projects, and they would have to change how they do the noticing, and it is not clear that the underlying purposes of 311, 3 under 12 are well served by merging them -- 312 are well served by merging them. this is sometimes more confusing than helpful, so i think whenever we get in terms of merging, expanding our notice on those types of exemptions, it should be consistent with this and not with what people get in the mail which is confusing. supervisor chiu: i agree about the public transparency. whether saddam's or checklists -- whether stamps or checklists, does this legislation deal with the? it does not seem to.

>> it does reflect what the change in our practice has been in response to that case, which the we are posting all exemptions, stamps, anything that we are aware of that is an exception. it is being posted on a weekly basis on the website. that is a practice we have changed in the last several months, and that is in the legislation. supervisor chiu: that is in the legislation, ok. and there was a new requirement about the appellants, if they want to preserve their right to appeal. can you talk about why that restriction is there? from my note -- from my perspective, i think many members of the public do not become aware until a decision is made, and that is when you get a lot more public scrutiny. tell me why that requirement was made more restrictive on who

actually has a right to appeal. >> that was in the regional legislation, more or less consistent with processes with the next line of concerns. that is no longer in the legislation and has not been in the legislation for many months, so that has been stricken from all instances. you do not have to be the appellant in order to preserve in subsequent right. supervisor chiu: there is a lot of confusion in the neighborhood as to exactly what is being proposed here, so i think it is appropriate to spend more time going into this so it is more clear what rights are being given up or restricted. that being said, i am happy to answer these questions in another setting so we can get to public comment. chair maxwell: all right, thank you. why do we not open this up to

public comment? i have two cards. zach, and another. if there is anyone else who would like to speak, please lineup. -- line up. >> my name is zach stewart, and i wanted to mention some conditions where it has taken longer -- it has not been streamlined. for example, there is something that others did. all of these individuals slow down the process of getting a new piece of the environment for the city. i would like to speak to the

idea that the environmental impact reports should be made more difficult and make it slow down the construction and the development process. developers worldwide salivate to have a project in san francisco. it is crazy tune of a project in st. francisco. we do not need to make things more streamlined for them -- note is crazy to have a project in san francisco. the new urbanists, basically los angeles, go too fast to get a good result. chair maxwell: all right, next speakers, please, and also this other. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

my name is sue vaughn. the sierra club opposes weakening ceqa. i do not know if people knew about the 11 changes and the additional ones from the historic preservation committee, but the sierra club opposes weakening ceqa. thank you. >> david. i agree completely with what sue vaughn said. i did not have much time to review this, and i have heard about it before and was concerned about it. basically, ceqa is the way to protect us, the community, and having a way to slow things down, and the planning

department is consistently used in such a way where it does not follow the rules. the public has no right to appeal if they do not find out that the planning department did not do what they were supposed to do. one thing that they have gone over and over again is that they say this project does not need to go by ceqa, and the reality is, no, actually, they should have used ceqa. with one, they claimed it was a church. it did not get the ceqa review. under guidelines like this, maybe the theater would not have been saved, so i am really concerned about this. i would like to see this not

move forward. thank you. chair maxwell: nan and paul. >> oh, my name is na. i did try to go through the 60- page file. it struck me that it had a lot of dodgy language. maybe somebody could have done an executive summary so these are easier to understand. i cannot understand that people are not having the same problem i am having. it is very complicated. it is very difficult to sort out. i will read you a message that i sent to members of the committee in regards to today's hearing. i urge leann used to not do this using mcginley alter the balance between public and private interests -- i urge land-useur -- i urged land use to not do this altering the

balance between public and private interests. somehow, it strikes me that this is being slipped in here in a manner -- it should be dealt with as somewhat of a separate issue. i got hung up on this by a next- door neighbor. however, they had 10 days after the appeal to file an appeal. rather than do that, they went ahead with the demolition, so i do feel this is an area, a specialized area, that needs to be addressed, not just in regards to appeals of this appeals ofceqa process but in regards of appeals in general, and it should include the area during which the demolition

would not occur. [bell] all right, thank you. chair maxwell: does anybody else after paul -- please line up and come forward. >> thank you, supervisors, for the opportunity to get in touch with the front of a coatt -- he the fun topic of ceqa. this is not doing a good job either for the product sponsors or as the community as a whole. i have not had time to begin the most recent revision of this proposal legislation in death, but i am extremely concerned about the timing after documents

are released, the tight restrictions for an appeal. when you consider the voluminous comments, the voluminous documentation that comes out with the final eir, the short time. i believe you will see people rushing to file appeals simply because they have no option but to do so in that time period. it also creates an incentive to hide things and very things that you do not want found if you are a developer, it is you can count on the fact that they may not have time to dig it up. it is complex comedy, and demands. this really needs to get looked at, the timing. -- it is complex, and demanding. budgetary reasons, that dropped. there were specific discussions

about tiny and the importance of timing so that the community and community groups could review documents, and a 20-day notice or a 14-day period is simply not enough time to do a good job. thank you. >> afternoon. i am a land-use attorney. i guess i am the only one so far in favor of this, at least in favor of the time period to appeal ceqa determination after the planning division. this is not pro-developer. this is pro-family. most of the actual exemptions go to families who are bringing in their elderly parents or having additional children, and homes tend to be small. one example, but not the only, and i speak for a lot of my former clients. my client, when she was

pregnant, three months later, she found herself in front of the discretionary review at the planning commission. the planning commission unanimously approved. she spent a great deal of money on building permits, consultant fees. all she wanted to do was add a one-bedroom to create a 400- square-foot third floor. after spending all that money on the developing, someone filed an appeal to the board of appeals, and the day before that hearing -- and this is typical -- a categorical extension appeal was made to the board of supervisors. i have never understood but at least 1/3 of the cases i have seen, it is the day before the board of appeals hearing that one files to the board of supervisors for an appeal. that is after all the architectural work has been done and the other consultant work, and your board has the opportunity to let it go forward or not.

this is very important. believe me, all of my former clients who have been delayed -- in one case, my client had the twins a year before her home was actually ready. these people talk to their friends or families, and they say, "do not build in the city. move out. forget about the extra bedroom." [bell rings] thank you. >> good afternoon. executive director of livable cities. here to purge you not to support this legislation. livable city is an organization, one of many concerned in the city with sustainability, which is really the challenge of our generation, the thing we must do if we are going to create a better world for our children and grandchildren, and see what is the most powerful tool that

exists to really look at sustainability. it should be an amazing and effective tool, by which we can look at the effects of decisions we make and improve them and finally. we think that there is a lot of work that we need to do with ceqa to make it the tool that it should be. sometimes we are appalled to see the amount of time and energy that goes into ceqa and c projects not emerging better. we are appalled to see some of the perverse outcomes. but that is not a reason to curtail the public's right to be able to review and comment and engage thru the ceqa process. there is a lot of reform we need to do to turn it into the environmental protection tool id needs to be. that is not happening in any other transportation process. all the sustainability of planning we do is done for the

sequel process. there is no parallel or alternative process. we do want to engage you in conversations about how ceqa can be what it needs to be, how our standards can be clearer, however project that goes in comes out a better project. there are some things that absolutely we need to do to use it to it's full potential, but the proposal before you today is anti-democratic and destructive, and we urge you not to support it. >> good afternoon. this legislation needs additional work. the version i have seen is better than the zero original version as introduced, but it still has some questions, and eat you amend today, i would urge you to continue this and ask for more discussion. i think it would be helpful if

the planning department were asked to convene a community meeting or workshop to discuss this. paul talk about this upn project from last summer that was a good start upon notification procedures, but they never got to environmental review, and i think this would be a good opportunity to explain what the current deadlines and requirements are and what would be proposed here and to try to work out some of the issues. there are some important, and i think in some ways a good, parts of this legislation, but in its current form, it still needs additional work. we should have timely appeals and determinations of environmental matters and not drag things out, but at the same time, the public needs to know when things are happening. it is difficult right now to know when a project has even applied for environmental review. the legislation talks about putting things on the website but does not talk about how long they will be there and how

accessible. the final thing i wanted to mention was mitigation managers and monitoring and reporting programs. those are often required with respect to projects, but it is not clear to the public at all how those measures are monitored, with those reports are, and whether there is any monitoring by the planning department or other city agencies of those conditions that attached the projects, so i think there is other work to be done here, and i would encourage you to ask the planning department to hold the public work on this. thank you. >> i have been involved in numerous community open space and planning issues. we need to be environmentally healthy as well as economically healthy as a city. i'm concerned this legislation would move us away from that balance. while i do echo some of the comments earlier that the ceqa process -- the whole planning

process, for that matter -- merits some streamlining. i'm concerned what this will streamline is a path to exemptions on a much more frequent basis. please reject it or take it back for further review. thank you. supervisor maxwell: all right, any further public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. we will continue this item for at least a month, and you will have an opportunity at that time for more public comment, and, supervisor chiu, do you have closing comments? supervisor chiu: obviously, there are many members of the community, including members of this board, that are still trying to understand the changes that were made. ms. rodgers just laid out the 11 changes that were made, and i would love to see that in a document that needs to be disseminated to the public. the suggestion of having more

public comment on this makes sense. there was work done before the commission, but now that it is you before the board, the importance of that i think cannot be underestimated, so i look forward to working with supervisor alioto-pier's office and planning. the concerns that were raised i think are well founded, and we have to figure out how not to throw the baby out with the bathwater as we try to figure out a way to improve the legislation without gutting would have been important protections for the community. >> on behalf of supervisor alioto-pier, i want to thank members of the public and commit the our city is available. i think a continued sometime in october to a date certain would be great. we look forward to working with

everybody to approve this between now and then. supervisor maxwell: thank you. why don't we look at the calendar? we have a holiday coming up on october 11. >> october 18 and october 26 will be the third and fourth. supervisor maxwell: why don't we set october 25? we will continue this item until october 25. all right, items 6. >> item 6, ordinance amending the health code to set nutritional standards for restaurant food sold accompanied by toys or other youth-focused incentive items. supervisor mar: thank you. there are two parents who are also community leaders that have to leave soon, and i want to ask that if they are in the overflow room, to come forward.

both are with the bayview hunters point food guardians. if they could come forward, and if there are many children and teachers that i know that are here, i think they should come forward as well because i hope they could be at the top of the agenda, so i'm going to do my best to thank everyone for coming forward to testify today on our healthy meal child of the city ordinance in san francisco, and you can probably see that i am someone that consumes fast food. the taco bell/kfc at 6th and geary probably knows me by name because in there all the time. i do want to say that this ordinance is really about the most important thing that i do as a supervisor. there's nothing more important

than the help of our children, and that motivates me to create with supervisors chiu and campos this ordinance. the epidemic of obesity in this country is making people sick, particularly our children, and it is like staggering rates. toys like shrek, captain america, spongebob are toys i found in my daughter's toy chest, and she let me bring them here, but these are used as incentives to entice children to mills that are way too high in fat and calories. our ordinance is a very modest effort to support our parents in san francisco, teachers, and kids efforts to choose more nutritious options for their children by timed toy giveaways to healthier meals. i just also wanted to say that

my daughter also helped me redecorate a happy meal box. the tag on this is, "happy meals helps kids." my daughter put a couple of things on here that i thought were very creative. one of the mansion's diabetes, which i will talk about in the second. another talks about a healthy food, and this definitely has the parent seal of approval. i, as one parent, give it back -- give it that. i am somebody that's in modest portions buys happy meals for my daughter, but even she is becoming more aware of the obesity epidemic. i want to say also that i want to thank my friend and colleague from the santa clara county board of supervisors and all the parents and health advocates in santa clara county for their

good work just south of us, but our measure will impact many more restaurants and businesses and will have an impact on creating a healthier choices in the industry and san francisco. i would also like to thank our department for their tremendous work. i see our deputy director that has been so supportive in developing legislation went to national standards. i also wanted to say that our measure is very modest. it provides that in order to attach an incentive item like a toy or one of these things, the meals must contain fruits and vegetables, not exceed 600 calendars, and not have measures excessive in fat and sugar. very basic nutritional standards if you want to give a toy or incentive item. there is nothing more important than the health of our children. i also wanted to give a personal point of view because i think i

am most effective when i speak from my heart. i told a number of parents earlier that i am not exaggerating when i say childhood obesity is an epidemic, and it is also a life or death situation. i see rolling of eyes by some of the fast food representatives here, but i will just take it is an epidemic, and to me, it is life or death. i walk my kids to school today. i made her a healthy meal. i bike with her on sundays, and i'm very lucky i made a healthy lunch for her to date to know that she will know more about helping launches in her life, but i know that hundreds of thousands of kids in san francisco, oakland, and richmond do not have that same kind of access, and many children live in what our first lady calls food deserts' -- areas that do not have access to healthy food environments. that is why parents and

community-faced officials are organizing for what i would call an emerging food justice movement for better choices and to hold fast food accountable as well. i see our modest healthy meal child obesity ordinance as just one step as part of a broader effort to create those environments and to educate our young people. food environments today are in equitable, and as some of the speakers will show, african- americans are three times more likely to be obese, and latinos are twice as likely to be obese as the average, and i often give the data to show that i am not exaggerating as well back the obesity epidemic has led to one in four adults today who are obese, and some studies say it is more like one in three, and the prevalence for obesity in children my daughter's age have quadrupled since 1979, since the

advent of the kid's meal with the toy attached to it. it is largely, again, because of the marketing and the lack of access for many kids to lack of options. other studies show very clearly a causal connection between the proximity to a fast-food restaurant and the level of obesity, especially in a low- income community. again, nothing is more important than the health of our children. other studies i have seen that i think are extremely legitimate, and we will hear anducsf and the center for childhood obesity at yale and a number of experts from health advocacy organizations later that it is life or death because 8 to 10 years of your life are chopped off by obesity in this country. it is similar to tobacco-related health, and i will just say that obese and overweight and kids

with diabetes live eight to 10 years less than those that do not have those same problems. the last point i will make before hopefully hearing from our department of public health officials in how we created basic nutritional standards for what we are proposing to come up over half of the u.s. population today is overweight. some studies say it is 68%, so that is 2/3 or more of people in the u.s., and it is expanding with the quadrupling of my kid was the age group of obie's kids, and the life span is eight to 10 years shorter again than the average life span of a non- obese person. again, it is a life or death issue. one thing i have noticed in the last couple weeks -- and i have been meeting with officials in the fast-food industry, but i have noticed full-page

advertisements down, push polling, probably $30,000 or more, to spread a certain message to voters. i have also seen bogus parent- created web sites and youtube videos by toy marketers that i have seen sprout up, not coincidentally, i think, but it is a $5.5 billion industry of toys with fast-food meals and $1.2 billion -- 1.2 billion meals in 2009, so again, it is a $5.5 billion industry we are talking about. that is why hundreds of thousands of dollars of new york lawyers, lobbyists, and the kind of media barrage we are seeing to mislead and spin the issues, but i will repeat that this is an issue of equity and social justice for our community. it is totally in the spirit of the first lady and other efforts of grassroots activism to