thank you. >> is there any other public comment on this item? >> good afternoon. my name is vincent. i have known paul for probably about 12 years. i played with him in the league, and honestly, he is a great guy. i know from speaking to him that he is extremely sorry about the violations that happened. he also wants to correct them. i think he should get -- the given a chance to do that. i have to say that knowing both organizations on a personal level, his organization has always been run excellently. all the teams are dealt with in a very professional way. truthfully, i would like to state play with norcal rather

than transition to another league. i did not know that anything has been set up to transition these leagues. the other thing i also want to say is that there has been over 150 different members of the league that e-mail in support of this, so you have a number of people supporting paul. all these people here are supporting him. he has done a great thing for all of us. over these past eight years that he has been doing this league, i have met so many people. i have been playing with some of these people for eight years. it is amazing to go and see these people. when you have a community to be part of, that is something that has to be considered in regards to transition. thank you. >> is there any other public comment on this item? >> good afternoon. my name is sylvester.

there were another five people that could not stay but they wanted to talk. this is a great need, and it would be really sad to see them have to give it up. i just want to say that -- excuse me. i have a problem stuttering when i get nervous. paul has been very kind with my team to accommodate my team to play at a certain time because i coach and under 9-year-old soccer team. he has been very kind to accommodate our game times. i have also played for other leagues.

i'm not going to say that things, but judges prefer playing for norcal. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none, this item is closed. am i allowed to ask another question of staff? just so i'm crystal clear on this, on our website, it states what the consequences are of breaking these rules. is that correct? on the permit. but it is stated -- >> there is a section of the website where you go to get the permits, and it stated there, and it stated in writing when you get the action will permit. >> and we are dealing here with

a person or entity that had multiple violations. >> i have listed 3. >> right, 3 that we know of. are we in discussion now? here is where i come down on this. i do not want to be overly punitive to this organization because you are clearly delivering a tremendous benefit to the community, and our job is to facilitate activity for the people of san francisco, but as the gentleman said, to err is human. once is human, but multiple times is not right. my feeling about this is we either have rules or we do not. i am struggling because i do not want all of the players to suffer, but i also know that if you do not have some kind of consequences for your actions, then the hard work of this department, and what our permit division has been trying to do is all for naught, and who

knows who else is breaking the rules and who will continue to break the rules. >> i don't know that i'm terribly sympathetic on this. i'm sorry. >> i'm also sympathetic as well. i'm asking myself whether it -- what other solution could there be other than the one that is being suggested. when you are given several opportunities to kind of go the straight and narrow, and you look the other way and do something else, it is difficult not to expect that there would be some kind of consequences. you know, there is cause and

there is a fact. there's no question about that. the only question that i have to ask here -- because i really -- my gut feeling says this program is a great program. i have known about norcal for many years. i know what they do out in the community. that is what my gut tells me. but at the same time, being an administrator of programs, i know that there's consequences when the protocols of any of the programs that i administer are not followed. so i just want to know, and i just want to throw it out there -- is there anything else we could do other than what we're doing now that is being recommended that would be less harsh?

i cannot come up with an answer. i really cannot. so i presume that that being the case, i mean, unless somebody comes up with another solution that is less harsh, our hands are tied. we have to support the staff recommendation because we know that their resources are limited. we know that we cannot expect them to be 24/7 on any project, and so we have to be supportive of them, but at the same time, i think we have to take a positive line here and hope for the best

of norcal coming back into the scene after the suspension is over. >> thank you. seeing no other comments, i will make the following statement. i'm not inclined to grant the appeal. i'm inclined to deny it, purely based on multiple violations. old ones, okay. walt weiss -- we have a problem. the third time, it is just unacceptable to me. i would entertain a motion to deny the appeal. >> can i ask something? >> please. >> just for my own sanity here. could we recommend a reduced suspension of nine months or six months? to do? >> i think the net effect is the same thing. the teams all go to the other league. >> the league gets dismantled, right?

even if it is for 30 days. >> i further think that we sent the wrong message if we grant the appeal to everybody else, and we put an extra burden on the staff to try to monitor these things. that is my own personal feeling, but i would entertain a motion to deny the appeal. >> so moved. >> it has been moved and seconded? all those in favor? aye. oppose? hearing none, thank you. >> we are now on item 14, which is general public comment continued. is there anyone here who would like to make general public, on items that are not on the calendar? seeing none, general public comment is closed. we are now on item 15, which is closed session on existing litigation. item 15a is public comment on

all matters pertaining to the closed session. is there any public comment on this item? being none, public comment is closed. we need a vote on whether to go into closed session. >> move to go into closed session. >> second. >> moved and seconded. all those in favor? aye. opposed? none. >> ok, i do need to ask all staff to leave.

>> ok, so we need to make a motion -- >> we have reconvened into open session, which is item 16. item 16a. >> there was no action taken in closed session. so now we vote to elect to disclose any or all discussions? >> so we need a motion. >> move not to disclose. >> second. >> moved and seconded. all those in favor? opposed? hearing none, it is unanimous. >> and 17, commissioners matters.

any commissioner matters? >> for the love of god, no. >> public comment? item 18, new business agenda setting? >> thank you. >> 19, communications. commissioners, is there any public comment? public comment is closed, and 20 is an adjournment. >> move to adjourn. >> second. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> item 22 --

that concludes my presentation. if there are any questions, i am

certainly here. commissioner fong: thank you. any public comment on this item? commissioner miguel: it is amazing how some food-related items bring a full house here and some bring empty seats. this is one of the good ones, i guess. i would like to thank the supervisor and the department also for their clarifications on this one. i appreciate the fact that this has gone through the small business commission and has their enthusiastic support. the concept of farmers' markets, which has grown exponentially in the last 10 to 15 years in san francisco has been mirrored by the food trucks that are not

just top of trucks, as the term was used when i was first familiar with them in san francisco. there were more derogatory terms, but i needn't go into the -- that. they have started to provide some very gourmet items, actually. no one in their right mind 15 years ago, let alone before, would have presume he would have gotten from a food truck creme brulee. san francisco has been very much in the forefront of this, although it is a national phenomenon as well. i think that bringing the code into line with what the public not only accepts but enthusiastically wishes for is the right way to change code, so i am totally in acceptance with this.

commissioner antonini: i think also, in keeping with the change in public attitude, there is a big interest nowadays. people are working. they are busy. they want particularly their lunch to be quick but with quality, so they are not as opposed as they used to be to be picking up something and standing there and eating it. so this feeds upon something that is happening anywhere. i do notice that near kaiser hospital, they do have food trucks and a farmer's market, but maybe they are zoned commercial already, so that would be considered, i guess, in medical campus, but apparently, since the zoning is ok, they already have it, but then some of the others do not have the right zoning, so this would allow for those others. i think it is a great idea, well crafted. commissioner moore: i wanted