This design seems really odd. Why target business and CEOs in particular? Why not just have a straightforward high progressive tax? It also seems like it will reward the practice of outsourcing lower-paid job functions, or discourage employers from hiring lower-paid workers generally. The whole thing seems designed as a punitive measure, without really thinking about what incentives it creates.
State law prohibits local governments from using progressive income taxes <https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....>. San Francisco therefore uses a combination of gross receipts taxes (whose rates vary depending on business NAICS industry code and are graduated), payroll taxes (now repealed), real estate transfer taxes, sales taxes, and parcel taxes.
In my opinion, the state legislature should amend RTC 17041.5 to allow local income taxes, but only on rent, imputed rent, and capital gains within the city. Rents are the thing that local governments can tax without distorting the market.
As for this performative CEO tax, I think that the only positive effect that it will have, if any, would be to raise awareness of an issue whose solution has to come at the national and state level.
