schools have the off-site option? >> that is right. >> why don't we open this up to public comment. then you can speak at that point. i have a couple of questions. this is a question for the department. clarification around the grandfathered permit fees -- permitees. if you were already grandfathered through, you would only have to pay that next year annual fee. can you talk about what they would be required to fill, the conditions? >> if you are one of those that currently has a valid permit from the police -- let's say this goes into affect january of

next year. you would have 90 days to reapply, list all your permited locations to dpw. they would then read those administratively. there would be no fee at that point. then you would have one year from then, at which time you would go through the review process, just like anyone else, but at that point, whatever roles that dpw issues subjects subsequent to the issue, you could be subject to. do not be within x feet of a bus zone, handicapped zone. you would have to come into conformance with those requirements. for those that have a permanent goes back to 1995, we would

grandfather them from those new requirements. distance from schools, hours of operation. nobody is grandfathered from those. does that clarify it? >> it does. >> i just wanted to mention one other thing that may have applied to some of the other permitees from 1995 or before. there is a provision that you can have only seven locations. we could add the permutation that they can have up to seven locations but are not penalized for the number they have existing today. >> there are also a few extra copies of the amendments on the podium. >> so we have a new process where they might be noticing.

they have to meet the requirements of distance from schools, the hours of operation, etc. if there are any problems with the permited vendors, at the renewal process, is that the time where they may decide whether or not to regrant another permit, renewal? >> there is no noticing on a renewal, only the first time around. those that are already grandfathered would not have to do noticing under this proposal. to enter the rest of your question, -- answer the rest of your question, complaint could be investigated at any time in the year. dpw would be responsible for investigating complaints about ivendors in a wrong location,

complaints around those sorts of things. they do have the ability to do random inspections, just like a regular recorrestaurant. if the permit comes up for renewal and there is a substantiated violation, the fee would be higher. if there are violations that are not dealt with, still outstanding, i believe that legislation has a process for the permit to not be removerene. >> the legislation in section 184.97, which begins on page 15, sets out a set of criteria for suspension of the permit.

if you have certain kinds of violations -- good neighbor policy, a habitual problem, you are not cleaning up for the day, if there are noise complaints, you are in the wrong location that you are not permitted for, those are addressed at any time that it may happen. whether you are grandfathered or not. there is a whole process that you would go through for revocation or suspension. dpw would file a notice. you would then have the opportunity to appeal the to the board of appeals, a public hearing opportunity, and your permit can be either reinstated or revoked. if it is revoked and then you come in for a new one, it would be treated as a new permit. >> in terms of feedback, there is often one department granting permits but different departments have to grant adherence to other things.

dpthe department of health would need to make sure that they are operating in a healthy way. there is a way for them to go back to the permiting department, correct? >> yes, the feedback would then go back to them. then they would take the action necessary. >> is there a mechanism through which those complaints are given to dpw so that they can make the decision, as opposed to dpw having to go to other areas to find out? >> i would expect that they would do that as part of that process. we have not set that out in the legislation. >> city attorney? >> i just wanted to respond to those situations where a permit is subject to revocation or

suspension. it is recognized that if a vendor is violating any of the sanitation issues regulated by the department of public health, that is a separate basis where the department can work with dpw and have their permit revoked. there is not only the internal feedback process where dpw is apprised of what other departments are doing. there is also independent authority for the department of public health, fire marshal. >> thank you. let's open this up to public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to speak on items 4 or 5? >> parent-volunteer of the student nutrition and physical activity commission. i wanted to thank supervisor

dufty for being so responsive to our concerns and for keeping the focus on student health and well-being. i wanted to provide some reminders about why our city requires food vendors to stay 1,500 feet from schools without exception. a few years ago, our state was in the forefront of banishing sodas and shivers from school. as soon as those items were removed, a catering trucks moved in to sell food to them. this is not an only in san francisco law, by the way. it is important to understand this limit is also a social justice issue. low income students get free meals in school cafeterias, if they mean the standards under the national school program. nationwide school cafeterias have commonly offered parallel a

la carte sales of food. here in san francisco, our school cafeterias have barely been redesigned so that they offer an array of choices, yet all of the joys of retreat -- meet the requirement for national standards. far more students are eating in the cafeterias now that they have been redesigned. keeping outside vendors a reasonable distance from schools allows equitable cafeteria designed to be successful. and despite funding shortages, the cafeteria fare has been improving, along with all grains and a greater array of choices. mobile vendors do not have to feed low-income students for

the reimbursement amount or paid worker union wages, as our school cafeterias do. by the way, the 1,500 foot limit is not arbitrary. it was set so that kids could still get to a location to buy food or drink. thank you for supporting -- >> thank you. >> i wanted to the knowledge -- >> thank you. >> good morning. i am a nutritionist with the san francisco department of public health. i am also a member of the san francisco unified school district nutrition and physical activity committee. i am here to thank you for retaining the 1500-foot limit

for food vendors. i am also a nutritionist. i am also a latina. there is a lot of obesity and diabetes in the latino community and we now have type 2 diabetes in children. by the time they are in their 30's, they have kidney failure, blindness, and other problems. instead of building families and creating financial stability, they are dealing with premature disability and ill health. the san francisco board of supervisors considers the san francisco unified school district's school policy robust enough to keep these trucks away from schools. support for this ordinance contributes to the academic success and physical health of these students.

we are also building a stronger and healthier foundation for all students in san francisco. thank you for your time. >> kevin westlake. golden gate restaurant association. i am here to speak in support of supervisor dufty. the logic of putting this into dpw is clearly in the public's interest. i think streamlining the permit process so people can understand it more easily and reducing the fees will help all entrepreneurs get easily into the food business. we also appreciate the language in section 1.88 which takes away the light food discussion and talks about similar service. having a food truck pull up in front of a deli would still be a

competition for a brick and mortar business, even if they sell different food items. we want to keep this balanced so that we can have more mobile food carts but also keep taxes and regulations in place for brick and mortar businesses. >> good morning. my name is matt cohen. i run a food vendor network. i just want to thank you, supervisor dufty, for bringing this legislation forward. it out ridge has been fantastic to our particular needs. we appreciate that. when i first got to san francisco and i wanted to start one of these businesses, i worked for six months to try to untangle the rules associated with this. i could not do it.

that is partly the reason why i started the sfcart project. i think this legislation will make easier for people who want to start businesses. every week, i worked with people who started their business in the past year. i think that this legislation will help that process. about the 1,500 foot rule with schools, it is important to note, liquor stores are within 1,500 feet, restaurants are within 1,500 feet. they are not being held up to this standard. it is convenient to talk about it now and but it does not address the concerns in a practical way. thank you.

>> my name is stanley ross. i own san francisco cards and concessions. i was the first food vendor in san francisco in 1974. i just wanted to complement you and supervisor dufty for this, what i consider a good piece of legislation. the most important right you can give to people is the right to make a living. when i started my business, the only thing that i could do was sell my pretzels as art. the word that you all have done, including those of us that have come before and making sure we are grandfathered, the regulations were first written nine years after i was on the street. this is a good ordinance. a lot of people have done a lot of our work on it. thank you.

>> supervisors, i am going to make three points. number one, as you know, we have a small business commission. this issue should come before the small business commission. we do not want to say that there was some small committee who was briefed. they did what they could. it needs to come before the small business commission so that this commission, which i suppose will be in favor of this, can work in a holistic manner across san francisco. as representative, you have not brought this out. i am bringing it to your attention.

number two. those vendors who are grandfathered and paid $9,000, now when it comes for them to renew their permits, they should be compensated. maybe he given a year or two because of their hard work. they paid $9,000 and now it is coming down to $4,000. they should be given a break. no. 3. as much as representatives from the san francisco unified school district say, we have a student representative on the board that should come here and say how they feel. i am talking about high school students. we need to know that. you supervisors should learn how to get feedback from every

segment of the population. there are many entities that know nothing about this. i go to a few of these areas where they sell tacos, and sometimes i have to go a great distance for that. so i am in favor of this. let's do this in a holistic way. thank you. >> possibly the most over the top of all the street food entities. i wanted to point out a couple of things on this 1,500 foot rule. when i started the process of becoming legitimate in the eyes of the city, i worked with

members of the wellness document. i appreciate the idea, especially the argument with the two appeared launch system, to put it crudely, that it does create social issues within the school. however, when it comes down to it, i have to agree with matt cohen of off the grid. until we exclude other businesses from being 1,500 feet away, it is a curious example of what has been undone by this legislation. i feel as if st. food has been singled out. i would like to get they get away from that paradigm. >> thank you. any other members of the public

that would like to comment on item 4 or 5? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a number of amendments for 4 and 5. can we take them without objection? ok. supervisor dufty? >> i think this is a great hearing. we did not have a huge turnout of mobile food vendors and cart operators. they have come before the committee previously. it is testament to the fact that there has been a strong stakeholder process. i am glad of to clear up the issue as to school nutrition, a couple of points that speakers made, that they do not see these types of restrictions on liquor stores or other food establishments. for the good that this legislation will provide, a lot of opportunity, all of us to activate many neighborhoods

across the city, spaces that could use foot traffic, if far outweighs try to address everything. as we go forward, dpw and other agencies will be able to give us feedback on how the mobile food environment is flourishing. i think it is an important step we are taking today, recognizing that food and cuisine is a big part of what draws people to san francisco. i think it is what enlivens people's days. i am pleased to have these two pieces of legislation that i think will set clear rules that can be implemented well, yet, still give people opportunity. i welcome your support. >> thank you. supervisor avalos? >> i just wanted to thank supervisor dufty for sponsoring this legislation.

it creates easy access for a lot of entrepreneurs who are in the food industry, or to enter the food industry. my legislative aide and was part of earlier discussions on this and felt that it was moving in a good direction. thank you for that. i would motion that we send this for to the full board with recommendations. >> before we take a vote on this, again, i want to thank the supervisor for pulling this altogether, the different entities involved with this issue. i appreciate some of the amendments to our made. i like that we are treating grandfathered permiting. in regards to small business commission's recommendation to change the square footage, distance from the 1500 to 1000, my preference is to keep it where it is. if we do need to revisit that, that should be done more in

conjunction with the school district and other stakeholders, if we were to ever go in that direction. with that, let's move the item forward with recommendations, without objection. item 6 please. >>resolution authorizing the recreation and park department to accept and expend a gift from the john and lisa pritzker family fund for $54,021 annually for fys 2010-11, 2011- 12, and 2012-13, for a total of $162,063, for general operating support of joseph lee recreation center. >> good afternoon, a supervisor. i would like to present this gift of $54,021 annually for

fiscal years 11, 12, and 13, for a total of $162,063. the department's $12.4 million budget shortfall has prompted us to reassess how we structure and deliver our recreation programs. this has afforded us the opportunity to implement a stronger, more efficient delivery model, but in it has also not prevented us from having to close our recreation centers two days a week, sundays and mondays, as of august 16, 2010. as you can imagine, this has had a negative of fact, especially in those neighborhoods that need the services most. in response through their generous donation, and the john and lisa pritzker fund has been

given an award. the joseph lee recreation center holds program for adults, youth, and tots. there are a variety of activities available, including basketball, flag football, table tennis, a teenager hiv prevention program, a homer program, cooking, gardening, our class, dance, and board games. activities for teenagers are offered from 3:30 until 5:00. the cost of operating the joseph lee recreation center is $378,000 per year. the fund gift of $54,021 per

year will allow the center to serve citizens, helping to keep residents engaged in healthy activity. given our department but the challenges, we are grateful for the support. we can no longer do this alone. philanthropic partnerships will allow us to serve all constituencies, but in particular, those underserved communities that need it most. >> thank you. any questions from the committee? why don't we open this up for public comment. any members of the public debt would like to speak? seeing nothing, public comment is closed. thank you again for your presentation and to the family fund for all of their support for our recreation centers. do you know if there are any other gifts like this in the

works? >> we have proposals out to four other people and we could be coming back in the next couple of months with two more. >> if there are no objections, if we could move this forward with recommendations. thank you. madam clark, are there any other items before us? >> no, madam chair. >> we are entering. thank you very much. -- we are adjourned. >> thank you all very much for taking the time to be here.

as chief gascon promised, we're keeping you abreast of our changing crime statistics on a quarterly basis. of course, as you knew with the new model of policing, we do that more often and technology and data is really driving so much of our deployment and strategies in terms of crime fighting and crime prevention in our city. the good news is we were audacious in our goal setting earlier this year. we had some stretch goals. we raised the bar in terms of our expectation. we came into the year with among the lowest homicide rates we had seen in a generation. in fact, till the early 1960's, we had no seen homicide rates as low as they were last year. there were some that felt it was inappropriate to set the goal of continuing that trend downward in terms of the homicide rates in particular since lastior some had suggested was an anomaly. we felt differently, not only

in terms of the goal setting, but we felt that last year was an extension of a trend that we saw happening occurring in the middle part of 2008 and the summer of 2008. that trend continues now into the new year. while the statistics, you will see in the presentation the chief will provide very shortly, shows that homicide are up by one homicide, 3% the actual numbers today if they were adjusted show that homicides are down by 3%. the new numbers that we just brought in today actually shows them lower than last year. nonetheless and to the point, we are seeing part one crime continuing to decrease in the city. it was double digits last year and it's down as you'll see in a moment 9% this year. we're making progress. the work that the police department is doing in concert and partnership with the