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.

there is great resistance and no one would like to be seen to favor or would be seen favoring a constituency ahead of other more deserving populations. the criticisms calls out why not do legislation for veterans? i agree, we should. why not do legislation for those with special needs that are disabled? i agree, we should. if anybody is provided concrete alternatives to that, that remains to be seen. for an ax offender population where law is built on two years as a pilot and is voluntary, this law has not been tried in the state of california. it has been tried in

philadelphia, md., illinois and iowa have adopted similar law. it is time we deal with what i think is going to be a growing problem with regard to realignment and our ability to manage a population once they have done their time. and based on the arithmetic, all the money we're front loading to police budget so the police -- the day prosecutors over three or repeat offenders within three years. and it is counterintuitive we're not doing more to try to stem that tide of the likelihood of recidivism. not doing this means that it is status quo. that does not change the changing reality that we have a growing population. 650 will be added to the

probation and sheriff's department responsibility this year. another 650 to 700 year after that. if these people will not work and we expect the nonprofit networks like good will -- goodwill or walden house to shoulder the burden and not incentivize the private sector to step up, how is it we're not doing our part so that we alleviate what i think will become a growing problem to police and the back end for us having to manage a population that is inclined to recidivism. that is what is before us. i am more than happy to hear any feedback this legislation. if people would want to amend this to include veterans, go at it. what 41 to start with?

vietnam, grenada? which word you want to go with? how would that accommodate the population without hitting our general fund in a significant way. if there is institutional support, i would like to see that. if you want to add to other populations i would like to see that, too. right now, we micro-folk is this legislation so that it would do with the populations we can count. we're nexus does not exist and one should. i think the question of public safety and criminal justice is changing in california and we have to deal with not just a front end response. since recidivism is outpacing . i look forward to responding to any concerns.

thank you. president chiu: supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: this legislation comes replace and wanting to support a population that is hard to serve that is -- has great employment needs, that has a great deal at stake for them to find work. i have worked with this population before. i worked with them at the conservation corps. they have come out of the justice system and i know how hard is to hire them. i have looked at tax exemptions for businesses to hire people in the past. we had an example of that under the clinton era enterprise zone that had tax exemption on new hires and there were not effective. there were not saw after by

businesses because sometimes the paperwork is cumbersome to do. i feel that -- i have a real aversion to tax exemption. there are always going to be worthy populations and businesses and were the economic systems to provide exemption to. -- worthy economic systems to provide exemption to. right now this is a small example but they add up after a while. i am concerned that these measures to stimulate our economy or to hire populations do not end up serving as the way they need to. they opened the door for more of that to happen. i understand how worthy this is and the new sheriff will have great challenges that he faces in order to make sure that people in his system of care will be able to get out of that

system into a real system that is about opportunity. i cannot necessarily support this now. i feel it is important to state the reasons i will be voting against this ordinance. president chiu: supervisor cohen. supervisor cohen: thank you. this is definitely a thought- provoking legislation you have put forward and i want to thank you for it. it is the kind of conversation we need to begin to have if we're going to be serious about public safety and about addressing recidivism. you're right. this is a new climate we're living in with the state's realignment of the public safety network as well as the system. i like the spirit and the direction you are going in with this piece of legislation. i do have a question for you, sir, if you do not mind. i am curious to know what has the success rate been on the laws that have -- other cities

that have passed this as a law? >> philadelphia has had 20 businesses that have opted for this. in 2011. i would say the success has been minimal or a modicum. that is the fact. there is not enough data there that i think we could be able to determine the success or not success. it is 20 less people in philadelphia who are now repeating their crimes. what they save potentially on the deal costs, so they are not incarcerated as people, not having to dispatch police or prosecution or courts to have to process those people. the savings are considerably more. the arithmetic speaks for itself, which is why there is a complete savings in this notion. if we are giving a $10,000 a year tax credit but the potential is we're making room in the jails for someone less

likely to return, that is where we should be zeroing in on it on how to incentivize businesses who are not forced, not compelled, nor can we impose them to hire this population. this is the least likely population in some ways that would get hired and that is the experience of other cities and states. supervisor cohen: i have another question for you. forgive me, i do not know of my other colleagues have questions on this legislation -- when it came on the scene. also, can you talk to me a little bit about -- that is ok. thank you very much. that is it for a president chiu:. me. president chiu: supervisor elsbernd. supervisor