since our report was published, it's come to our attention there are new social media companies that may be influencing this dynamic, like circa and park police can unite parkers with parking resources, making it easy to lease small amounts of residential parking as commuter parking. some of these sites encourage and facilitate activities that are illegal such as parking in driveways or leasing the publish right of way in front of their garage where the curb cut is for the driveway. most notefully for planning these sites encourage renting of parking spaces for periods less than one month. daily or even hourly rates. for anyone who is willing to pay. so this is a violation of the planning code. these new technological avenues may in fact, create pressures that would enable residential parking in small buildings to

incrementally converted to commuter parking. the department does not believe, however, this would be sufficient enough to affect commuter mode patterns. we wanted to inform this new information has come to our attention. the recommendation and resolution before you explains the planning code amendment is one piece of a larger proposal that would simplify the city's existing taxation of parking spaces and by making the process of paying taxes simpler to implement and providing some amnesty for those who may not have previously known about the tax. therefore we agree compliance is likely to improve. for this reason the department recommends approval of the proposal. the planning code amendment itself furthers the goal of separating the cost of housing and parking by broad ening the potential market of those who may respect residential spaces to residents throughout the city. the proposed amendment is unlikely to increase commuting parking, as i said, it affects those of five or fewer spaces;

however the ordinance did inadvertently remove the ability of owners of buildings with more than five residential spaces to lease these, to people who live in the neighborhood that. was one of our modifications. we wanted to enable buildings that may have more than five residential spaces to be able to lease with anybody within our neighborhood. we also proposed a conforming amendment to section 150, also an oversight. we have discussed these modifications with the supervisor. he is supportive. i'm available if there are questions. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? commissioner antonini. >> thank you. well, i think this sounds like it is good legislation to me. going through family members who are looking to rent or buy -- particularly buy a place. you know, one of the issues

is, is there a garage? often there isn't. the question arises, where are we going to put the car? are we going to have to drive around all night looking for a parking place or is there someplace that can be rented? it would make it easier for people to connect with spaces that might be even as much as over 1,200 feet away from the residents and might encourage more buyers to consider places that don't have their own garages as a possible thing to buy because people do have cars. in fact, i think i'd heard a statistic there are more cars than people in san francisco. i'm not sure if that is true, how many cars are registered in san francisco. i think it is very close, a considerable number. though some people do not own a car, some own more than one. i don't know what that stat is but obviously they are. the only other thing i would say is i think it is going to regulate something that has been going on all the time. i think one of the mentions that the supervisor talked

about was the elimination of the bond, or there is a bond that was necessary. i guess the only caution i would have is anyone in this business, since it is regulated by the city and there will be some tax on it, they would be encouraged to have adequate personal liability and property damage coverage, just for their own protection and protection of, you know, if something were to happen to the renter on their property, it is just wise this be advised i think just in general terms. i think it is good legislation. >> commissioner moore. >> i have a couple of questions for the supervisor. first is there an urgency for this legislation to be approved today? the reason why i'm asking that, supervisor, is that i made several calls. the legislation as it is written is very hard to understand. coming back from vacation there seemed to be a number of people who were not aware officerit at all. i actually talked to the

supervisor of my district * who is completely unaware. we have specific problems in our district, that being district three. my question is that many people felt this wasn't vetted enough by those people who normally weigh in on transportation, parking and other issues related to this. could you address that for a moment, please? >> well, yes. i actually do think it is time-sensitive. as i mentioned the treasurer tax collector in recent months has become extremely aggressive about going after particularly small property owners, mid-sized buildings that have not been aware they were required to pay this. sometimes seeking 100, 150, 200 thousand against them. we are eager to get this this place so they can comply and take advantage of mechanisms we put in

place to pay the back taxes, require compliance and move forward. this is not -- this is not on a speed docket. i introduced this legislation quite sometime ago. it's been reported on in the press. having been on the board of supervisors close to tw years i've been accustomed -- i'm guilty of this too with supervisors, i'm sure commissioners as well smr*is that we have so much on our plate that you focus on things that come up. the fact i have a colleague who may not have focused on this yet is not surprising. i can't tell you how many times i go to colleagues three, four weeks in advance and say let's talk about this. they say talk to me the week before. i think that is the case. i know that mr. radulovich * sent out an e-mail. i can think of very few people who follow agendas

and introduce lists and pending 30-day hold lists more than tom. so this has been very public and transparent and open. i think that now is the time for a decision. that is my view. >> i actually read this letter. this came in about 10:00. i think he made a number of very important points. we not only see it with respect to issue of reduced parking, which is a constant discussion in this group but with respect to increased movement if you open up where parking is being allowed to occur, given that somebody might live in the sunset and wants to park on orange beach because there is a place that would be convenient to them. i'm concerned about transportation impacts relative to congestion. i'm also a little concerned living in a building where indeed people are respecting parking spaces but this is not because -- they own the parking space and they rent the space but an element of tenant security when the building does not have the

supervisor or parking attendant and tenants are more comfortable having people within a certain radius. 1250 is somewhat arbitrary but people you kind of know and have seen in the neighborhood and come and go, do you know them and more or less part of the building you are living in. i think there is like, from my perspective, potentially another week of two additional discussion because i had a very hard time understanding the legislation until you stood here explaining it. thank you. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. maybe this is more for staff, supervisor. anne marie, the legislation as affects the planning code uses the language accessory parking versus just parking. at least in your presentation you used the word accessory parking.

>> it applies to residential accessory parking. >> can you define that for me? >> it would be where -- a primary use would be say you have a whole residential building. the primary use is residential. we would consider the parking to be accessory to the primary use, so the use is housing but has parking. however the parking shall not be leased to the public, should be accessory to housing use. >> if i may add, parking within the allowed or limited amount of parking for a particular use of property. if you have a three-family dwelling in rh3, you have three parking spaces, those are accessory to those residential units and required as well, but the code allows you to rent them currently -- >> just the way we refer to parking. >> yeah. >> but where the two had -- only three parking spaces required but you are providing ten, we would say that is no longer accessory parking but as a separate use and considered a parking garage or lot. >> right.

>> all right. but it is limited to five, right? if there is a condo unit that has 200 units in it and it provides 200 spaces. let's say it is an old one-to-one ratio. those are un-bundled and only 150 of the current owners use their parking spaces, then 50 are available, but they would only be able to rent out five of those? >> the only thing the supervisor's proposal is changing is saying we will make it simpler for smaller units with five or less. what that -- by making it simpler in that case it would also expand the allowable market. so those -- if you had a small building you could rent to anybody in the city; whereas under existing controls buildings of any size have the accessory residential parking have to rent to somebody in their neighborhood, under the supervisor's proposal you could still -- if you had six you could rent to anybody in the neighborhood.

that would not change; that would be the same. >> i don't get it. >> i don't get it. >> let me try one more time. >> okay. >> lets use a bigger number. let's use 50. >> under today's law, parking of any size has to be rented to somebody that lives in the neighborhood within a quarter mile. >> right. >> everybody. >> so the supervisor -- >> that could be any number of spaces? >> right. >> could be one accessory parking or -- -- just exemplified, let's reduce the number -- 20 spaces that were available, the condo association could rent those 20 spaces to people within 1250 feet of the condo? >> that's correct. under today's law. >> okay. >> under the supervisor's proposal and he does support the proposed amendments. under his proposal with planning departments -- just say under his proposal as it is, that would not change for a 20-unit building. a 20-unit building would still have to rent to people who live within a

quarter mile. his proposal would only change it for five or fewer parking spaces. they could rent to people that live within the city. >> okay. so okay, i got it. so that larger number -- larger developments that have the potential for more than five -- or have more than five let's say available, that wouldn't change. they would still have to be within 1250 feet. >> yes. that is the core why the department was a de minimus effect. >> the smaller ones, as you just explained that are five or less, would be affected by the supervisors. >> yes. i'm going to let the supervisor discuss that. but that in essence is why we thought it was de minimus effect. the small units was only five spaces. i would be really cumbersome to go into this process with these people. we didn't think that would affect modes; whereas we might have a concern if it

was larger -- a 200-unit building and they had 200 spaces to lease. >> just to be clear, it is not about what the size of the building but it is about the number of spots rented. so if you are a six-unit building renting five or a 300-unit building renting five, you qualify for this legislation. so if you are a 300-unit billing and have five and thinking about renting out a six, you may or may not want to do that because it will trigger new things. if you are a condo association and people are renting individual spots the hoa will presumably have rules. they will not want to trigger all these requirements. >> commissioner hillis. >> i have a question also. i guess from a policy standpoint he made good points. to lift 1250 is arbitrary, i agree, with commissioner moore. if somebody is renting out ten spaces, why not change

that also, the 1250. i think you made good cases. we are approving * projects with no parking. we'd like parking else where maybe to satisfy that and have people not rent in those spaces. why 1,250 on -- >> personally, i think there is an argument for that. this legislation we were really focused on the people who were renting up to five, so we decided not to, you know, open up the larger policy issue for all parking, but i think there is a very valid argument. i understand the rationale behind the 1250, but for the reasons i have stated -- sounds like you are agreeing -- there are some issues with it. but in this particular legislation we were focused on the people renting up to five, so we just didn't go beyond that. >> so it seems -- i'm supportive. seems like it is a minor change. i would also look at that 1250 for more spaces.

maybe it is not citywide. maybe it is five blocks but does seem like the two and a half blocks is somewhat arbitrary. >> thank you. >> commissioner borden. >> to that point, one of the things i -- you know, i think i actually sent you, supervisor, an e-mail about it. i happen to know many friends rent spaces probably not considered 1250 feet from where they live. i know property owners that do that. they are in the same neighborhood. like four blocks away or five blocks away but not, you know, adjacent. we have a reality where most people are not abiding by the law and not aware of the law and not paying the tax, so we need to do something about that. for me, this was the first time i ever knew that. so i know buildings were violating the law. i don't think they were trying to. there is a larger issue that we also touched on about the larger buildings. i'm not saying you want to touch that in this legislation but, you know, one of the things i

suggested is looking at maybe zip codes. maybe the immediate and adjacent zip code because that would prevent people from coming from other part s of the city. particularly if you open up the five spaces or more. i think there is a real issue around -- you know, if you want to unbundle parking. i have gone to in the past open house where is they want you to pay x amount because parking is included and don't want you to pay less. if you are able to rent spaces that prevents landlords from trying to pressure people into paying higher rents for spaces they don't need but i think we need to look how we create compliance on a larger scale. when people audit or fill out these forms, with a zip code you can look and see if it is the person renting the space or adjacent, if those are filed in reports. what kind of information do

they collect in reports today? >> i don't know that they collect much. that would be a question for the treasurer tax collector. what i will say is i appreciate the thinking because zip codes are a good way to measure, easier than feet. it raises similar issues. for example, with the 1250 feet, if you live on the edge of golden gate or -- that 1250 might truly be a very small number of houses, so it becomes arbitrary. for some larger, some people smaller. zip codes, if you have two next to each other and at the southern edge of one, you might have one -- again, it is -- there are a lot that -- >> that is why i said immediately adjacent. from my point of view, if it is an issue to enforce

and track, if data around zip codes, it is easy to know if it is the same and it is immediately next door. if you are trying to figure out the house number this personal ledgely lives at is within a certain amount of square feet of a particular place, this is not an issue for this legislation but in terms of, you know, dealing with the larger issue around enforcement i think there's probably a larger problem in many larger buildings i see signs all over. parking for rent. it doesn't say you must be 1250 square feet away. i doubt people turn away people who are living further than that. >> yeah. if we were going to have the broader conversation about parking in general for this issue that would be something considered. >> right. >> i agree but it is not so much for this legislation where i think the simplest thing is say the city and i think that is probably the best way to go here. but i agree if we were to

open up the larger issue, that would be definitely a good point of conversation, where do we draw the line? zip codes is a number of feet, blocks, the whole city? >> the other issue around pricing, we have been allowing parking fees to go up because they feel they discourage people from driving or having cars. if you pay more for tickets or meters, there is a thinking that it discouraging people from driving if parking -- in new york city parking is expensive so people don't typically own car unless they happen to be very wealthy or just want to pay a lot money in parking. from policy it is consistent with the fact that why do we want to subsidize people's parking? we are trying not to do that. trying to subsidize housing cheaper, not parking cheaper. >> commissioner wu. >> i wanted to ask the treasury tax collector is starting to go after property owners, but no one

is enforcing right now whether or not you are leasing your parking to the right person, correct? >> i'm not aware of any such enforcement. i imagine there is always going to be -- there are knowledgeable people who can make complaints and perhaps staff can add dress that. >> i ask that because i actually was surprised also. i didn't know this was a regulation. i think even if my building, my neighbors i think that they are renting to what seems like anyone who comes through the door. so i'm in favor of having some way of collecting tax that makes sense for property owners. i want to make sure we are not doing things to encourage more commuters to drive in to rent spots that are not available. for me this legislation does seem somewhat de minimus. it doesn't seem like it creates this giant market, but i think i'm also trying to think through the larger questions of practically what does this mean. i think, to be honest on

the ground, it is going to be similar to the way it is today. >> thank you. that was the point i was trying to make. in terms of commuter issues, whatever is happening is happening now so -- >> commissioner moore. >> supervisor, have you thought about the comment the treasurer's letter made regarding a need for staffing and enforcing this new legislation? >> yes. the treasurer's office did -- sorry, i did -- i haven't seen the letter to commission but i'm family that the treasurer's office did raise during the amnesty period. it determines there will be additional costs. there will be we hope a frenzy of people coming into compliance and paying taxes. i note the treasurer's to me will be significantly

more than the staffing and the staffing will continue into the future. we have asked the treasurer to work with the mayor's office. i will defer to whatever decision -- recommendation they make. i know they have been in communication with kate howard and her staff. >> thank you. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, commissioner. one last question. will the requirement you be a san francisco resident, will that be a rule in the treasury whatever department? will they figure out whether you need to show a utility bill or driver's license or something like that? >> that is a planning department function, not treasurer and tax collector function. >> does have it to be in the ordinance or an administrative -- >> in terms of -- for planning staff? >> i guess anne marie or mr. sanchez?

>> it is preferable to have it in the planning code. if there was a way to have this monitored and enforced by the assessor's office that would be great. >> it does currently say in the draft ordinance they need to live in the city in order to rent that, so as long as -- if you need anything else to enforce it -- >> i don't have a problem with that language; it is just how is the person who's renting space supposed to verify that, i guess? does that have to be in the code or can that just be a -- >> the person who is renting the space, the property owner, they are the one ultimately liable that they are renting to someone that lives within the city. they could ask for a utility bill or something like that. maybe additional background. 1250 hasn't always been in the code. that was added in 2006 or 2008. at that time it would have been ideal that we had evaluated all the other relevant municipal codes because we created the

condition that resulted in non-compliance with tax laws so we almost incentivised that. we have had a few complaints. now days it is fairly simple to enforce. if we get a complaint we can contact the property owner, have them provide information regarding the person losing the space. we can use our great property information map has a measuring tool through google maps so we can measure out the distance between two properties if we have some utility bill from someone who lives within 1250 feet that would be compliant with requirements. this has come up with tenant issues, where someone has been renting a space in their building. the landlord says, no, we are no longer going to rent it or put it on craigslist or something like that. that is more of a rent board issue. it could be seen as a decrease in services. there is a method for people to seek redress if they were -- you know, had a rental agreement that included the parking. there are ways of

addressing that. >> i'm not trying to put everything in the ordinance. i would like to keep it simple. perhaps if there could be an informal -- you know, something that suggests to the person who is going to be renting the space that there are various things they might consider asking for, something like that. >> i would suggest the department maybe suggest -- i'm sure they can create the simple formed and coordinate. >> we can coordinate with public health so they can provide and ensure people aren't in violation. >> commissioner antonini. >> this could also relate sometimes to people who work-related parking who work on another part of the city from where they live but need to have the car there. we have some staff members who need to have a car to take patients place and pick things up for the office. you know, we have to rent out space for them to do that. one other question, supervisor, is we would still be collecting the 25%

tax on the gross receipts of these places we are talking about? >> correct. >> okay. >> technically 20% but if you picked -- >> ends up -- sitcom mri kated. >> correct. >> the parking tax itself will not change. >> that is one thing that's not come up in this discussion. i think this would encourage a little better regulation and perhaps some revenue for something in the code but may not be being collected at this time. i think that is an added benefit. >> think we have another comment. >> move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> like to ask one question to the supervisor. sorry, we are keeping you here on the hot seat, the hot stand. i'm concerned that obviously with parking now becoming a commodity which can be priced as high as possible that those people in units, particularly

smaller buildings one to five were potentially impacted by that. we do not have any cost parameters or taxation parameters which become binding. by opening up parking, become not really an accessory use but an independent income generator, i'm concerned about the potential effects it has on those people who do need a car and commute to workplaces outside the city. we have people like that. in particular neighborhoods. this is basically applied to only roads. that is a little uncomfortable to me. parking in itself, particularly for those who can't afford a parking space is commodity, luxury to have a good car and park it inside. those are where you can find a place and even if you have a clunker in order

for you to leave at 4:00 a.m. and go to some faraway place to work, what are you going do do. i would really like you to address that. >> i understand. i guess there is tension because under the city's transit first policy, we -- you know, parking is supposed to be priced at its market value. the city, you know, is not supposed to subsidize parking. as we all hear from constituents about whether it is parking meters or whatever else, parking under the city's policy is not supposed to be subsidized. we are building a lot of .5 ratio buildings where not all the residents are not going to be able to have a vehicle. it is a legitimate point. sort of a tension or point-counter point but the city's policy is pretty

clear, as i understand it. but your point is well taken. >> thank you very much for addressing that. >> call the question? >> the motion is for approval as currently proposed, with staff's input. on that motion commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> no. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> wu. >> yes. >> fong. >> aye. >> thank you, passes 6-0 with commissioner moore voting against. * >> commissioners, you are now on item number -- >> the commission is going to take a very brief break here. maybe about 15 minutes, ten minutes. >> commission is taking a 15-minute recess. >> thank you.