will be continued for one week. >> item 16 is an ordinance amending the health code to set nutritional standards for restaurant foods sold the company to buy toys or other youth-focused consent of items. >> i would like to thank supervisor composts -- supervisor campos, maxwell, the president chiu. this helps to address the food problems especially in our low income communities. i also wanted to think the coalition of parents, community members, small businesses, pediatricians, health experts

and to the organized campaign to really bring about this effort and also the pioneering one in santa clara county. this is a simple and modernist -- this must not exceed 6 1 calories and not include beverages that have excessive fat or sugar. there are many that understand the importance and the struggles that we go through every day to balance healthy choices that many children and families don't have the same kind of food environment. a recent study by yale university has come out with a number of findings and recommendations that i think really our strong support for

this ordinance. some summary points, this is summarized buying -- summarized by -- international. the restaurant environment does not help to steer people toward healthy selection. that is very effective. 40% of the children serve right from the ages of 2-eleven ask their parents to go to one big fast-food company at least once a week and 15% of preschoolers ask to go every day. 840% of parents report taking their children -- 84% of parents report taking their children at least once a week. the recommendations from the experts that yield the studies

that came out a few months ago, these are very on topic with our ordinance. young people must consume less of the calories that are given in fast-food restaurants. fast-food restaurants must drastically change their current marketing practices so that children and teenagers to not receive continuous encouragement to seek out food which will damage their help. when young people visit, they should encourage the healthful options. other findings are that fast food must top marketing directly to preschoolers. they must promote lower calorie and more nutritious items. the focus on all forms of marketing must be to emphasize the more of the options instead

of highway calorie options that are promoted almost exclusively. a relative number of low-calorie items, popular items should be reformulated to. kid's meal options must be development to meet the nutrition needs of both the preschoolers and the older children that consume them. they must do to push their more nutritious menu items. we will look at the financial toll of obesity and overweight to our city. we were told about $900 million is spent in san francisco per year addressing direct and

indirect costs of child abuse to the and overweight. about $147 billion is spent on health care costs related to obesity costs and disease is related. there is a huge economic cost as well. my last point before moving this forward to a vote this that this is a modest ordinance. this encourages fast food and other restaurants that offer a healthy meals marketed towards children with toys attached to it offered a healthier food options if the toys are included. my last urging of my colleagues is that i know that to this has been several months effort of lobbying and educational meetings but my hope is that as we are asked about this by

colleagues in other cities and counties that we look at this as one small step forward in addition to a lot of other steps we're making to address childhood obesity. hopefully, we can make history today in the san francisco bypassing healthy meal incentive ordinance to further childhood health. think you. -- thank you. >> let's take a role call vote. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye., >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> no. >> aye.

>> this ordinance is finally passed. the item 17. >> item 17 against the code to increase the number of members from 13 to 15 on the can of this task force. -- cannabis task force. >> the sole motivation was the passing of proposition 19. proposition 19 failed. the motivation for expanding as the longer they're. this should be rejected. >> any additional discussion? >> on item 17. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye.

>> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> this ordinance is finally passed. if we could call items 18 and 19. >> item 18 mnc tax code regarding a common the administrator provisions. item 19 as to the definition of control revising the enforcement authority and making other non substantive changes to the business and tax regulations code. >> thank you, mr. president. i would like to think supervisor dufty for his co-sponsor ship. -- thank supervisor dufty.

earlier this year, we had a lively debate contemplating a proposal that we work advancing to put a tax revenue ballot measure for this november ballot. we decided not to pursue that path and instead working with the treasurer and tax collector's office and the parking association in trying to develop key -- to going after uncollected revenue. as it tested for some years, -- as it has stood for some years, we have been guessing add to the estimate of revenue we have been losing in the parking garages and the operators to our fly by

night. currently before this legislation, there has been two levels of bonding which protects our liability interest. the highest was up to $20,000. we are revising that from two tiers to 8 tiers. we are empowered and the treasurer and secretary of state's office to institute a level of relief so that they know that we mean business. of course, the ability to seek restitution. i am not sure if some parking leaders feel that this would yield $20 million as they have testified but i think that this is an improvement especially since there has been strong concern for many years. >> any additional discussion?

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> these organs are passed on the first reading. >> item 20, resolution authorizing the mayor to cast assessment ballots in the formative -- in the affirmative on behalf of the city and county of san francisco as the owner of two parcels and part of a third parcel of real property over which the board of supervisors has jurisdiction. >> on item 20 -- >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> this resolution is adopted. >> item 21 is a resolution adopting findings and the california environmental quality act including the mitigation, monitoring and reporting program and a statement of over reconsideration related to the harry tracy water treatment plant long-term improvements project. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye./ >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> this resolution is adopted. next item. >> item 22, approving the settlement of unmitigated claims by and between skyline stables corp. and the public utilities commission. >> same house, same call. this resolution is adopted. >> item 23, ordinance amending the city code to establish the city's open data policy. >> we seeking indications from one of the data and advocates. this might not actually be

necessary. >> thank you, supervisors. this ordinance would take the executive director of and make it an ordinance. the question is if this is necessary and whether this is in conflict or indicative of the sunshine ordinance. this is not unnecessary in any way and represents a different kind of accountability and transparency. sunshine remains an important tool of accountability and it remains in tact. any citizens could still make a

sunshine request and receive that information within 10 days for all of the existing rules. this is another mechanism. >> through the chair to the mayor's office, will you also edit data that will be put forward in the portal that is left on the altered and and and did it? >> the ordinance requires a posting of specific kinds of data. that is defined by -- there are those that are written in the ordinance. those are broadly defined in layman's terms as able to be read. these are spreadsheets which can be used to calculate or create applications.

this information is usable. this is able to be examined for accountability reasons. this is so that the developer can have private applications. does that answer your question? >> not really. i did not hear this in committee so i apologize if we missed some of the more pertinent points. this is no harm, no foul but i don't see how this does anything. >> any additional conversation? >> a roll-call vote by this item.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> this order and it is passed on the first reading. item 24. >> item 24 is in motion directing the budget and legislative analyst to conduct three audits for fiscal year 2011 and setting the priorities. >> i would like to start buying banking supervisor -- by thanking the supervisor mar for

supporting this. i have a couple questions for the budget analysts. first, the on indigent defense, we just approved a $80 million supplemental. can you discuss the proposal? >> good afternoon. the proposal that we had submitted to the members of the board was to look get to the indigent defense program and look at alternatives recognizing that each year we have a fairly significant supplemental appropriation. this has not been audited by the city since it was established in the early 2000's. mostly this would look at alternatives.

we figured it would be about seven her 50 to 1000. >> thank you. >> i wanted to ask about the affordable housing request. it seems that if it resulted in housing. can you talk briefly about the scope? >> the scope on that project was to look at the interdepartmental process. in a recent project that we did, we discovered that each entity maintains a list and coordinated with -- and it is not coordinated. this would be a project not

unlike some other projects that we would have done which would have each department developed a the way that it is monitored. >> thank you. would you be able to complete these under the current funding before the end of the year? >> in fiscal year 2010-2011, there would be announced within our budget. >> i would like to ask the chair if it would be comfortable with adding these to the schedule i like to see if this is something that the board is comfortable with. if this is something that is supported in the time and in the budget, we should be looking at our affordable housing and the indigent cents. >> ms. campbell, let me just ask, we spent several meetings prioritizing the number of items

and we prioritize kind of the big ones that are based on revenue-generating ideas and efficiency creation. those are the ones that appear on the list. i know that supervisor tissue, maxwell, and i sat through those meetings. -- i know that supervisor chu. we looked at several others. if there was more time available, you would come back to the gao the meeting and the three members would work with a budget analyst to see what kind of ours were available and what kind of scope of the projects we could work on. i would urge my colleagues to try to respect the process. the you have any thoughts on this? >> let me first recognize supervisor elsbernd.

>> thank you. obviously, if the board is not comfortable, then that is fine. i want to add that as a past member of the government audits and oversights, we go through all of the audits scheduled and there is nothing else available. i don't want this to be taken as an insult that the committee has not done their job properly. i think that this is something that we should probably be playing a more pro-active role is -- an active role in.

>> just to address some of the processes that we took, at the committee we did talk with the budget analysts over the level of hours that they might have to complete work. what we did was to take a look at the big list of proposed ideas that the analysts have put together and what can we do within the amount of time that we have had. this is not meant at all to preclude any members from performing additional work. this is really to finish off the rest of this current calendar year. given the information, we really tried to prioritize the projects that might have a revenue impact. we have scaled down the level of ours that we thought would be required for the analysis because we knew that given the bargaining units, some of it would not have been useful to find out but this is something

that we could continue. some of the other issues with the assessor's office was something that we thought would be interesting as we enter into a budget year that will be difficult. this will get us through the rest of this year given a list of alternatives. we did. the schedule because this is not as much as you would think. if we're able to have additional hours in the coming months, we would be sure to entertain that. >> i wonder if we could add one subsection, i guess it is numberinky, the potential audit of the provisions. if we could also ask the budget analyst to look at the long term financial impact. that was a point recommended by

the grand jury. we're very fearful that this will get swept under the rug. this is a very minor piece. can the budget analyst look at the impact of the provisions on the employer contribution? as we amend line 7 at page 3 and add subsection e to say "and the long-term effect of mou provisions." >> i want to clarify that in the process of the goa, the scope

was significantly narrowed to look at some specific forms a premium pay. they would be looking at standby pay, supervisory pay. what came out of the last meeting it was a narrowing of the scope. we could certainly add to that the valuation. >> i am just reading the motion that is in front of us. this is very broad and it says that a financial impact with the benefit or pay increases. did this get narrowed? >> yes, i believe it did. what would have come out of the last meeting would have been looking at number day which is page three, line four. this had been very specific to

premium types of pay which might not be relevant. >> i will respectfully disagree in that case. i think the party for the city should not be looking at special fiscal provisions, we should be looking at the impact of -- on the employer provisions. that is crushing our deficit. we have to move forward, i will not be supportive. >> any additional conversation? glad some of the other things that we were looking at, the reasons that we focus is that we thought that they would be looked at in other areas.

we did not want to duplicate services because we only had some in the hours and that is why we narrowed it down. and i understand that you will not be voting for this but that is the reason why we narrowed it down so much. >> just to follow up on supervisor maxwell's comments. if the comptroller is looking at the potential liability for retiree benefits. be >> each year, we do projections on a couple of friends. one is under an accounting rule and this is required every year to complete the 30-year projection of what our unfunded health-care liability is. this is one of those years that we will be completing that report. we are nearing completion.

secondly, as each of you know and bergius to seeing in our three-year budget projections, we have prepared a three-year look of our expectations for our employer contributions to the pension fund. >> we will be doing it again next spring. >> does any of this include recommendations that we may take? >> both of those are projections. no, neither one includes on their face recommendations for changes. i think it is time for us to consult with different board members on possibilities and we would be prepared to do that in the future. >> i think a lot of good points were made. there are many issues we are looking at. i will support the work of the committee and that