>> i will try to be brief. this is a measure to increase the tax rate on private garages by 10%. currently, valet parking does not pay any parking tax. they will have to pay the same parking tax as all of their parking structures do that are in private lots. this does not affect parking meters, private garages or apartment buildings. it would generate between 1700 -- $70,000,000.20000000 dollars a year. since the supervisor believe that this is a progressive tax and a transit first tax in that we're taxing something that we want to discourage, private automobile usage. getting them to pay for something, the impact that have on traffic, congestion, exhaust,

and air quality. it is directly benefiting the city. i think we have really seen the muni at a breaking point. some people can't use it anymore to get to and from work. with the congestion we have seen downtown, it really threatens the san francisco economy and the san francisco way of life. a couple of other thoughts. i don't know if you have seen the economic analysis of this measure, it showed a very modest impact on jobs in the city. with unemployment starting at about 20 jobs a year, that is through a decrease in private

employment and a 70 job increase in public employment. the loss of jobs will likely be at the retail level. this exchange of maybe 70 retail jobs, we're looking at a loss of low-income jobs without benefits and an increase in city jobs that have the benefit packages and are doing services to benefit the city. i definitely appreciate your concern about the san francisco business's ability to absorb taxes in this rough economic climate, we could make some argument that this would have on private sector jobs because of the unique situation of parking in downtown for sentences go. we basically have three glasses. there are the city own garages, the downtown parking garages that are privately owned their

generally the highest price ones. you have about 1/3 that are small mom-and-pop operations that are cheaper than a large parking garages and have much smaller shares of the business. the lion's share of the revenue we get is from the large garages that are at the top of the market. there is a limit on how much more they can raise rates or people will go to these small lots and he certainly not until they find a parking space. a lot of this revenue in much- needed revenue will be coming out of the bottom line of these very large parking places that have the exclusive rights. there at the top of the pricing change -- they are at the top of the pricing chain. i think they have set the prices as high as the market will bear. i think it is responsible for

them to have the impact of the infrastructure for people that cannot afford cars. i understand the concerns about the impact of the economy. i would be glad answer any questions. commissioner o'brien: it is targeting the high class parking garages? >> it would target the hunt -- the union square garages where we get the most of our revenues

from the parking tax. i feel like they were the ones that would bear the burden of it. i they have already priced about as high as the market would allow. there would be a 10% modest increase worst of the smaller lots might consider raising their rates to narrow the gap between different garages in the city. >> will it generate around 17 per 20? >> that might be upwards of $24 million based on current rates. commissioner o'brien: ok, so it would tend to narrow the gap to a parking -- so in one case it

might become cheaper and in another case it might become more expensive, is that right? >> we believe that the more exclusive ones would leave their rates the same and just adored it. the smaller lots might raise their rates to absorb some of this. >> so the valet's right now are not charged anything? >> they are exempt from the parking tax. through a loophole in the definition of operator and the legal definition of the parking tax, is something we feel is not particularly fair. we're also somewhat limited by law that we can only charge valet parking the uses private lots and private garages. saint -- if someone is using it outside of the -- of a private

home in the public street, we can't charge a tax on those spaces. it is frustrating. >> we see a lot of renegade valets that are using residential parking. that is kind of disturbing. i certainly did not know that. they're not paying anything -- commissioner o'brien: do we have any estimate of what that underground economy is? [laughter] >> is largely a cash business and it is hard to track down. i would not want to hazard a guess. we will keep the commission updated as we try to find more information on that. >> anecdotally, and the north beach area, it is huge.

>> can i make a point of reference? at the budget and finance committee meeting, which is why you don't see it in the economic analysis, he made a point of noting that that amount of money was not included in the economic report because they did not have any way at this particular point in time to accurately assess what kind of in come it would provide. >> how would that be collected? >> it would apply new gross receipts tax as part of their reporting, and they would have to submit the 35% parking tax. commissioner riley: for every $10, 3.5 will go to tax?

i know that some take the car and put it in the garage. commissioner clydechiu: when yox them 35%, is that on the $10 or the $5? >> that is a good question. commissioner chiu: they have to pay $10 to the garage and $3.50 to the city. it would make $1.50. >> i'll have to see how that will be accounted. i assume the full $10 would be their gross receipts. but i'm not sure. i know if that is considered their in, or what they're paying to the private garage. >> can you clarify?

they charge $10, they give five, and keep five. ok. then it should be on the full amount. >> if they are paying the parking garage $5, the parking garage would technically be paying 35% on at $5. both entities are paying 35%, 70% on one parking space. it would be good to get some clarity as to who is actually going to be responsible for the proposed 35%. >> it is an interesting case. i will look into that and report back to you. >> is the lot paying anything on that parking space?

>> with the new rule, it will be. commissioner clyde: does the parking garages or locked report that and come? >> i believe they should. yes. commissioner clyde: that is in the grey area you're trying to close up to make sure they have to pay it? commissioner chiu: we have to make sure it is not being double taxed. >> can we get some more information and hear it at the next meeting for clarification? >> absolutely. >> you can have that information at the next meeting, but this will have moved through committee. don't get the information -- it will be too late to make an action on it.

>> about this possibility of the potential for a double tax -- commissioner clyde: i am concerned about a loss of retail jobs annually. i don't want to discount the value of any job. as i made the point earlier in the evening, we don't have jobs for 16-24 year-old right now because people are hanging on desperately to almost any job. people are making sandwiches to sell at churches, selling flour in the street -- flowers in the streets. retailers under tremendous pressure. and also, i am seriously concerned that the owners will not absorb the cost. they may not pass it on, but they will take it out of their employees' wages and benefits.

>> layoff people? >> the cost of the payroll tax has been illustrated to us over and over that it depresses wages and, you know, in this instance, i am very concerned with those working men and some women who will see their wages and their benefits -- what their social security will cover and what their health benefits will be is probably nothing if they are not working. i am very concerned about the private sector. i would just caution you about assuming that the retail jobs are not desirable jobs. those are jobs people use to get

through college. they keep our economy moving. i will just make that statement. as far as the mini budget, i had a conversation with a driver who is a supervisor right now, and she said that they still have a long way to go to control their costs, their waste, and somewhere, there is 3 million here, 7 million here. we have a bunch of paper, a great presentation, and maybe 20 years down the road when we find the money, we might do it. there is work to be done that isn't the driver's, you know? they are really upset that they are getting it balanced on their backs. there are things going on that

are not being addressed. >> i audit your meetings. i don't know all this, but i want to bring it up as a member of the public that there is a lot of concern still. the cuts that are made at the ground-floor level, the ones to make us scream and cry for taxes, there are people that tell me that there is more work to be done behind the scenes and at higher levels. and there is money to be saved there. >> i also listened to the presentation, you know, when we increase the tax from 15%-35%, it could be less money for people to spend. and people might be discouraged

to come to the city and spend money because the parking is so expensive. i go to lunch downtown, it cost me $25 to park. don't go down town for lunch. commissioner clyde: i would make a recommendation that the supervisor take a look at this, and look at a phase-in. i know you're looking at the revenue measures that are headed toward the ballot. just take a really good long look at this. it does impact low-income folks. or moderate income folks. the operators, particularly. i think that cleaning up the valet is a good thing.

but maybe 10 on top of the 25 he could look at. commissioner riley: i have one question. -- commissioner dooley: i have one question. i want to know if the supervisor has a comment to this. we just recently raised the fees for our parking garages. at least the public ones. with this additional -cost added on. we recently raised fees and we will have this additional cost added on. you have had conversations over parking meters meter, so this -f

this ft goes up even more, they will actually put more pressure on people circling and pressure for use of the parking meters. >> that is a good point. the parking rates were recently raised. that is the private own garage rates. i think there is limited room for the parking garages to increase their rates because of the pressure -- a lot of this cost will have to be absorbed by parking garages. i think that there might be some decrease in the rate of people using parking garages, but i think that will be absorbed by

the private garages himself. -- themsleves. -- themselves. commissioner o'brien: you are saying that it won't go up because they are maxed out already. that is reasonable. commissioner riley: our parking garages are under-utilized right now. i know the goal is to actually reduce car trips. to raise money for muni is part, but to also reduce car trips. >> that side benefit is a slight reduction in car trips and the usage of muni. commissioner riley: i have one side note to this.

we're looking for cars to subsidize the cost of the mta. knowing that the bike in junction will soon be lifted, i know that the mta is planning on doing a lot more things for the mta. we have seen a significant increase in bicycle rider ship. i just want to pass on to the supervisor that we also look at bicycles in terms of having them share the cost of some of the programs and the things that are going to be implemented through the mta on their behalf. >> bicycle registration program or something along those lines? commissioner riley: or doing something similar -- at the commission has not said anything formally on that. the thought just crossed my

mind. >> the licensing of city bikes might be something -- >> right, with every sale there is an automatic registration fee. there are many bicycles that are not registered in the city. i am just throwing that out there. we're looking about really trying to put money back into mta and the programs they are doing. there are other entities. >> i think that is really important point, because not only do the bicyclist use the road, but bicycle theft is a huge issue. those are not --