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'm dennis ribal, a property manager in san francisco. thank you, supervisor wiener, for your work on this important issue. while i support the direction this proposal is moving, i don't think it goes quite far enough, i think it is difficult to enforce this requirement as far as the tax collector's office. from my own experience i though the property en errs penalized and forced to pay past due tax and penalties, the net in which they are ensnared is if they have their property managed by a

management company who gets a periodic visit from the tax collector's office to audit payrole and ask to see books and records. that is how they catch the property owners who were unaware of the law. as far as mom and pop property owners out there, there's no mechanism way to audit this or subject them to the same requirement. so it is not fair to someone who is using professional management is more likely to get ensnared in this thing. as a property manager we are in a weird position. because of the law we have to discriminate against a tenant who doesn't have a car in event we have an apartment for rent that has a space available or have to take someone who doesn't have the car and then we end up not renting the space and lose income because cost of compliance

is so burdensome. i would complete an exemption from the parking tax ordinance for owner who's rent five or fewer spaces, thank you. >> thank you. other members of the public who wish to comment on item number eight? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a number of items to -- places to take action on. we have an amendment i think that supervisor wiener has articulated, which is to have billing go from quarterly to yearly and adjust amnesty from january 1st, 2013 through june 30th, 2013. do we have a motion? >> is it sufficient that i stated the summary or the exact language? i can do that if need be. >> if you could state the exact language. i got the date but not the -- >> okay.

so on page five, lines 16 to 17 will read, the billing owner or manager who registers for relief under this section between january 1st 2013 and june 30th 2013 and satisfies -- then continues unchanged, then the second change would be on line 19. simply changing march 31st, 2013 to june 30th, 2013. then finally higher up on that page, page five, line five the word quarterly will be changed to yearly. or i guess annually is the correct term. so quarterly will be changed to annually. >> thank you for articulating those changes. colleagues, that is an amendment supervisor wiener has put forward. can we take that without objection?

we will do that without objection. then to the underlying item as amended. colleagues, do we have a motion? supervisor kim? >> i will make a motion. >> i will make a motion to forward this with recommendation to the full aboard. do want to thank supervisor wiener's office and groups that have brought this forward. i actually ones aware of this issue with our smaller * -- i wouldn't call them smaller parking operators because they are probably residents and homeowners that rent spaces in their residences to other san francisco residents. i did want to say i thought it was a difficult issue foranyone, whether it is planning or to enforce kind of the limb station. though i understand where that had originally come from, ensuring we didn't have commuters renting spaces in residential homes but i think limiting it to san francisco residents is easier for us to enforce

and kind of largely deals with a lot of the constraints around commuters from outside san francisco renting within san francisco. i do think that this reaches a delicate compromise from a lot of what we heard from public comment. whether to completely exempt residents from having to pay the tax to heavily enforcing to make sure we have a transit-first city. i appreciate what's come before us. i think residents should be paying taxes. they are charging and creating revenue for themselves through renting out the parking spots. i appreciate we are moving to an annual level. i think that will take some of the burden from residents renting out one or two spots to other residents in the city. >> thank you. we have a motion to send the item forward with recommendation. i would say i did hear the public comments. you know, frankly, the comment about it creating a situation where we have commuter -- areas where

people are parking, i'm not sure that would really happen. i think that in some of our neighborhoods we already impact that way. in the sunset for example we have tons of commuter who's park on our neighborhood streets and take their routes. i think that is something that is a larger issue we would contend and deal with. with that can we take that motion without objection? we will do that without objection. thank you very much. >> thank you, colleagues. >> are there any other items before us? >> the agenda for today. >> thank you, we are adjourned.

>> i have 2 job titles. i'm manager of the tour program as well as i am the historyian of city hall. this building is multifaceted to say the very least it's a municipal building that operates the city and county of san francisco. this building was a dream that became a reality of a man by the name of james junior elected mayor of san francisco in 1912. he didn't have a city hall because it was destroyed in the earth wake of 1906. construction began in april of

1913. in december 1915, the building was complete. it opened it's doors in january 1916. >> it's a wonderful experience to come to a building built like this. the building is built as a palace. not for a king or queen. it's built for all people. this building is beautiful art. those are architecture at the time when city hall was built, san francisco had an enormous french population. therefore building a palace in the art tradition is not unusual. >> jimmie was an incredible individual he knew that san francisco had to regain it's

place in the world. he decided to have the tallest dome built in the united states. it's now stands 307 feet 6 inches from the ground 40 feet taller than the united states capital. >> you could spend days going around the building and finding something new. the embellishment, the carvings, it represents commerce, navigation, all of the things that san francisco is famous for. >> the wood you see in the board of supervisor's chambers is oak and all hand carved on site. interesting thing about the oak

is there isn't anymore in the entire world. the floors in china was cleard and never replanted. if you look up at the seceiling you would believe that's hand kof carved out of wood and it is a cast plaster sealing and the only spanish design in an arts building. there are no records about how many people worked on this building. the workman who worked on this building did not all speak the same language. and what happened was the person working next to the other person respected a skill a skill that was so wonderful that we have this masterpiece to show the world y.