extensive community presentations, bag fairs, which we did in 2007. we invited vendors to make the bags that are allowable under the law, to talk with small businesses about how the mailings to merchants, they will send out a mailers to any of the affected merchants. canvas bag distribution. burned and paid a media as well as leveraging social media. we worked with the chinese newcomer association and his food giveaway.

that is what we have planned to do. we were the first u.s. city to pass a bag of land and that has helped us to be nominated and named as the green a city in north america. this is our opportunity to catch up with some cities that have leapfrogged what we have done to continue our role as lead greenest cities in north america. >> we are not alone.

there have been more forceful laws than this particular law. of course, they have a very diverse population. the city of washington, d.c., the same exact those thoughts that have the exact same thing we're working on. -- they have the exact same thing we're working on. and it made sense to extend the implementation time. otherwise, this becomes a red herring.

>> we were hearing a concern about the 25 cents. a number of small businesses said that once that is taken out, they will feel comfortable with the 10 cent fee. i want to offer up myself with any other questions. >> thank you, president. thank you to it supervisor mirkarimi and --.

it would be really affected here in paying these fees. i'm understand the implicit reasons behind it. i know there has been out reach but a lot of businesses i have talked to had no idea this is coming and are pretty furious. i am open to new businesses coming into the fold but we need to take time and do it right. i am in favor of passing this as amended but i would not be for new businesses. with that, i will support the motion to continue.

>> i did have concerns about the impact on small businesses. the staff has worked really hard to make difficult amendments. there have been here spent cleaning up the bags and the waterways. that is the key issue for me.

i used to think that the different communities, there is a different fear going on and some of our immigrant community is. if you read very carefully the language of the ordinance, supervisor mirkarimi and others have exempted a number of types of uses from loose bolt items to produce like druids, vegetables, nuts, grants, cookies, and small items. -- like fruits, vegetables, nuts, grapes. i think a lot of care and concern has been put into the amendments that have been made already. i still have concerns about the small business sector and will be working with a number of chinese americans.

i appreciate that we will have multilingual materials and a very aggressive and practice out reach strategy. there are reasons to continue it. the supervisor has put his time into this and i hope this passes today as well. >> i just wanted to clarify, i don't oppose the outcome. we can take out 25,000 plastic bags a day.

this is going away to address consumption and paper bags are a part of that. for me, this is not about catering to fear. i think it is problematic when i hear that outreach is happening over the past week. it is actually the press conferences to explain what this ordinance does not do. that is not enough. we need to get feedback to implement this. i don't think that this -- should the outreach happen, how can we best move forward to that goal? everyone has differ uses for plastic bags. i will think about one community that i spent time in. in chinatown, they get reused as blindness. a lot of those will go out and buy plastic garbage bags. there is not necessarily a reduction. i think the discussion needs to

do -- needs to happen. i know that some outreach has happened i just don't think enough has happened. this is always a really big issue, how to do best out reached. what i want are some larger town hall style dialogue for to get feedback on how we can push this forward. >> >> thank you very much, mr. president. i think that a lot of good points have been raised in terms of the importance of out reach and this is something that i have been thinking about and looking at this legislation. it is important for these communities to reach out to these businesses. it is important to understand or my colleagues are coming from

and ask for a continuance. the question is not whether or not we should do this but the best way to do it. i think the legislation already does that which i not be voting for a continuance. i think it is important for us as we move forward with the implementation of this legislation to make sure that we do it right. i do worry about the ability to reach out to some ethnic communities. i don't think that what happens at the small business commission is representative of small businesses throughout san francisco. there is a real disconnect between that mission and what is happening on the ground. i look forward to working with all of you to make sure the outreach takes place. >> i think the current version

of this is really solid and i want to say thanks for the amendments. i too share the concern about our reach. this is not a criticism of anyone. this is hard to penetrate and to get beyond the active businesses to the many others who are not as a engaged in a lot of these issues. just last week, i attended the meeting of the merchants and professionals association and they really did not have any idea this was happening. some of them this knew what they read in the paper. i explained the legislation to them and they were really shocked, a number of them.

i described the amendments that i wanted to make which have now been included in the amendment version and that reduces the opposition and some folks were less opposed to it. it said whatever the efforts have been, for some reason, at least in some communities, it is not getting through. if there are areas of the city where they need more outreach, i think that we should continue it to do that out reach. one thing we need to keep in mind is that this goes into effect october 1st. whether we pass it today or in january or at the end of february, it goes into effect on october 1st. it will not change when we will actually start this.

this will start october 1st parent to we will not have any more bags in the bay become of this. we have done our due diligence before we vote on it. >> thank you. i would like to support this legislation today. i would like to thank the author for his work today. we saw when this measure was originally passed. there was a lot of concern and resistance. we have seen the implementation that those concerns, while valid, especially going into the unknown, they have been able to establish a program that does eliminate a lot of waste. we have to be able to build into

how our city works and our businesses work, the environmental measures that protect us in the future. often, environmental legislation is just that. i would like to thank supervisor mirkarimi for his work on that. this is step two of his effort that he began back in 2007. i know it is a big change, one that got worldwide attention because it seems to be a major change that was happening. i think what we are doing today or potentially later will impact what happens elsewhere. i would like to say thank you too supervisor mirkarimi. >> i want to join in thanking our colleague and the advocate here for allowing us to continue to lead on the environment. this issue about reach has been

one that many of us have been grappling with i understand and will support the motion to continue so that we can continue to do that. i do plan to vote in support of this there. i like to thank supervisor mirkarimi for the efforts he has made. i would like to thank the department of the environment. i know that we will likely have more of these conversations in the coming weeks. i hope that for the next time, assuming this does get continued, that we can finally vote on it and move it forward. >> i wanted to clarify what i said that the outreach to happen fryer.

if we get good feedback on how to roll back this legislation, we will not be able to change this. this is an opportunity to get feedback. maybe this is not the best way to do it. i want to feel confident that what we are putting into our ordinance is the correct way to get to the goal and we seem to agree upon it today. >> i know that a lot has been said about the importance of outreach. these large organizations have had time to adjust.

i think this is a big deal to make sure that you do the out reached. we should understand in terms of implementation, what are the challenges that they would face. very different from the large supermarket that might be able to charge. i support the continuance at this time. >> i appreciate the chorus of support for this law but again as i said, i am concerned about this question about reached becoming a red herring. i have not heard anything but very broad kind of reference at

the knees to be better out reached. what is the protocol? this was the strategy used by the petrochemical industry in 2006 and 2007 when they invoked the same sensitivities that any of us would be sympathetic to and using the question about reached. they weren't wrong and neither were we but we still did due diligence. because of the law that we had tried and lessons learned, we already know what the level of outreach is. what level of out reached as the number of supervisors have to have for this to happen? if in fact with this amendment, but law passes, say, when this returns, when with the law passed. this is what the amendment would stipulate. there is a return in january,

february to march, april, may. without some protocol which explains what average means so that there is a level of continuity that for a law with regard to planning or public health or environment or public safety. there must be the same level of about rich which would be required and compelled in this exact same version. i think continue in this on the notion of greater up each -- out reach poses a question for those opposing it. >> i actually went ahead and called some people that were on the list, that the department had provided to us and they said that they were not out reached too.

they said nothing has occurred between them and the department. this out reaches very very challenging to do. you cannot put a huge list of folks, you have not had a dialogue with. i have not seen a list where groups were invited to come and engage in a conversation in how this could move forward. those are the things i would like to see. my suggestion would be a motion to continue until february seventh. given the additional three months that were given from july to october 40 implementation we would not be impacting that too much. i believe it would be a month and a half. >> supervisor kim has made the motion that we continue this to february seventh. any further discussion to

continue? >> i just want to be clear about my answer. when we are talking about these businesses, and many of which are really concerned about what this will mean in terms of changes that they will have to make in their day to day business. i think that before i vote on that, they deserve to know and make sure that they understand the legislation means and does it mean. they have misconceptions about it or they are concerned, i don't think that does a service to my district. i would love to have a permanent in a garment come to the merchants association in my district and hold up that trader

joe's campos double that. right now, they would use any form of plastic matter what. there is a lot of confusion. there is voting on this after the outreach has occurred. the merchants in my district understand what this legislation does, what it doesn't do. >> no question if it is not reasonable. test in the same way that we engage in a styrofoam ban, these were familiar refrains with a different generation of the board of supervisors. there is the argument that this was the sweeping habitual changes proposed by legislation. the sky did not fallen. there was not this lovell of concern that had been realized

because for the many restaurants who were affected, non english- speaking as well, i think there was this time of adaptation that has been well understood. i think it would be the same for this implementation. i understand, the need for us to do effective outreach, meaning the department that will have to shoulder this. on what we risk and what i hear say -- said without being said is that there can be a trojan horse for dilution. i think that is the aim of diluting the intent of this legislation using a very reasonable prerequisite for outreach.

>> on the motion to continue. >> there are seven ayes, four nos. >> item 20, wardens amending the comp pain code to required at this commission to televise its meeting on the san francisco government television channel. >> roll call vote. on item 20, supervisor kim.

supervisor kim: aye. supervisor wiener: aye. supervisor chui: aye. president chiu: -- >> there are 11 ayes. >> item 21. ordinance approving at second amendment to contract between the city and county of san francisco the department of energy for delivery of low-cost power. >> same house, sam call?

this ordinance is approved. >> 22. ordinance amending various sections of the san francisco business and tax regulations code, administration of code, fire code and the health code, and police code. >> this is exactly the direction want to move to in terms of making city government work for small businesses. >> any discussion on this? i would like to thank supervisor kim and supervisor chu for working on this. can we do this same house, same call. without objection. item 23. >> ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code establishing a payroll expense tax exclusion for compensation paid to individuals who have a felony conviction. >> here is another thought-

provoking piece of law. the question is what to do with a large population. this is label 65% for san francisco and 4 x offenders. there is a crisis. the unemployment rate of 50% or higher among ex offenders.

district 6, 10, 11 become with district 9, 5 following them, are the highest districts that have the largest population of parolees and probationers that also have to really manage this population. i don't think it is any mistakes or accident that this is the same district that has some of the highest public safety challenges in the city and county of san francisco. behalthe fact is that we spend t

$47,500 per year for those 8 cars ridden county jail. those legislation provides $10,000 tax credit. we would like businesses to hire ex offenders on a mandatory basis. we're talking about a $10,000 tax credit. hopefully, that would stymie the likelihood of them repeating the crimes. not factoring in the cost of them having to respond to someone.