50 states are using. while we are grateful that this has not been eliminated, are looking at the program. we know that many recipients will not qualify under the new federal waiver program. many will have to close due to lack of sufficient funds to operate. we are grateful that the program infrastructure has been kept in place. the centers must approve the elimination as a benefit. they must also approve the state's confirmation. this conversion process has already occurred and three other states and will take approximately 6-8 months.

-- has introduced a bill to expressed intent to avoid a gap and care for current patients to meet the redefined eligibility standards. in the meantime, this will be sent to the governor and legislature preventing us presenting the boards to the loss of services through elimination either by cuts, without a ballot measure, or an action to keep the current program funded while we're waiting for the application to go through. i would like to thank the co- sponsors of this legislation. our office feels that this is relevant in light of the current gap in funding that might not be met while this is going through the new federal

program. we would like to continue to support this resolution. thank you very much. >> i appreciate this resolution and i don't want to see the elimination of the adults health care center programs in the budget. i am going to dissent and i will explain why. if we are going to propose cuts, we take is to the extreme and we oppose every single cut that the budget is making. if we're going to propose cut after cut, let's propose ways to get the money back. i don't want to see these shut either but in terms of what we're doing, what would like to see as come up with other ways to get the money back. any -- delong >> any additional

speakers? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> this resolution is adopted. >> item 13 is a resolution adopting the city's 10 year capital expenditure plan for fiscal year 2012-2021. >> roll call vote. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> this resolution is adopted. >> item 14, resolution authorizing department of emergency management to rector actively except and extend its fiscal year 2008 protection program grant in the amount of approximately 5079000 from the u.s. department of homeland security to fund critical planning and infrastructure protection needs. >> a house, same call. this resolution is adopted. -- same house, same call? item 15. >> resolution approving the issuance of tax-exempt revenue bonds in the amount not to exceed $120 million to finance

various capital facilities. >> same house, call? next item. >> resolution authorizing the san francisco department of environment to except 47 electric the local charges and three years of service. >> a house, call? this resolution is adopted. item 17. >> item 17 is a resolution authorizing the pit of children, you can and families to retroactively except grant funding in the amount of $3 million from the bill and let the case foundation to fund the san francisco bridge to success program. >> same house, same call? this resolution is adopted. item 18. >> resolution approving the execution and delivery of the program lis and improving the issuance of bonds in an amount not to exceed 16.5 million.

>> same house, same call? this is adopted. >> item 19, ordinance amending the planning code establishing setback, of st. parking, and other planning code requirements across various districts. >> this is for the residential districts. uthe planning code is uneven throughout san francisco. the controls are crowded the most complete, partial controls exist in certain districts. others have no control at all. this limits parking and loading

to a third or less of the building's street frontage. 1/3 must be dedicated to building in trees, landscaping, and other features which fosters the residential neighborhood, to facilitate the construction of the -- as called for. also to encourage pedestrian- friendly features in these prominent locations as well as other tweaks to the planning code so that we have a more uniform program. your support this -- is appreciative. >> same house, call? without objection. >> item 20 is to amend the code to

allow ground use. >> under the 45 year range of redevelopment agency in the western addition of in japan town, they were under a different land use zoning control system and part of what was allowed for was that on the fillmore corridor south of gary boulevard in the heart of the western addition was that if a business or a company that owned property wanted to have a storefront property not used for retail purposes, then they could have office space. if you go down filmore, and the east side you will see vibrant retail and restaurants but on

the west side, this is actually offices or this is held vacant until other offices comment. this is not acceptable and there's no way that we can make a good-faith effort in trying to revitalize an excuse, especially in an area that has been challenged over some decades. what this does is to correct the planning code now that redevelopments has ended in the western addition and synchronizes this area with the rest of the city's planning code so that this is prohibited -- prohibitive for a property owner to allow for storefront space to be used for a non retail business. it is time that we allow on the east and west side to benefit from this activity that has been handcuffed. your support is appreciated.

>> can we take this item same house, same call? without objection, this passes on the first reading. >> ordinance adding chapter 20 to the environment code to establish a three-year pilot program to reduce waste in the distribution of yellow phone directories to private residences and businesses in san francisco. >> colleagues, i would like to thank all of you for your consideration of this proposal and for probably receiving thousands of e-mails in the past couple of weeks. i want to thank supervisor mar, mirkarimi, wiener, and cohen for your support of this. as i think many of you know, the proposal in front of you as around the mass over distribution of yellow pages which impacts the neighborhood,

environment, and will affect consumer choice. any of us who walks around our neighborhood in recent years, but in the last few weeks and reticular, you will see thousands of on wanted yellow pages that are littering our streets. it is estimated that there are 1.6 million phone books that are delivered to san franciscans every year. if you consider the fact that we have 330,000 households, that consists of five redundant phone books to every household. if you assume that only 36% of the population has even touched a yellow page phone book, this is a tremendous over distribution. this represents 7 million pounds of waste and the hidden cost of disposing of that is estimated to be over a million dollars

paid by san francisco ratepayers. this is about consumer choice and ensuring that if the consumer would like to receive their yellow pages, they can get one. there has been a bit of a smear campaign on this legislation. this allows anyone who would like one to receive a yellow page phone book from a distributor. the legislation more requires the city to engage in a program to individuals to represent populations that continue to use the yellow pages. these are seniors, disabled, and are low income communities. i have distributed a couple of technical amendments to the legislation that i understand are not substantive. the first set of amendments clarify our findings based on the hearings that we have in this issue. the second set of amendments insures that not only will we ought reach to individuals who are seniors, disabled, but also

those for whom english might not be the first language. the third amendment simply clarifies a change that was made in committee. supervisor wiener propose that we had a start date for this legislation. we had help the debate and at the end of the day, we extended the start date to next may. over a year from now. the sunset date clarifies that this is a three-year pilot program. i would like to thank the small business commission for your consideration of this proposal. the chamber of commerce testified that this is good for business and good for how we build a 21st century economy here in san francisco. i would like to ask that we adopt the amendments and our blood to make a motion. >> second.

>> can be taken without objection? >> can we support this and i would appreciate your support. thank you. >> as soon as those yellow pages arrives on my front door, the first thing i'd do is pick them up and put them in my blue been. i appreciate from where this comes. of the last 72 hours, we have all been lobbying on the issue on this potentially costing some jobs. the number that has thrown out is 84 jobs. the last thing we want to do is to take that risk. what i would like to suggest because this is not take effect for a year, i don't see much harm and a little further

analysis by referring this back to committee to ask our comptroller's office to take a look at this just to ensure that there will not be that job loss. i know this does not rise to the level of a typical review but i think that if we asked our comptroller to take a look, they might be willing to do that. this is a desire not to rush if there are jobs at risk. that is the motivation. i move that we refer this back to committee. >> we have a motion, is there a second? >> for me to echo the concerns, i would do the same thing.

i through the yellow pages are re -- away. there is a jobs issue but also ensuring that the program is in place for those that are economically disadvantaged and they have the ability to opt in and a very robust way. also for those people like my parents who don't use a computer as much as we do and rely on the yellow pages and make sure that they have an opportunity to opt in. with those concerns, i would be supportive of this motion and i would like to give a little bit more time especially given the amendments here. i would like to see this legislation ultimately move forward. >> thank you, colleagues. i respect the perspective that is being laid out. this item did go through extensive commentary both at the small business commission

and at land use. we heard repeatedly from representatives who felt that this would not affect the job situation. if you look at the testimony, we heard from many members is that because of the over distribution they have to pay additional advertising dollars cash for being able to publish their advertisements and the books that are dumped by all of us into the garbage can and i should also mention that this whole legislation because of the requirements or allowances for them to distribute their books in all sorts of different ways including allowing for the door to door distribution there were a business leaders that talked about the possibility that this could create additional jobs.

i know that you chose not to move forward with any kind of analysis because this would not have a significant impact in the economy and i'm wondering if you can elaborate >> the code requires us to have an impact which we team has material economic impact on the city and we have taken this to mean that this is a net economic impact considered for the economy as a whole and not for a specific group of stakeholders and secondly, material which is meant as a rule of thumb which has an impact which exceeds $10 million a year. our determination is that it did not meet that threshold and consequently we did not do an analysis. if we were asked to i would imagine that we could quantify

that number but that number with the -- would not rise above our threshold. >> there was some comments about the opt out hot position that the industry has made. >> we know this is a work. they believe that at best this would lead to a 5-10% decline in the number of phone books which as been the experience in the number of other jurisdictions and despite national programs that were lost by the industry earlier this year. after 19 million impressions less than 1% have actually taken the opportunity to opt out. literally 1.25% has chosen to go that route. that means a longer we delay this, we will continue to see

1.6 million phone books dumped on san francisco. over the next year we will see another 1.6 million phone books but what i am hoping for is that we don't continue to delay this further and as you probably know the industry has been incredibly aggressive in fighting this at every level of government for there has been a tense to ensure that we do not have the over distribution of yellow pages from books and and i think that any would continue to feed that and is important for us to stand up and say that for everyone who wants a phone book, you should be able to get it.

i would ask that you vote against this motion to reaffirm back to committee. >> i am one of the co-sponsors on this piece of legislation and my initial reaction is that you get a yellow pages if you throw it away or recycle hot issue that sean is raising -- if you throwaway or recycle. the question that sean is raising, is is because there is not significant impact on jobs? >> we make independent determinations about what they're not to file a report on

every piece of legislation as before the board and we base this on how significant the economic impact would be. in this case, it would not have a sufficiently significant impact. >> is that just for the economic impact for businesses? did you take into consideration the jobs or job loss? >> yes, that is part of it. this affects the economy in three ways. on one hand, if there is the economic activity involved in the distribution themselves and when discussions of job loss are being mentioned, i believe that is what is being alluded to. secondly, there is a restriction of the yellow pages as they were strict and of kosh restricting of businesses that advertise which could potentially drive up the cost of advertising, particularly for small

businesses. the third impact is that which is involved in managing the additional waste and recycling associated with the yellow pages themselves. it was all those things which we consider which would not rise to the level of material impact that we use for a threshold. >> what is a threshold? >> this is $10 million a year. we have an economy that is between 80 and hundred billion dollars a year.

>> i went to add my thoughts on the yellow pages legislation. hi i think that this legislation tries to address two separate concerns of the city has about distribution. one is the declining relevance given the pervasiveness of the use of the internet currently although not equally among all demographics. maybe there is a greater dependence to find out about a variety of businesses. the second is the environmental concern of thousands of pages that are dropped in san francisco that are not needed and are dropped into the recycling bin immediately. there is a huge environmental impact on the city and i appreciated a lot of the amendments that were put in which really try to address and mitigate the concerns of the yellow pages. we all know that cycling is important and i think that the

amendments that were made address that and i also appreciate the amendment to also have this go into effect in a year giving the industry some time to reevaluate and replant their business model in terms of how we distribute these. >> i am supportive of the attend to the legislation and what the legislation is trying to do. i think it makes sense for us to make this move prepared -- make this move. my question has been about the process and timing. i have tried to reach out to a number of people in my district to have a better sense of how something like this would impact the small business

community in particular. the response has been mixed. one of the things that i tried to look at is that there is a way in which we can be more measured in terms of the timing of the implementation. i appreciated the amendment that was made by supervisor wiener as well as supervisor cohen and committee. i think those are helpful. i don't have a problem with taking more time to look at this issue. i think that this is something that can only strengthen what we are trying to do and there is a way that we can proceed with the underlying goal and at the same time balance some of the concerns not only around just also around business development

because there are people who to this day still use the yellow pages and there are some businesses including small businesses that still rely on the yellow pages for some of their work. for that reason, i am open to this motion. >> this legislation gives me the opportunity to get more familiar with my yellow pages. i had a copy delivered to my doorstep which was in a plastic bag. i took the plastic bag off and i read it and it was fascinating what i been missing.

there are many museums that we have in the city. i thought it was very useful to have that available. there are many people in my district who would benefit from that information who don't have access to the internet. i look at both ways about the value of the limiting of the yellow pages in san francisco. also, this legislation got me in touch with many of my constituents around the state of california.

i would like to get more information. i would welcome more time to look at this. we are looking for an implementation date that is longer and i would support the intent of legislation as well. thank you. >> thank you. >> i believe that more analysis is beneficial but i'm really curious to know if you denied -- if you did not see it was valuable to analyze the impact before sending it back, would that yield new information? >> as i said before, i don't think our analysis would reveal that has a significant economic