set up. those are my comments. i will go to supervisor kim before the role. >> thank you, supervisor chu. i want to chime in, express my appreciation for ed's service. we will have a full opportunity and everyone will want to speak. part of my reason for i'm supporting this, despite some of the questions was because of your leadership and because of my faith and trust in your. so i just wanted you to know that i think very highly of you. i think highly of the work you do. i know your support was helpful in getting me over the line, over some of the concerns brought up. i do want to, you know, chime in with how are as well. the concerns are valid, they were concerns i had too. i know that will be a difficult decision for many members of this board, that it really speaks in testament to your

leadership and high regard that many of us have of your independent analysis. you work at ensuring our general fund, your budget as well. i know that's always been a top priority for you. thank you for your work. i really look forward to working with harlan kelly, who has been a long-time leader in the puc. i think your department is amazing in terms of the work in our communities, particularly low income communities in bridging partnerships, creating jobs, et cetera, et cetera, so thank you again. >> thank you. >> then finally thank you to ted egan. it took a lot of work and time for him to pull the report on economic analysis together. so if you would please relay that, thank you. we can call the roll. >> on the motion to -- on the motion prior to 6 and 7

as amended, supervisor avalos. >> aye. >> avalos aye. supervisor kim. >> aye. >> supervisor kim aye. supervisor chu. >> no. >> supervisor which you, no. motion passes. >> thank you very much. the item passes. [ applause ] >> thank you. would you call item 8, please. >> item 8, ordinance ap mending san francisco business and tax regulation code by adding 609 to establish parking tax for residential properties to relieve residential property owners and managers renting five or fewer parking spaces and stations physically attached or otherwise associated with building from the requirement. amend business tax workers code section 2219.7 to

exempt property owners and managers pursuant to section nine from department to pay the compliance fee. amend planning code, 204.5 to allow accessory use up to five dwelling unit parking spaces to be leased to persons living off-site anywhere in city, making for changes to planning code section 150d. amending police code section 1215 to eliminate requirements for parking permit for property owners and managers registered pursuant to 609, the tax code and make environmental finding consistent with the general plan. >> thank you. for folks who are on this issue or previous can i ask you to carry your conversations outside so we can continue with the agenda. this item, eight, is brought to us by supervisor wiener. welcome to budget and finance committee. or back to it, i should say. would you like to make opening comments.

>> perhaps once the chamber clears i will be in a position to do so. thank you. before you is legislation i have sponsored to make it easier for property owners and those renting a handful of parking spaces to pay the property tax and provide a path for those largely unbeknownst paying by obligation to come forward, become legal and begin paying the tax.

parking tax applies to all rentals to parking spots, whether mega parking lot operator or renting out your garage to someone who doesn't live in the building. tenant doesn't implicate parking tax but other types of rental does. it is -- i have heard whether the intent in 70s was to imply the tax to property owners but nevertheless that is how the tax is worded. for years and years people have been renting out spots connected to residential dwelling, whether single family home or apartment whether there are extra spots after tenants have taken a few spots. it's done so many years without paying parking tax

and without knowing it. in addition if you didn't know you were to pay the tax and decided you were going to be a good citizen and comply the city has made it unbelievably difficult to actually pay that tax because the city treats someone renting their garage in a single family home as if they were the fifth and mission garage. you have to have parking equipment to gather data on the garage. you have to pay a bond. you have to pay approximately $1,000 fee, which might be significant higher than annual revenue or parking tax you are paying. you have to be fingerprinted at hall of justice, fill out a significant amount of paper work and pay monthly, just like a large garage.

this legislation would do a couple things. first it would dramatically simplify the payment of parking tax for people who are renting out up to five parking spots connected to a residential property. renting out up to five to non-residents. those would no longer have to have equipment, no longer have to post bond, not have to pay fee or fingerprinted. would simply have to fill out a very simple paper work, then pipe less frequently than monthly. right now we have three months in the legislation. i will be offering an amendment today to make it an annual payment. so it will be a dramatically easier process to be able to pay the parking tax. in addition because there are so many people who do not know they were supposed

to pay and have been renting out a sitting amount of time we want to give people an incentive to come forward and pay the tax. this provides partial amnesty where people can come forward and sign up. they will have to pay no more than two years worth of back parking tax and no interest for penalties. there will be an amnesty period and pay two years back taxes, become legal and start paying by going forward. this will generate revenue for the city. particularly the mta, which does get the bulk of the parking tax. in addition, there's also planning code amendment associated with this legislation, which would address the situation where right now if you are renting out a parking spot for long-term occupancy, not for like an hourly rate.

for example, renting out spot in your home, you are -- it is illegal to rent to someone who lives more than 1,250 feet away, approximately two and a half blocks. this legislation would change that requiring you to rent to someone in the city. it would be illegal to rent to outside the city that. would apply only if you are renting up to five spots connected to a residence. the 1,250 feet limit would still apply to renting out six or month. that is broader. this is limited to a small property owner, single family home or single apartment where you are renting out a few spots. i know a member of the public has raised concern that would lead to commuter

parking, people driving instead of taking muni. i respectfully disagree. i note planning department staff has recommended this planning code change. planning commission voted 6-1 to recommend the change. there are several reasons why i think this planning code amendment is very appropriate. first it is, as far as anyone can tell, completely unenforced right now. in fact, it is completely unenforcement. measuring 1,250 feet, to expect our planning department to do that i think is not reasonable. if they were to decide to enforce it and have resources to do so, limiting it to residents would be more enforcement. in addition the city has policy of disaggregating and having parking separate from housing, limiting it

to 1,250 feet so dramatically reduces the pool of people eligible to rent that you are less likely to disaggregate housing and parking. we also have a policy of pricing parking at market rates. if you depress the demand by limiting it to 2.5 blocks around the property, you are not going to have market rate. and in addition -- i think this is -- i should quite in terms of distinguishing a small number of spots versus a larger number of spots, when you are renting out a spot in your home or maybe occupy one unit and tenants who occupy the other few units, you understandably are going to be very picky about who can going to be renting a spot in your home. in a smaller building there is less likely to be security. people will have potentially access to your home. i think it makes a lot of sense to give the smaller property owners more flexibility in terms of

choosing who they trust to actually have access to their building. if you limit it to 1,250 feet you will not give them much choice. it will be a much smaller pool if they need that income from renting the spot. colleagues, i think this is verbal lanced and good legislation does have the support of the planning commission and i respectfully ask for your support. >> thank you, supervisor. are there other folks that you have speaking on this item or -- does that conclude it? >> no, i think the treasurer tax collector if there are questions. we have worked very closely with mr. cato and mr. cisneros directly, very klab t*efly. -- collaboratively. >> did you have questions? >> i was expecting a presentation from the treasurer tax collector's office, wondering if there is a statement or public statement about this legislation from that

office. i thought mr. cato was here to discuss that. that is not part of the presentation? >> frank, would you like to say a few words on behalf of the treasurer? >> i'm just here to answer questions. we thank supervisor wiener for working collaboratively and come to a good spot. >> legislation that came forward from your office, to make sure you could tighten up regulations around parking tax? >> no, supervisor wiener proposed this legislation. >> thank you. >> supervisor wiener we just had a conversation. you said planning department had declined giving input on this aspect about the 1250 rule for parking. >> no. the planning department came out in support.

planning staff. it's circulated. planning staff supports it and held a hearing last thursday and voted 6-1. >> thank you, supervisor. why don't we go to the budget analyst report. >> good afternoon, the proposed ordinance would amend the business and tax regulation to simplify procedures for residential parking operators of five units or less to pay the parking tax. the two things it will do would provide amnesty for two years on penalties. and would forego prior to two years so there would be a revenue loss. potential revenue loss though some are not

currently paying the tax. we worked with mr. cato of treasurer tax collector to come up with preliminary naver estimates. there is not good data. what we did come up with estimate of one-time revenues of 1.8 million, ongoing revenues of more than 900,000. the fund impact would be set-asides for mta and other set asides and treasurer tax collector estimates 175,000 for implementation. general fund will be 104,000, on going would be 137,000. we consider this to be a policy matter because it does change existing regulations. >> thank you. >> madam chair, if i could just state, we did ask during this process the treasurer tax collector to

let us know how many taxpayers actually fall in this category. i believe the answer was zero or close. he is nodding in agreement. in terms of quote unquote revenue loss, these are not paying. the treasurer tax collector has occasionally people have been ensnared, whether it is the complaint or for whatever reason they are discovered and they got hit with huge taxes and fees. by and large they are not paying. this will actually bring more money into the city coffers because it is illusory tax revenue at this point. >> thank you, supervisor wiener. why don't we open this for public comment. i have a few cards i will read. david fix, michelle

hornes-cohen, tom radulovich, man did kirschner. >> i'm janine new, director of the san francisco apartment association. a couple of the speaker cards of folks that supervisor chu read have left. they had other things. the prior hearing went a little late. we are asking for your support on this important piece of legislation. we would like to thank mr. wiener for taking a role on this. we are trying to clean up archaic law trying to punish small homeowners trying to rent spots and not in compliance with the law that we are aware of. we think the passage of this legislation and amnesty program will

encourage people to come forward, comply with this law that's been on the books for quite sometime and end up in an increase in revenue going in to the general fund or mta fund. we would like to encourage the treasurer, as supervisor wiener recommended that we make this a payment yearly than currently asking someone to come down to the tax collector's office and pay this. if we could simply annually bill them i think there will be a net gain in revenue and people receive a bill from the city. obviously they are going to want to pay it. thank you for your time. i hope that you'll support this legislation. >> madam chair, if i may, there were two minor amendments. i just wanted to say what they were before we do public comment. while the first speaker is still up. one i mentioned right now

the legislation on page five line five states that the tax return and payment shall be made quarterly. and the amendment will be changed from quarterly to yearly. that was at the request of the treasurer tax collector. then the second thing is on that same page, page five, where it indicates the amnesty will end march 31st, 2013. this legislation has moved a little more slowly than we anticipated so making an amendment to indicate the amnesty period will be january 1st, 2013 to june 30th, 2013. so a six-month period. sorry, i meant to mention that. >> thank you, supervisor wiener. i also wanted to thank greg cato from the treasurer tax collector's office. he's been outstanding to work with and patient on this whole process, so thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is andrew long. i was asked to come here on

behalf of certain property owners that did not want to show number person because they do not want to speak in public because they don't want to get ensnared by the tax collector. that is true. this tax has never been enforced on small owners. it is obvious the original intention was to never include this type property owners. while this is a step in the right direction do i not think it goes far enough. i think you should flat out exempt from tax people who are incidently renting five spots or less. if you try to enforce this, the reading i have got from owners that have these is not that they will step forward but start terminating tenants and stop renting. that will be more cars on the streets, a lot of empty garages and parking lots

around residential buildings. this affects condo owners. there are a lot that may have a deeded parking spot but don't own a car. it is very common for them to make a deal with a neighbor in the same building to rent them the spot because they have two cars. under this law they would have to pay a 25% tax from renting a unit to a next door neighbor in a condo building. this would affect a lot of small owners, single-family houses that may rent a garage that the owner doesn't need. it could affect the ability of various car share programs to actually locate out in the neighborhoods because with this tax you are not going to find a lot of owners willing to do this. what we are really talking about is extending a 25% tax to small owners. i think you are better off carving out the five units or less and exempting them from this tax completely. thank you.

>> katherine roberts from san francisco apartment association member. it is wonderful organization. they have helped me with a ton of stuff. i'm eternally grateful to them for lots of things. this is actually the second time today i have disagreed on a policy issue. i'm really opposed to this legislation. i think it is a terrible idea for a lot of reasons. i have no parking in my building. but it took me five years literally to even find a house in the neighborhood that didn't have parking on the ground floor. i live in upper haight, a 100-plus year old neighborhood. almost none were built with garages, so any time there is a garage it's been converted. and they destroyed the front gardens, destroyed trees, destroyed on-street public parking for that matter to put these in their houses. i have seen the damage it's

done to the neighborhood. i have seen, you know, the pressure it puts. the user conflicts, negative affect on muni and also seen how it has increased the value -- the prices of the property in the neighborhood to where most people can't afford to buy in my neighborhood anymore because the cost of the parking increases the cost of the building so much that somebody like me who couldn't afford to buy a house with a garage, it took me literally five years to find one that i could afford because everyone had put garages in. i don't like that you are doing anything that will encourage people to think, well, if my tenants won't rent it, i will find five others who will. it puts more pressure on people to think it is okay for me to spend money on the garage when really the grounds should be used for housing. we are having a terrible housing crunch.

i think anything that goes in a different direction is a really bad idea, thank you. >> good afternoon, tom radulovich, director of lable city. we were part of the conversation that created that quarter mile rule. we knew a lot were renting to folks to nearby residents. we thought that was okay but wanted to regularize it and talk to stakeholders like livable city. we want to create a market for residential parking but don't want to open the neighborhoods up to commuters. that is a real change in policy. the residential spaces would no longer be residential, we are changing the use entirely. we think there's a lot of great things in this. we love the simplification and amnesty but we don't think the planning code

change was vetted with anybody. i did wrote a note to commission, i wasn't able to go, a disadvantage, a lot of neighborhoods will be affected. five units or fewer is pretty much every residential parcel in this city. we are a city of one, two, lee-unit buildings, a city of small apartments. virtually every residential unit or building in district 11 or in district four would be open to commuters coming in from outside the neighborhood. district six, i think about the work with western soma, all the enclaves would be open to commuters coming into downtown. it is a big policy shift. a lot of people will be affected. policies will be undermined or strengthened so we feel like this doesn't belong in a parking tax simplification ordinance. we would urge you to pass this along but maybe hold this planning amendment, this planning code amendment here in committee. then in planning commission

but i think more folks need to weigh in. we need to understand how many propertis are affected, which neighborhoods are affected so we don't create a huge mess and turn these spaces into commuter spaces for folks living outside the neighborhood, thank you. >> good afternoon, minute did kirschner, a real estate broker and property manager. i'm here on behalf of some * of my owners. i respectfully disagree with past two speakers. most buildings that have -- small buildings that have small garages, those spaces are generally filled on. should there be one, two, lee other spaces, owners need the flexibility to rent them as they can because parking does go with the units by and large.

one has two buildings, one has parking, another doesn't. she is able to offer to tenants if there is a spot available. she has put in four electric charging stations. we want the flexibility to rent them to people with electric cars or city car share. making this process simple and functional is the process of city government. we appreciate you bringing this forward and shepherding it through. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon again, supervisors. brook turner, with coalition for better housing. may i begin by thanking supervisor wiener for his work, that is helpful, mr. cato and mr. cisneros if he is watching for working on

this. it came as i think a reaction to constituent complaints about bills coming in or enforcement unknown tax law where there are some folks who had to pay huge fines and huge back tax on us and are continuing to do that, even as we speak. they still have to do this. although ignorance of the law is certainly no excuse, it is -- it was not known by most anyone that this was necessary. if they did know, had i known that they had to be fingerprinted and bonded, $1,000, all these thing, you can expect they wouldn't rent out their parking spot or they would not report it. we think that the amnesty part of this is very important. we appreciate that.

i think mr. wiener's correct, you will get a lot more people who will come up and pay the tax, pay the penalties and back taxes if you do that. we do understand, of course, the concerns of smaller property owners in that they shouldn't be treated as big parking companies because they are not. these are folks who have maybe two units, are renting out their driveway or garage in their building to help pay for the mortgage. it is a concern that they would be hobaled by a great expense. hopefully this won't be the case with the new legislation. we can start with a clean slate, pardon me, and move on from there. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, i