>> welcome to the board of supervisors meeting.

>> all members are present. >> can you please join me in the pledge of allegiance? >> we have copies of the october 5th, 2010 minutes. >> without objection, they shall be adopted. >> are there any communications? >> i have no communications. >> can you read the consent agenda. >> items 1313 comprise the consent agenda. all matters listed constitute the consent agenda and are

considered to be retained. >> would anyone like to sever any of the items? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> those ordinances are finally passed and resolutions adopted. i would like to recognize the students from the phoenix academy from palo alto for being with us here today. the next item, please.

>> item 14 is an ordinance amending the environment code to establish and implement the healthy air and clean transportation program, providing for the conversion to clean vehicles and reducing the overall number of passenger vehicles and light duty trucks 20% >> the ordinance is finally passed. >> item 15, amending the code regarding employee relations and updating provisions consistent with state and local law and related clean-up provisions. >> i would like to ask for one more week to continue this item until november 16th. one of the bargaining teams feels they have been excluded from the original process. they are gone very close to coming to a resolution. there has been in a letter drafted to the bargaining team

but not enough time to address concerns. what i am asking for is a one week continuance which would give the bargaining team enough time to come to an agreement. >> the motion by supervisor marc, seconded by supervisor dufty. >> a bargaining team was excluded. the impression that i have is that every bargaining unit was part of the process. this was an intensive process and every unit signed off. someone was excluded? >> good afternoon, supervisors. supervisor elsbernd domino union was excluded from the process. the process began at the labor unions. we have worked for nearly 12 months on the negotiations.

labour would like this to go to this. >> was this agreed to buy at the bargaining unit? >> police, fire, service workers, management.

>> we are not here to solve internal problems. our job is not to placate the internal issue. >> it is time to hear it out.

>> we will be entering into the bargaining. this makes it fairly clear what they are. this is also what the number of bargaining units are. the changes greatly reduces the number of potential that can be challenged and indeed will be in a very unstable situation. this is very outdated and now conflicts with state law. the credibility and responsibility to our labor partners, they are also on board and they deserve to benefit from the change that

will be brought to. if we knew that one week would take, and this is before the other labor issues. >> i am wondering if i could get some information about what the harm would be. what would be the heart of waiting? >> it was a guarantee of one week or two, he would not see

objections from the city's side of the table. there is no guarantee that when you take steps to undergo the internal discussions, it could lead anywhere. i think very likely this would lead to a further round of negotiations. >> thank you. >> supervisor elsbernd. >> if this is one week, that is one week, great. now we need more modern discussions. next tuesday will we be here again or we just put this off another week. if i felt there were assurances, i would not object. having watched the participation, one week will not do it. i think that we should just cut the cord and vote yes. >> talking to a representative

from the service employees, this is the most significant in terms of size. it seems that they did sign off on this and there is a discussion between the membership and staff. they're asking for a week and that is more than fair. >> i know that we hear from 10 to one. >> one week is all but i'm willing to give. my hope is that that this will be resolved as quickly as possible. i am asking for one week as a compromise >> given the commitment to moving this forward, i would be willing to

support the continuance. >> without objection, this item 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