president chiu: good afternoon, welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting for tuesday, june 12, 2012. could you please call the roll. we have a quorum.

could you please turn me in the pledge of allegiance? i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. colleagues, we have our may 1, 22 -- 2012 minutes. seconded. those meeting minutes are approved. do we have any communications? >> the mayor and the board president have rescheduled the mayor's appearance before the board to next week, june 19, 2012. >> that is for the even numbered districts for next week. if you could please read our consent agenda. >> items 1 through 12 comprise the consent agenda, acted on by a single roll call vote.

if a member requests discussion it shall be removed and considered separately. supervisor chiu: would any one like to sever any of the items? roll-call vote. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor chiu, aye. supervisor elsbernd come aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor chiu: these organs are finally -- ordinances are family past -- finally passed. roll-call vote. >> supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, alice.

-- aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, no. supervisor farrell, no. [please stand by] >> on item 14, supervisor olague, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, avalon -- aye. supervisor chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. >> item 15.

>> resolution execute to design an amendment for increasing the contract amount from 58-fifth 0.8 million to 51 million. supervisor chiu: can we do this same house, same call? resolution adopted. item 16. >> appropriating the general obligation bond approved by voters not to exceed two and 65 million. supervisor chiu: can we do this same house, same call? without objection, the ordinance is passed on the first reading and adopted. items 18 and 19. >> appropriating approximately $40 million of earthquake safety

and emergency response general obligation bonds to the public utilities commission. 19, directing the sale of not to exceed $40 million aggregate principal amount of city and county general obligation bonds. supervisor chiu: can we take this same house, same call? without objection, the ordinance is passed on the first raid. why don't we consider 27 through 29? if we could call item 22. >> an ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code to permit a payroll expense tax exclusion for small business net new payroll for years 2012 through 2015. supervisor farrell: this is a tax incentive for small business community in san francisco to create new jobs and add

additional payroll to the current roster. it allows small businesses with payroll under $500,000 to expand their payroll by 200 tricky thousand dollars absent the current -- $250,000 absent the current payroll tax. i want to thank the number of my co-sponsors, supervisor chu, supervisor elsbernd, supervisor mar, and supervisor wiener was instrumental in getting this drafted and not -- drafting the legislation and working with a different commercial and business merchant orchestrate -- organizations in district 9 that helped participate in this and i want to thank my staff who had a big role in this. our small business community is the heart and soul of our city. i will agree. we need to do all we can to incentivize job growth within our small business community. we have done a lot here and --

to other pieces of legislation to stimulate job growth and this goes along those lines and is focused on our small business community. it is anticipated it will create hundreds of jobs in san francisco and promote small- business expansion drive our city. i realize this is coming now at a time when we are debating shifting our payroll tax to a gross receipts tax but as i told people in committee and otherwise, we cannot legislate here on a what if basis. this is something important to get down now. if a shift to a grocery receipts happens in one form or another, so be it. we will continue to put job creation as one of our number one priorities. i ask for your support. supervisor avaloscampos: when t

idea was first floated to us, my response was to reach out to our small business community within district 9 to have an understanding of how they would feel about something like this. and i want to thank supervisor farrell for the fact he was willing to sit down with them so what ever came out of this legislation is something that came from the bottom up, if you will. what we have here is a piece of legislation that reflects the thoughts of many small-business owners in the mission. in particular who really believe that whenever you think of tax breaks, if you are going to do something like this for a company like twitter, then you have to do something to incentivize job creation by the micro-businesses in our neighborhoods. i want to acknowledge the work of the progress of workers alliance who -- progressive

workers alliance who availed themselves of this benefit that we only -- took into account compliance with labor laws. i want to thank supervisor farrell for being open to language that makes it clear that before a business can benefit from this tax break, there has to be compliance with all of our labor laws. i think it is a recognition that while the progress of workers alliance has been at times tried to strengthen requirements of small businesses, there is a recognition at some point small businesses also need help. because of that, i am proud to be a supporter of this. as i indicated before, i have questions about tax breaks but i think as a matter of fairness, if we're doing something for the larger corporations, we have to do something for the small businesses that are ultimately

creating the jobs in our neighborhoods. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you. i want to thank supervisor farrell for bringing this item forward. in terms of how out -- looking at how to support small businesses, i will not support this measure. i believe we will offer some relief to small businesses. we should not be putting a hole in the city budget by doing so. if we are looking at creating exemptions, i would rather see a way that we're asking the largest businesses to pick up the slack. i have been told by the comptroller that this measure would put a hole in our forthcoming budget of $2 million. that is something that we all could be grappling with the next few weeks, balancing the budget and making sure we can keep the services we care about whole and as we are supporting tax cuts, that will put a hole in the budget, what will we lose out in terms of the service we care

about whether it is public safety, a straight infrastructure, pedestrian safety, safety net services, all these will take a hit when we vote in favor of this tax exemption. i would like to do the chair and ask a president -- a question of the comptroller of the impact this would have on the city budget and we have the deputy controller here. if you could report on whether this is budgeted. this ordinance and the impact that is anticipated in the city budget and if not, what will the impact be? >> through the president to supervisor avalos. the reduction is to million dollars. that has not been assumed in the budget that is currently before the finance committee. beyond that there is an approximate cost of $150,000 for the treasury tax to implement

this measure. supervisor avalos: i do agree that it would be great if we could favor our business tax structure to support small businesses and today, i will be introducing with co-sponsors a measure that will do just that. and the mayor's office is introducing a measure that will do that as well. it is a bit premature to see how we will be supportive with this measure. i understand where it comes from and small businesses are a big part of our local economy. i would not be supporting in favor of it. supervisor chiu: supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: thank you, president chiu. the legislation has not been

passed yet. this is something where it depends upon with the budget in general what our priorities are. to make my job creation is one of them and a strong one. we have been on a plumbing rate that has -- unemployment rate that has been dropping. in large part due to legislation we have passed. i believe job creation is and should be one of our number one goals. this is a pride -- prioritization of where we spend our funds. it is not just $2 million down the drain. it is creating hundreds of jobs annually. that is a priority as well as supporting our small business community is this -- is a priority. that is what i am supporting and i ask for my colleagues support. supervisor campos: i want to add something to what supervisor farrell said. and i think the reason that -- why organizations like meza and the 24th street urchins provided some changes and ideas is that

it is not just about unemployment. unemployment is part of the issue. it is also about dealing with under-employment. we have a situation where we have a number of people who are working at some of these small businesses but may not be given enough hours to make a living wage in san francisco. i think it is about addressing the situation as well and that is why i think it was important to structure it in such a way that it is not just about new jobs but the addition of payroll to include additional hours that could be provided to these workers. supervisor avalos: thank you. lastly, i want to reiterate many things. the comments i heard last year as i was talking to small businesses. all the small businesses did not talk about taking away the business tax. or moving the payroll tax. so much as they talked about the little fees, that nickel and

dime to them over and over again. that is the best rate relief we could offer small businesses as a city. how we could remove or lower the amount of the nickel and diming fees that impact their everyday existence. i will not be supporting this measure although i understand the value, the reasoning behind it. thank you. supervisor chiu: unless there is discussion, why do we take a roll-call vote. >> supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, no. supervisor campos, no. supervisor chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye.

supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mark, aye. >> refinancing various capital facilities. >> on item 23. supervisor olague, aye. surprise a campus, aye. president chiu:, aye. supervisor chui, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. there are 11 ayes. supervisor chiu: item 24. >> naming the waller street stairway as adah's stairway.

>> this would be renaming the waller street stairway. it makes a lot of sense to do this. i request your support. supervisor chiu: can we do this same house, same call? without objection this ordinances passed on the first raid. item 25. >> amending the building code to reduce the square footage requirement for efficiency dwelling units. supervisor wiener: this legislation would conform our definition of efficiency unit to the state definition and allow efficiency units of varying sizes similar to what san jose has done as well as seattle and new york. this is a great example of affordability by design. it would help with the creation of student housing and senior

housing, other housing as well. it provides flexibility. it is a building code amendment that does not in any way change density controls or planning controls, hyde, bove, etc. -- height and bulk, etc. i have indicated my intent to amend this to limit it to new construction because there has been some concern raised about conversion of existing apartment units and that is something that will be a longer conversation in terms of how to address that. i would like to and i do move to continue this one week because we do have language we want to distribute and make sure that people are able to see and it will come again to the board next week. my motion is to continue the item by one week. supervisor chiu: is there a second? supervisor campos. further discussion?

supervisor olague: adhahn i know of one week is enough time but there was some thought of splitting up certain aspects of the legislation so that we could have a better grasp on some of the conversion, questions around converting some current units or existing units and so i would definitely support, we could get some additional information writing that. go ahead and i can finish my comments. supervisor wiener: to be clear, there was a concern raised that if you have an existing two room apartment and you convert it into two efficiency units, new safed -- certificates of occupancy will be granted. this will be removed from rent- controlled. what i am intending to do next week is to divide the file to

limit what we vote on next week to new construction only. so no impact on existing construction and send the rest of it back to the building inspection commission. the rationale there is in connection with the student housing legislation, we are grappling with a similar issue about how to make sure if you have converted existing units, we do not by virtue of issuing a certificate say of -- a certificate of occupancy, that is not removed. we can piggyback on that at the appropriate time. we would only be considering new construction with the current legislation. that is what i am planning to do and as soon as we and we should have it hopefully by today or tomorrow. new language on that amendment limiting it to new construction

and we will circulate that so everyone can see it. supervisor olague: as far as the new construction is concerned, i would like a little bit more analysis from the planning department staff and possibly even the planning commission. because in the past, we have looked at some of these types of projects with efficiency units, smaller projects, and i just think we're going from 220 square feet of living space to 150 square feet so that is the reduction of 30% from the present standards as supervisor wiener mentioned. there are two other cities in california where this is currently -- just one that i heard, san jose. seattle and new york are the two others. i can see how this could work if it were limited to student housing perhaps.

i am wondering, given the fact that san francisco is a smaller city, that we have a great need for family housing, which this type of housing does not really address, and also i am curious to know where some of these housing units would be placed, and i wanted all little bit more conversation and would like to get more input from the planning commission if it is possible. so i just as -- as the conversation in general about housing. how does or does not relate to the type of housing the city is clamoring for. and given the limited amount of space that we have here in san francisco, probably available, buildable space on some levels, i would like more information and would like to send this back to planning commission if it is

at all possible. i would like to make a motion to do that. supervisor chiu: the supervisor olague is making a motion to send it back to planning. supervisor avalos will take these motions in the order is made. the motion to continue would be taken first. is there for the discussion? supervisor wiener: i am in opposition to supervisor olague's tree the planning department made a determination when it was first introduced. it did go to the building inspection commission where it was endorsed by the commission. as i noted, this is not changing density controls, bulk, rear yard or front yard setback.

it is simply the building code. when a project goes through the process, there are multiple hurdles you have to get through. one of them is the building code and the other is density controls. the cu process and the other processes we have in san francisco -- there is no reason for this to go to the planning department or to the planning commission as it is a building code change. i also want to respond to the one comment by supervisor olague that we need more family housing. absolutely. we need a lot of different kinds of housing. we certainly need more family housing. if you look at it -- the demographics, there are also a lot, we have a disproportionately high number of single people living in the city and they might be transitional age youth, they might be seniors, they might be students. the mib lgbt people living in

the castro were we have a lot of people living alone and people who do not need a lot of space or cannot afford a lot of space and the bigger you build a unit, the more expensive it is. this does not in any way to require a developer to build smaller units. it is going to be the exceptional project where it would make sense to do that. all it does is give more flexibility in our very limited land mass in san francisco to build different kinds of housing to meet the uncountable housing needs we have in the city. i appreciate the comments and agree we need more family housing but we need other count -- other kinds of housing as well. supervisor campos: just a question through the chair. i seconded supervisor wiener's motion to continue hoping that would provide a mechanism for everyone to maybe have more of a discussion on this.

the hearing -- hearing what supervisor odious thing. i wonder if there is not a benefit to sending it to planning or having more discussion. what would be the problem with that to have everyone have an opportunity to have more discussion and i know you are willing to make changes to address some of the concerns that have been raised. that is a question to the chair. supervisor wiener: it went to the dbi's committee which endorsed it and the building inspection committee endorsed it. the first land use committee hearing, we have seen with this legislation is there is a series of changing objections to it.

every time there was first an objection raised about inclusion rehousing which it turns out if anything it benefits inclusion in housing. there are other objections that do not stand up. it has gone through significant process and all along, some folks who have had concerns have said why don't you just let new construction -- limit it to new construction and that is what i'm proposing to do right now. it certainly does not need to go back to the planning commission or go to the planning commission. it has been there and it does not need to be there because it is a building code change. this has gone through significant process. it has gone through some folks who do not support it. i do not think it needs to go back to committee or a commission. supervisor olague: i wanted to mention that i believe it was

heard at land use and housing committee on may 21, according to the note i have here. i was not aware that it had gone through that committee and i have been receiving some emails from constituents who would like the opportunity to have another discussion about this. it is appropriate in many ways to have the planning commission way and but i would be happy with it go to the land use and housing committee one more time for review. i think some of the issues have to do with quality of life issues. when you are reducing the amount of level space by 70 feet, i think it is -- a race as a lot of questions in my mind.

-- raises a lot of questions in my mind. accessibility, i would like to understand how the mayor's office on disability response to the reduction of units of this size and whether or not it does or does create -- does not create accessibility issues. i was curious about how these types of housing units have worked or not in other cities. like san jose, seattle, and new york. i would like to reduce debt who lives in those units, what is the cost of those units, and what is the underlying zoning where these units are being placed. i have a lot of questions and it does cross my mind, should we limit this type of housing to as i mentioned earlier to just student housing? i wanted to kind of have the opportunity to ask certain