part of it? >> i believe that is the purpose of the fee, for them to do the monitoring. >> we had a time where it was defined as whatever people want it to be, so the reason we have 18,000, which is the same number we had when we passed this law in they 1978, because we have the action, so without any disrespect to any city department, as a backup, it is important to have that. i think if you take the language from the residential conversion and demolition of ordinance, that languages narrowed to be defined.

thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> we will wait and then ask the city attorney to advise us. >> my name is francisco. when i worked of the presidio common-law -- the presidio, in early 2002, we gave a lot of housing to university students. the gentleman before may has spoken about how the university has deprived the city of a lot of housing, and the planning inspection has been slow, but in some of our discussions with planning, we have been able to

ratify that. i have them to rally together. i am aware of those issues. i work with a few partners who do business not only in this nation, but abroad, and again and again, what has not been matching is that the banks are loaning money to institutions of learning, and this has not been mentioned. i heard the planning department say that something about the institutions planning housing for having a plan for student housing so the city could work with them closely and in a better way, but as far as money

is concerned, without money you cannot do much. the financial institutions today are embracing universities and institutions of learning to give them money. the other thing i want to point out is there are areas in our city where there hundreds of units that were there on the market, and some of them are brand new. people will not buy them. people will not rent them. if this legislation passes, in the interim, we could look at some of those buildings, and the students come in, and they will

give an input to the community. are you rooting to be our next mayor? >> no time soon. walter paulson. >> ♪ you never have to ask me why ♪ ♪ we will never say goodbye affordable housing ♪ ♪ affordable housing, affordable housing holds the city ♪ affordable housing ♪ ♪ affordable housing does it

could for you and me -- good for you and me ♪ ♪ affordable housing holds the city kee for you and me, and it should ♪ ♪ affordable housing does it did for you -- good for you and me ♪ >> anybody else? any further comments? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i wonder if one of our deputy chair scattered talk about the suggestion about private right of action. i have a sense this might require a referral. >> if we were to put a private right of action, it seems

something we could do, but it would require referral back to planning. >> i just wonder if it would be possible to send a committee letter and to ask if they can opine on creating this mechanism. i am just concerned that i would like to see this reached the board. >> it could be trailing legislation. we could look into that later. >> i will commit to sending a letter to major the inquiry is fully considered.

>> we do not know who is going to be here later, so to have a backup is important. >> we could send a letter of inquiry, and maybe both should be done. i think it would highlight the importance of taking a look at this. supervisor maxwell: colleagues, as amended, including the reporting amendment. without objection, the legislation is amended, and we will send a letter to our committee requesting that they look into having a private right

of action, and that means somebody else is overseeing our housing and making sure we are following the rules and regulations. thank you, supervisor dufty, and who thank everybody who is working on this. item seven will be continued on december 6, but if there is anybody here who would like to speak on it, you may. >> item #7 the committee benefits program. >> public comment on this item? >> i would like to say my understanding is that this is not to come before the public utilities commission until january. i served of the task force for the expansion, and we work with

the people. i wish that you would delay this until after the puc, but the figures i have requested for the southeast community benefit funds. thank you. >> any further comments? seeing none -- sorry. >> supervisors, regarding this, we had a task force, and there is a document with suggestions. she is just giving you some sense she is one of those from the task force monitoring community benefits. i have said it before and will say it again that at one point when the bond measure was passed, it was part of the clean

water and the waste water, but they chose to go ahead with a clean water, and it is still ongoing. we are going to go, and it is going to come before the board of supervisors, some $600 million bond measure, so the short and the tall of this is that in the bayview, you need to visit the communities. people need help, and people are desperate. the other thing some of you may understand is that we have an influx of latinos that have change the demographics, and they need help, sue. -- too. that is the way you look at the

picture. they are mandated to satisfy 5% of the total budget for work- force, community benefits, and so forth, so you are astute enough to know, and you will be there, because soon the new supervisors will come in, and they may not know this, so it is good to remind them that whatever we do, even though it caters to the whole city, the impacted area is going to be the southeast sector. that is where it will be reallocated. that is where tunnelling is going on right now. tunnelling is going on, but

with tunneling, it is specialized, so not too many people can be employed, but for the other thing, lots of jobs can be given, and for once, the impacted communities should be helped common -- be helped, but you cannot help them by waiting until the last moment. you need a plan to do it right now. thank you very much. >> any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. that is exactly why we want to have a hearing. we want to have a hearing to find out exactly where they are going with this and how much money does go to public benefits. right now there is no real clear idea, so that is why we have these hearings. i look forward to seeing

everybody here december 6. madam clerk, is there any further business? >> there are no further items. >> this meeting is adjourned.

>> i work with the department of environment and we are recycling oil. thank you. we can go into a refinery and we can use it again. they do oil changes and sell it anyway, so now they know when a ticket to a. hal>> to you have something you

want to get rid of? >> why throw it away when you can reuse it? >> it can be filtered out and used for other products. >> [speaking spanish] >> it is going to be a good thing for us to take used motor oil from customers. we have a 75-gallon tank that we used and we have someone take it from here to recycle. >> so far, we have 35 people. we have collected 78 gallons, if not more. these are other locations that you can go. it is absolutely free. you just need to have the

location open. you are set to go. >> thank you all for coming out. thank you, jeremy, and thank you to the staff for being kind of us to let us walk around and see the work you are doing here as it relates to promoting healthy eating and promoting at a very early age and awareness of the importance in terms of making good decisions about what we eat and how we feel, and making sure we make a lifelong connection to a healthy but the. the issue of obesity is important. everyone understands the

extraordinary cost, human cost in terms of lives lost because of the consequences of obesity, but also the economic costs to the taxpayers, those that have no direct connection, that are paying the price of our inability to reconcile the issue of obesity. that is why 2006, we initiated a program called shape up sf. it has been recognized all over the country as a model program for any city, large or small. the robert woods johnson foundation recognized the work that was done through our team as the country's best practice. i am proud of it because it is a comprehensive strategy that incorporates physical activity and walking challenges. it incorporates strategy is to provide options and alternatives.

the options you saw in the cafeteria were an example of that. we have put salad bars in 50 of our elementary and middle schools. we are open to provide more wars to -- more resources in the upcoming year to provide more resources to public schools. i don't know many schools that are funding salad bars. some people wanted that. they said these kids would never get excited. you saw for yourself that kids are actually eating broccoli. george bush sr., eat your heart out. kids are truly enthusiastic about eating broccoli. they are an enthusiastic about eating something a little different than your typical burrito or pizza. we have initiated a real effort, a deliberate effort, to become

sugar savvy, to think a little differently about what we drink. we have a program called "drinkwater." we have a soda-free summer program. we have done a lot of things that have marked the trend across the country, dealing with the issues of trans fats, raising the awareness are around the issues of salt and sodium. all these things are important. i am proud of it. it is comprehensive. it has been inclusive. we have public-private partners. the school district has been a big part of it. we have closed streets in order to encourage physical activity. we are taking over corners of our city and turning them into small parks.

the sunday streets program promotes hula hooping, yes, as well as roller skating, ideas encouraging physical activity. none of that was important to you as much as it is important to me because it sets up the reason you are here. that is because there are times when a city can go too far. there is a time when we get involved in making determinations in the private sector about what choices people should have. it is one thing to educate. it is one thing to promote. it is one thing to create options. everything i said was about educating, promoting, and creating options, and dealing with the issues of race, providing a geographic framework for education. we have addressed the issue of

environmental justice and poverty as it relates to these issues. it is different when we decide as politicians what we believe the private sector should do, as it relates to the item that the board of supervisors passed, that ti today officially vetoed. i think it goes too far. i think the idea of banning toys in restaurants gets into the private sector decision making and tries to insert our own values and try to replace them with the values that should be inserted and promoted by parents and caretakers that can make better decisions. point being, politicians are not going to make the best decisions for these children. it is going to be parents. the government should be in the business of educating,

promoting, and creating a framework of alternatives, not dictating and prescribing exactly how you can provide a meal and what you cannot provide if you provide that meal. i was walking down the groceries or the other day. there is tony the tiger. i thought, is this next? is captain crunch next because there's a toy inside? is jack in the box going to be banned? what is he of not a giant toy? it is a toy promoting fast food. why have we not considered the impact of that promotion in that chain? we have not done those things because most people say, that goes a little too far. that is what we just did that the san francisco board of supervisors. we said, you have to have a certain milligram percentage of this, and then you can have a toy. i think it goes too far. i applaud eric mar for stepping

up to the plate on this issue. i know a lot of good people disagree with me. health professionals think this is a great idea. i think there's a better approach. we officially have our 1-year report, our annual report, on shape up, that provides an alternative. we are not talking about the abstract. we are talking about celebrating what we have done and continuing to promote it. doing these types of toy bands is inappropriate, i don't think particularly effective, and i think it goes too far in inserting government to be the decision maker in someone's life, as opposed to parents. i have no problem vetoing this. well i have a problem maintaining my veto? the board might override my veto. we will know that very soon. i will try to make a case to one or two members of the board who were uneasy about this.

trust me. there were few. all of the world, people have talked about this ban. it has not of unfavorable. things like shape of san francisco helps our reputation. it brings people together and provides a substantive solutions. bans hinder, don't help, our effort to solve this critical issue. >> [inaudible] it is not about taking away toys. >> that good. let's encourage them to make the meals healthier. we have been doing that. we have built some good partnerships. let's provide alternatives. this is government sighing, you cannot have this type of toy unless you provide this kind of

food. we do plastic bag bands and the like. -- bans and the like. i think there are a million ways to promote alternatives. we did that with menu labelling in the state. that is education. that is information. that is a better approach than prescribing the time, manner, place, and how you provide a meal. i think it is a very truly and alarmingly slipperly -- how do you say that? slope. >> [inaudible] >> there are all kinds of alternatives. there are venues to access.

we have strong opinions about pharmacies and what pharmacies should be promoting. again, i think this goes too far. i think this hurts our substantive efforts in terms of health promotion and wellness, and the work we have been recognized for all over the country. there is a reason there is not a tv station in this country that has not been mocking us. i understand why. i am a little concerned about that. it gets in the way of the good work the city has done. eric mar has been fabulous on this, and i just wish we did not go that far. >> [inaudible] >> one more than we have got at the moment. you never know. i am notnaive. -- not naive.

there was one other veto they overrode. i cannot support this. again, i am not being figurative. why not a crackerjack band? -- ban? how can a giant jack in the box toy be able to promote fast food? that is the biggest marketing toy anywhere. it is not the little boys at mcdonald's. go down the list. when you have a child, you get this. everyone wants the cartoon. they love the toys. the city cannot go down this path in the private sector. dangerous. educate, promote, create alternatives. do not prescribe 600 milligrams of this. who are we to judge? this is crazy.

>> [inaudible] >> it is similar to the one i did with supervisor maxwell a year ago. tragedies have befallen some of the clubs and some of the incidents that are more acute than they were a year ago. i think there will be the support for this when there wasn't for a similar initiative a year ago. i think the entertainment commission and supervisor chu have done a good job. i'm inclined to support it, whatever details appear on my desk. i am not naive to think one thing one day and the next day, think a little different. all of these are ideas. i think i have had a dozen meetings with club owners and promoters. we are just throwing out ideas. sometimes they get headlines.

we just want to get a sense of people. i am worried about civil liberties. i'm concerned people could share these lists. how do we know these lists are not shared? people have a right to know the lists will not be marketed or exploited. those things have to be worked out. there's a reality. we have not been able to address this in a substantive way. we had an incident during the world series in my neighborhood. i had some folks telling me the inevitable is going to happen. boy, it happened. we have to be aggressive. i told the promoters and the club owners this. we don't want to be too prescriptive. the majority of people do the right thing and are promoting safe venues. there are a few bad apples. we cannot let that continue. i think most of them get it. they don't want i