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

impact but we would be able to share analysis that we have not been able to share today. >> ok, thank you. supervisor chiu: back ashley, called love for someone to take the chair for a second -- actually, with love for someone to take the chair for a second. first of all, i appreciate all the comments that have been made. in part, this is an issue i have spent many months thinking about. we had our first meeting with the yellow pages industry last august when we asked them to propose a way to reduce the number of yellow pages in san francisco. unfortunately, that has not led to a proposal we can agree on with the industry, but that being said, and i know this is an issue that takes a little bit of time to get your head around. for those of you who have not

had a chance to visit the plant where phone books are actually recycled, if you go to the recology plant, you will see that the reason it costs so much to recycle these books is because the yellow pages are the only product that does not easily fit into the recycling process flow. if you recycle single loosely pages, cans, or aluminum, there is a conveyor belt that either travels paper up to the top or troubles heavier objects down to the bottom. yellow pages literally get stock. this is one of the reasons why it is difficult to recycle these. that being said, obviously, there seems to be some interest on this topic. i would also suggest that you take a look at the small business commission hearing on the topic where we had dozens of individuals come out, merchants and small businesses from around the city, to talk about the economic impact of this. there is a reason why the small business commission unanimously supported it. that said, i also feel a little

badly for our chief economist for the city because i know how many things you have on your plate with the budget with all the different tax proposals that we are about to ask you to do work on and other different things, but let me ask you -- how long would it take for you to do an analysis of this topic? >> i would imagine in hours of work, it would probably take one to two weeks. we do have a fairly full plate, so i would not want to promise a time line for that, but i do not think it is a particularly difficult for owners assignment. >> what i would like to suggest is that we continue this item to a date certain that someone in the future to give you enough time to do this analysis so you can provided to us and we can read it and have discussion. supervisor campos: motion by president chiu. second by a supervisor cohen. supervisor elsbernd: i withdraw my motion.

supervisor chiu: let me ask what you think is appropriate. a month? >> i would prefer two months. [laughter] if that is getting laughs, i could bring that down. supervisor chiu: why don't we do six weeks, and if it is not ready at that point, we could bring it back. what date would that be? >> they 10. supervisor chiu: a lot of it -- >> may ten. supervisor chiu: a lot of interesting commentary we heard was how this would create jobs, a particularly around online advertising. many of these companies which exist in san francisco and again represent our 21st century economy. i look forward to seeing that analysis here with that, i leave the motion in the hands of the board. supervisor campos: motion to

continue to may 10, seconded by supervisor cohen. do we need a roll call on that? we can do that without objection? without objection. supervisor chiu: with that, why don't we proceed -- skip over our special orders and proceed to roll call for introductions. >> supervisor avalos, you are first on a roll call for introductions. supervisor avalos: just a letter of inquiry to submit. today, supervisor wiener and myself had hearings on the mta switchback issues and general issues of the j church line, switchback issues on the 14 line. one of the statistics that came out of yesterday's hearing relative to the g-8 church was that if its offer and return

back at 30th and church, and a statistic they gave was 348 times between january and march. sending a letter of inquiry to the mta to just break that down, exactly when those switchbacks are occurring. during peak time, or non-peak time, and have that data provided to us. it was not quite as broken down as i would have liked it yesterday. that is all. thank you. supervisor chiu: colleagues, today, and i am introducing a drafting requests related to our payroll tax and stock options. as we all know, there was a recent control report that identified our city's practice of taxing stock options as a factor for why certain businesses consider locating outside of san francisco. as someone who helped to found a technology company in my previous life, and i think we

have all heard from previous tech leaders about how our treatment of stock options could lead companies to leave san francisco. penalizing the possibility of success, as we know, is not smart economic policy. on the other hand, stock options are given by many companies, mature companies as well as startups, as typical compensation. at a time of challenge revenues, we need to be careful in how we reduce taxes, simply because a company simply chooses to compensate employees with options. i have convened meetings with our treasurer's office, the office of economic and work force of element, the comptroller's office, in the city attorney, and i am requesting these agencies to help crack a legislative solution to this problem that is narrowly tailored to limit the possibility that companies may lead -- leave san francisco to encourage growth companies to become successful while preserving tax revenues during these tough times. i know supervisor mirkarimi will also be introducing a

legislative proposal in this idea, which a number of us have discussed, and i'm glad there are several of us here committing to working hard on this issue. i know there are many companies trying to figure out how to figure -- how to plan for their future, and i think we have to help them with long-term predictability. this discussion about stock options as well as mid-market raises the reality that our business payroll tax, the only one of its kind in california, is a real disincentive to job growth. i think many of us believe that we need to tackle the broader topic of business tax reform, and to this end, also last week, the mayor and i discuss these topics and have decided to convene an ad hoc council of technology ceo's, venture investors, and lawyers to advise us on our current tax structure as well as other issues relevant to building a 21st century economy here in san francisco. i understand that supervisor

farrell has also been convening tech leaders. i thank him for his efforts, and i know the mayor's office will be working with all of us and joining with our efforts to make sure we address the situation. i also have an in memoriam for joseph alioto, because of our former colleague, as well as cousin to our former mayor of. he was actually the third generation of his family to run the alioto's restaurant in my district, which started in 1925. he is someone who was well respected among not just the restaurant community, not just the fisherman's wharf community and business community, but the entire san francisco community. on behalf of the board, i would like to wish my deepest condolences to his very large family that he is leaving here

in san francisco. the rest of my items i will submit. >> thank you, mr. president. supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. there has been much attention placed over the last few days on the issue of us advancing legislation in providing for growing technology companies. the exemption of their stock compensation, as they are routinely required to pay to san francisco. this idea, which i think has been floating for quite some time, and how we might be able to retain, grow, nurture business is in san francisco is -- has now reached an appropriate juncture as a result of the deliberations on the twitter proposal. i think the twitter proposal, as many of us may opaline, publicly or privately, has taught us that

there is something very uneven and i have to say clumsy about the approach -- as many of us may opine. that is trying to do everything we can to marshal the resources to help companies day in san francisco while it threatens to leave, while at the same time, we want to see the double benefit of relocating the company took an area that is distressed. there are a number technology companies in a number of districts also claiming a similar point as twitter has, and i think many of us knew that this inevitability was just a matter of time. with the discussion that i think has been very critical for the question of overall city-wide reform that both president chiu just referenced and supervisor farrell and avalos and others have at one point or other manchin has come to its natural

headwear it gives us an opportunity to laser in in the most effective way possible those limiting strategies. in my opinion, one of those strategies perhaps is why that we are submitting today, and i would like to thank supervisors campos and mar for the co- sponsor ship, that provide two years moratorium for technology companies that may soon go public. companies with more than 100 employees, companies founded after 2001 that are not currently traded on the stock exchange. we believe that this is a unique time in history where there are a number of growing tech companies that may soon go public, making the time here extremely important of our and any deliberations on this and other laws, requiring that every company pay at least $1,500 per employee, even with the exemption only applies to companies affected by the payroll tax. those that have payrolls above

$250,000. the city's taxes are some of the highest in the state and nation. i believe there is a more progressive approach that helps answer the question that all of us want to see realized, and that is -- how do we retain companies in san francisco, at least in this genre of industry, the technology companies? how do we incentivize that those companies relocated and be hosted in neighborhoods that we also want to see benefit, i think, from their presence so that a wave of fact is extended to other neighborhoods that would like to certainly enjoy that particular dividend, whether direct or indirect? and for us not to be triaging by happenstance every time a tech company says they are ready to