board and find a way to reduce cost of clean energy over time that i do want to recognize the immense amount of work over the last eight years p.u.c. took to bring this. i feel comfortable at this time bringing this to the full board. i think the big thing is my concern for our most vulnerable rate payers. i think for myself i could imagine as a busy person missing the opt-out notices. i'm less concerned for someone like me that can afford to pay that at decisional amount for a month or two before i realize and opt out later. my concern is for individuals that can't afford to do that. i do appreciate the programs who have a 20% discount for participating low income customers. the other issue is how can low income residents afford to be green. if they can't go to the farmer's market, how can we

help our low income residents to be green as well? i appreciate the effort in that route. so i'm happy to support this with recommendation out of committee as well. >> thank you for your comments. i a bit of housekeeping. i believe when supervisor campos articulated the amendments from the city attorney that was on one version. there is a second version supervisor kim articulated. there are two versions. we have taken a vote on the motion to accept the amendments articulated by supervisor campos. however the amendments that supervisor kim just read has not yet been taken. supervisor kim, would you make a motion to accept those recommendations? >> i didn't realize there was another set. i would like to make a motion to amend, as i had articulated prior. >> there is a motion to amend legislation on page eight and page 16 as supervisor kim read. that is on the floor. we can do that without

objection. okay. so supervisor avalos, did you make the motion to send forward with recommendation? >> if it wasn't clear enough, yes. i would like to mention the work done. i didn't enunciate that succinctly as i wanted to. you have done a great job as control and manager and i think this is a worthy place for you to do it before the next phase of your career. so thank you for this and your great work. >> thank you, supervisor. [ applause ] >> supervisor campos? >> thank you, madam chair. i don't want to belabor the votes but make a couple quick points. i want to recognize others who have played an important role in making this happen. we heard about the amazing staff at p.u.c. and lafco. i want to acknowledge the

city attorney's office, which has been an important part of this process throughout all these years for their advice and guidance. but perhaps, you know, for me as important and perhaps one of the most important players, if not the most, are advocates who have been working to make cca happen for so many years. the fact we wouldn't be here without their advocacy and their support. to folks who expressed concerns about this program, i want to say that i respect what they are saying and that we are very mindful of the issues that have been raised. if this moves forward i look forward to the opportunity to work with each and every one of you to make sure that we take all necessary steps to address those concerns. so i see this as an opportunity to work together. i especially was moved by the presence of so many low income seniors.

i do think that is an opportunity for all of us because i do believe there is some misinformation or misunderstanding and how this works. we have an obligation to make sure people understand how this works and we take every step we possibly can to protect low income individuals and do so in a culturally competent way. i know the puc and department of environment are committed to making that happen. you know, devin dufty once said if there is a gold standard in terms of someone running a department, that is ed harrington. i think if there is a question it is demonstrated today why that is the case. the fact is this is very complicated stuff. i do believe we have the best program we can possibly have because of your leadership.

i also see our soon-to-be new general manager so i want to acknowledge harlan kelly, thank you for being here. we look forward to working with you. we look forward to being helpful. one of the things you will inherit is an amazing staff. you are very lucky in that sense. colleagues, i look forward to a yes vote. i think this is a historic moment. again, i want to thank also my colleagues on the lafco, including john avalos, hope spencer, leah pementel, christine olagi and mark. >> thank you. i know there is a motion to send the item forward with recommendation at this point. i will be calling for a roller coaster on it. i wanted to explain why and also want to thank the puc for leadership on pulling this together. i don't think it was an easy thing to do. i think under circumstances

and limitations of state law you did pull together as best as the market would allow you. i want to say thank you in particular to your staff for pulling this together. it's been a long time coming. i want to thank you for your patience and having this coming through budget and finance and for director harrington who actually stayed beyond the time he thought in order to be here. i do want to appreciate him and thank you. for me i do think in terms of a cca, i don't think there is anything wrong inherently in the concept of a cca. the ability to purchase power or aggregate purchasing power to get a different product or different deal for your consumers. i also don't think there is anything wrong about having additional consumer choice. i don't think that is a bad thing. inherently what troubles me, the reason why i won't be supporting this is it don't think it goes far enough to, one, to build

the reserve that is funded really by individuals using the program. if we were to have shaped a program where we were phasing in or we are asking people participating in cca to actually pay for the reserves that we are as a city at risk for, that would be something i would be more comfortable with and i think is much more appropriate. i think that would free up funding from the city to pay and invest in other programs like go solar if the city had chose to do that or go pay for other energy federal court si programs to help reduce energy usage, *ets. that is one area that i think i would have liked to see a different approach on that i don't see in this program and this contract. i think the second area that troubles me, there is nothing that the puc could do about this is really on the opting out structure. i really do think that as we talk about choice we really are not doing that with an opt out system. inevitably the best attempt

also be people trapped in this because of language issues or so busy with their lives, raising a family, that they will miss it that. is something i don't prefer. i much prefer an opt-in, where people fully and willingly know they are entering into a program and willing to pay a premium for a product. those are two area and two aspects that troubles me, why i will be voting against it. do you think we would be able to shape a program, a stronger program where perhaps like marin did initially. there's the same rate structure, then people can affirmatively opt in? i'm not sure. i would imagine the p.u.c. did work diligently to figure out an approach to this opt-out situation. at the moment i don't think we are there in terms of being able to really after official that people are not being captured. i know the puc has argued tk -- argued -- argued

tech lated that is not in the best interest. and with the program that would allow us to free up money on energy efficiency, even with our own buildings but number two on the opt-out component, that is something that again is structurely and inherently wrong about the state law 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 tx