and we kinda felt like like we were voices in the wilderness because every time the t.n.c.s would go to the cpuc or go off to sacramento, they would be touting their credentials and people were accepting this at face value. now we have not just this report , with several others that put the lie to that. it is welcome in that sense. it does note that other key questions including transit ridership and safety are not covered and i wanted to talk specifically to the question of safety because it just happens that in the last week or two there was an article in forbes, which is, you know, basically business publication, the headline which is uber and lift may increase road deaths study. claims, in the study has not yet been published, but the

preliminary information about an academic study, you know, comes to the conclusion that there have been more fatalities on the roadways owing to write share companies. which may be a result simply of increased traffic. but other hypotheses such as, again, anecdotally, what we see every day on the streets. the driving habits of t.n.c.s drivers may very well be a contributing cause. so when you are looking at these issues, it is not just congestion. it is safety and other issues. certainly the city must have the power to deal with this and deal with their own city streets. thank you. >> thank you. good reminder how important it is to have the data. >> hello. i'm with the south of market

community action network. we are happy this report is out because it confirms everybody -- something everybody already knew and where we as an organization had been saying since buber was dumped on our streets and that is that t.n.c.s dramatically increase congestion in san francisco. especially in the south of market and especially in district six. further, the report shows that t.n.c.s greatly increase the total number of vehicle miles travelled which is another significant indicator of automobile usage. this is all hugely significant for a number of reasons. traffic and congestion have tremendous negative impacts. the increase in cars directly increases global warming as does the increase in v.m.t. and idling that occurs. aside from the obvious and immediate environmental impacts, the huge increase in congestion due to t.n.c.s as lasting negative impacts on the physical and mental health of residents, workers and community members,

including families and children. it is completely unacceptable that streets are clogged with these ridesharing companies that exacerbate the neighbourhood his existing pedestrian safety issues and this is an issue that is really about community health and healthy communities. about children, families, seniors and people with disabilities and some of our city his most vulnerable's residence. this study must be a wake-up call to the city. regarding the text sharing economy, t.n.c.s and the need for aggressive regulation. the unregulated nature of t.n.c.s in san francisco has led to an unprecedented level of congestion with the south of market shouldering a disproportionate burden of this reality. in addition to the fact that an entire taxi industry has been decimated by companies such as uber. that city and sfmta must address these out-of-control t.n.c.s. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> thank you. the report that the c.t.a. did has led to a ballot measure that peskin is putting together for the tax congestion tax on uber and lift. it will raise $30 million a year projected but based on 70 million rise. is 40 cents a ride. can be passed on to the passengers. and spokespeople are very happy with that solution. but i don't think it goes to address the root problems that t.n.c.s are causing. the traffic congestion. this will not get better. pollution, unfair business practices, rampant insurance fraud, a.d.a. violations, deterioration of all workers' income. you look at the business model that cooper has, they are using venture capital to create a

monopoly to destroy legitimate competitors. i applaud taxi companies for having filed an antitrust lawsuit a couple of years ago against uber technologies. and interestingly, three days ago, a writer, -- a writer says the inside story of how uber got into business with the saudi arabian government, saudi arabia royal family now owns ten% of uber. the same people who murdered a journalist, apparently. there are bright spots that have been shown elsewhere. he has worked well over the years with the taxi industry. we are challenging on you to be the best and the brightest and find a way to get half of these uber his off the street. there will be so much less traffic to get places faster. at the same time, you will be able to help people. you need to keep the taxi industry healthy and cut back on the insurance logic -- fraud.

there is rampant insurance fraud i have run out of time. thank you. >> thank you. do i have any more public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you, again. is very valuable information and we look forward to the next report. thank you. >> thank you. welcome. >> good afternoon. although i think we are approaching good evening. i will keep my remarks very short. i am the acting director of transit. with me i have janet, our v.p. program manager and monique, who is our director -- deputy of capital finance.

they have been tremendous partners with the agent we are bringing to you today. i will start with the bad news first. the bad news is that this is old and they're getting old. as they get older, they are becoming increasingly hard to maintain. harder to get parts. we are having to do reverse engineering because we don't even have a parts pipeline. and as you know, a major breakdown in the subway can create a bad day for an entire system of customers. the silver lining, the good news is that the program has delivered on all of our

expectations and promises. it is a reliable vehicle. it has the advanced customer information systems that we have an innate high transit using city. and that was not by accident. that was through the leadership

and a really strong procurement process. so what we have before you today is an information item to let you know that although there is a lot of things that have to happen between now and then, it is our recommendation that we look to expedite the replacement of the fleet. so that we are on track and exceeding our timeline for the first 68 vehicles, which are expansion vehicles. they are desperately needed for our crowding and for our customers. and we are now looking for opportunities to bring the replacement portion of the contract quicker and also to shortage in its overall timeline that will reduce the amount of time we spend with a mixed fleet , which in and of itself, is a complication in terms of maintenance and it will really expedite getting an excellent service product to our customers

i know you guys have had the presentation, i think i covered a lot of the highlights. this is the current timeline. as you can see, we are talking about the hundred 51 replacement of the current. at a stretch over a an extremely long. for financial reasons when we bought these, we did not have enough money to buy it in a short duration. so that got stretched out. but there are a lot of trade-offs with that. and most immediately, not having the new vehicle sooner. the vehicles themselves, we are getting tremendous amount of positive feedback from our customers. they are more spacious and more energy efficient and quieter. they have advanced accessibility

features. we are getting some negative feedback related to the interior design on the seating. the great news -- >> i'm not alone. >> you are not alone. the great news is 151 as an opportunity for us to internalize and respond to the feedback. so that is part of this process. is in addition to some smaller mechanical fixes that we need to make based on how the vehicles are performing and some of the feedback we are getting from mechanics, we are also looking at this seating issue is one of the primary things that we want to address. our main ask today is to build on the momentum that we have. to take advantage of what is already an institutional knowledge, both on our side and on siemens, which could be lost by an extending gap in the

procurement and in the process. i think that the document that we shared with you kind of documents some of the financial positives as well as the negatives. some of the costs are associated with the financing of purchasing the vehicle sooner. but there is a lot of financial benefits that we anticipate, including not having to pour a lot of money. we will have to pour some money, because we still need them, but not having to pour a lot of money into expensive capital campaigns, as well as just the fact that the new vehicles, because they had a lot of input from maintenance staff in their design, they are easier to maintain. easier to do preventative maintenance. more efficient for staff resources. so our two key benefits are we are not spending money to maintain old equipment and we

are getting benefits to customers sooner. >> yes. >> two things. first of all i think it would not be fair to her on her last day here to not point out that one of the reasons that finance costs for this will be so low is because she has done such a good job maintaining our credit rating and that sort of thing. is a finance cost but it could be worse if we were in different streets. this is a great presentation. i'm supportive of what you are doing. the one question i have from a customer service standpoint is this. as i envision this, the idea of a mixed fleet, going forward meant a bigger fleet and meant that perhaps the use of three, perhaps even four car trains where we really need them. take for example, the klm rolling through castro, already full. and expanded shuttle service. my understanding is the goal is still to give as much life as we

can out of the old lrp and have the biggest fleet possible. but it is just when a vehicle is -- there is a point where it is better to take a vehicle out of service because it is likely to hold up the entire tunnel and we are managing that. is that the correct analysis of this? >> if i could, what we are aiming to do is speed up the acceleration. or to accelerate the replacement of the vehicles. not to -- we would still have, at the end of next year, before we will have 68 more vehicles than we had 20 years ago in service. we will be at that level until we potentially exercise the option. at the back end of this, for an additional 45 vehicles. what we change during the time is the mix of the different vehicles and we want to accelerate changing over from the vehicles. we will still have the 200 and something vehicles in service

and we want to retire the old ones faster by replacing them. not just parking them, but by replacing them with new siemens cars. to the extent that we have vehicles that we can't make it perform reliably. they are because we need to make but the real purpose and what we are proposing is not just to put cars aside, it is to replace them with new vehicles spewing to the extent that we have a new vehicle and an old vehicle that both work, will keep them both rolling and not just replace for the sake of replacing. >> correct. the 68 are all expansion. it is keeping everything we have in service and adding, which is a very significant increase in the fleet. >> that is the key point. thank you for clarifying that. >> go ahead. >> the seating -- >> there were so many complaints about the seating. >> that is just from malcolm. [laughter]

>> he hasn't returned my calls. are you kidding me? >> we owe the board and we will be coming back to the board with a summary of what we are hearing some feedback, the process and some options to consider that we would be able to potentially pilot within the existing fleet and have resolved before we go into production. >> that is what i have been hearing from people. [please stand b

session. directors item 17, it would be appropriate for either a motion to disclose or not did i see close. >> motion to not disclose. >> second. >> there's a motion and a second. all in favor? >> madam director, that concludes the business before the m.t.a. today. >> okay. meeting is adjourned. go vote.

>> good evening and welcome to the november 14th, 2018 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president frank fung will be the presiding officer. he is joined by vice president rick swag, commissioner lazarus, commissioner honda, and commissioner tanner. to my left is the deputy city attorney will provide the board with any legal advice at this evening. at the controls is our legal consistent. kind of bored's executive director. if we could grab some seats, there are some over there. thank you. we need to keep that door clear. we will also be joined by representatives from the city

departments that have cases before the board this evening. the print management or permit manager, kenny wong, inspector with the department of public health, cory teague, the zoning administrator representing the planning department and court -- planning commission, bernie curran, senior building inspector representing the department of building inspection and jillian gillett and leo maceo. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board request to turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices that they will not disturb the proceedings please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders and department respondents are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven or

three minute periods. members of the public were not affiliated have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone to assist the board and accurate preparation of minutes, you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing or schedules, speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or visit the board office. we are located at 1650 mission street. this meeting is broadcast live. and will be rebroadcast on fridays. the video is available on our website and can be downloaded from san francisco government television. we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the centre and ordinance. if you intend to testify at any of the proceedings and wish to

have the board give your testimony evidentiary wait, stand if you are able, raise your right hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. okay. we will now move on to item number 1 which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the jurisdiction, but that -- that is not on tonight's calendar. any general public comment? okay. we will move on to item number 2 commissioner comments and questions. are there any commissioner comments this evening? no. we will move on to item number 3 before you for discussion the possible adoption of the minutes of the october 24th, 2018 board meeting. >> any comments, corrections or additions? >> i entertain a motion to accept.

>> motion. >> okay we have a motion from vice president swag to adopt the minutes from october 24th, 2018. his or any public comment on that motion? okay. see none, on that motion. [roll call] >> that motion carries. we will now move on to item number 4. which is a special item with possible action taken by the board. this is an informational presentation by the san francisco public works bureau of street to use and mapping and the department of public health regarding the protocols followed by public works in the review of applications for mobile food facility permits and the criteria used for making final determinations regarding underserved areas and appropriate locations for mobile food facilities. and watch what, will be looking at complaints, code violations and enforcement of the

ordinances and orders. secondly, we will have consideration and possible action by the board to make recommendation to relevant city departments and the board of supervisors regarding the mobile food facility ordinances found in article 5.8 at the san francisco public works code. welcome. >> good evening. my name is bernie with public works. i am the permit manager and i'm here to talk to you this afternoon about mobile food facilities and public works process. >> a brief overview of what i will present today. we will talk about our current permit process, the process flow in some of the locations of mobile food facilities.

our review of applications, public noticing requirements, i will also have a brief discussion of enforcement actions, legislation and criteria concerning congestion and saturation. so i have a diagram for the permit process. it starts with an applicant coming in who is interested in a mobile food facility. they come in and we can talk to them and they identify a location that they are interested in and they prepare a draft diagram showing the layout of their facilities and sidewalk -- relative to the sidewalk and street furnishings. we put together an application package and submit it to the department. the department reviews the application package and then we begin working with the applicant

to ensure they have a suitable location and have the ability to move forward with their permits. once the department is satisfied , there is a public notification process. involves mailing and posting of their notice to operate. we are open to public comment and objection to that finding. leading to a public hearing and tentative approval and potentially an appeal. the diagram i have up now shows the location of mobile food permits. the blue dots are locations of approved permits and the red dots either requested locations. there's also a table that shows a number of approved locations on a given year and the number of requested approvals.

i want to point out that the requested locations most often are withdrawn by the applicant for various reasons. whether it is the cost of the permit or they've changed their mind on the application. we are currently running approximately 90-100 mobile food trucks at any time in the city. i would also like to point out that on the map does show the locations of the vendors. it is possible, under one permit , to have more than one location for the same track. it could be at one location monday, wednesday, and friday and move to a different location on tuesdays and thursdays. this is a typical applications site map that we would request the applicant to provide us. it shows the location of bus

zones, curb ramps, the building, the sidewalk with, trees, if there were parking metres there would be parking metres shown. that gives us an idea of whether or not we can cite this mobile food facility at this location. >> give me one moment. can you please take a seat? we cannot block the door. thank you. >> when we get a permit package together, for general location requirements, for trucks we look at least a 10-foot sidewalk. that is so as the truck is parked, there would be a forefoot cueing area for patrons to queue up at the track and that provides us a 6-foot wide travel path for pedestrians moving down the street. they need to be 7-foot clear from any fire hydrant and they

need to be parked at the curb side. for pushcarts, we have a similar requirement, except we have moved it to 15 feet. it was the same forefoot cueing area. a six-foot path of travel. we are also incorporating a 3- foot area for the mobile food cart as opposed to a truck at the curb side. other requirements that we look at, 75-foot minimum distance away from any existing restaurants and a primary entrance with an 8-foot minimum from -- for street artists. 12-foot away from blue zones. 5-foot from any corner. and stand the requirements for proximity to schools. once the department is satisfied with the package and the location and it is a viable

location according to all the requirements, there is a public noticing requirements. there is three different time periods that we look at. hours of operation between 6:00 am and 8:00 pm, they are required to notify all ground floor commercial tenants and neighborhood organizations. there are mailed to notice as need to go out. that is to everybody within a 7d then there is a public posting on utility poles or other street furnishings that have to go up ten days prior to the closure of the notice. if you are working between -- and trying to work between 8:00 am and 3:00 pm, we have expanded that noticing requirement to the property owner and all residential tenants and ground floor commercial tenants, neighborhood organization and the building

owner if that address is not the same as the proposed address. and then finally, if you are working from 3:00 am until 6:00 am, it requires director approval. to date, no one has tried to operate in those hours. the only difference between the place card and a track truck is the place card is required to notice a 300 feet radius from the proposed location. for enforcement, we have compiled a list -- or a number of complaints and notice of violations or correction that we have issued. the complaints, as you can see has steadily been dropping as people have become better neighbors and understand the program and the notice of

violations and correction notices. it stayed fairly constant. most of those that are issued are issued for operating not in their permitted location. a quick review of the history of the legislation. in 2011, the original legislation was passed and it had a note like food clause meaning no operating mobile food facilities could have like foods similar to a brick and mortar. there were prohibitions on residential zones near schools and transfer of the permitting operations to the police department to public works. that ordinance was amended in 2013. it removed the no like food clause and the ordinance had a finding to address the

underserved -- but it was silent on the criteria for underserved. we also added the prohibitions for 75-foot radiance from any adjacent restaurant and no more than three days a week can a mobile food facility operate in any location. currently there is two pieces of legislation that affect mobile foods there. what is past which is a senate bill on mobile vendors. it prohibits local authorities from regulating sidewalk vendors except for the provisions of the bill which boils down to having to be deemed a health safety or welfare issue for we could prohibit -- prohibit their operations in the street.

and then it stipulates that plans can only be administrative at this time, our initial review feels like there's very little change that it would have to our current mobile foods program. but it is still under review with the city attorney. there is also a mobile caterer and mandatory seismic retrofit program ordinance that is currently before the board. which allows a mobile food facility to operate in front of a business that is undergoing seismic retrofit. the mandatory retrofit. in that case, the mobile food facility has to be branded the same as the restaurant it is replacing. >> folks, we have seats over here. we need to keep that door clear. there is some in the back.

thank you. thank you. excuse me. >> i know there was an interest in congestion and saturation requirements. to address congestion criteria, these are our congestion concerns and these are the current criteria. for pedestrians, some of which we have already gone through with the map. but requiring the minimum sidewalk with clearances from existing sidewalks fixtures. i don't think i need to go over those again. for vehicular congestion, we have not yet discussed mobile food facilities. they are not allowed in red, blue, white, or red curve areas. and currently at yellow curbs, the mobile foods must comply with all the time restrictions for the yellow curbs.

for saturation of mobile food facilities, we have a requirement that no more than three mobile foods that facilities can operate per block at any given time. what that is you won't see more than three mobile foods working at any time. there could be different ones at different times but only three at any given hour of the day. so public works is undertaking a review of these criteria. we are working with m.t.a. to evaluate the current practice for yellow zones. in discussion with them, we are contemplating having different requirements for yellow zones in different areas of the city. mostly because the downtown area is all yellow zones. and so there has been discussion

about the time limits for those downtown yellow zones. outside of the downtown core. our talk has basically been to not allow mobile foods into yellow zones. for saturation, we currently -- we are only looking at today, the saturation of mobile food facilities relative to other mobile food facilities and trying to expand on that to include brick and mortar restaurants. we are talking to planning and health department on that. planning has some criteria as far as the amount of frontage in various districts where they would allow new restaurants or not allow them to move into. so we are following up with them and trying to determine if we can use a similar criteria to

spot mobile food facilities. in conclusion, our last steps, we are developing the new criteria as that i just mentioned. we want to engage the stakeholders together in place on the potential criteria revisions. that would include the mobile food vendors, neighborhood organizations and the restaurant owners association to see if our proposals work for them. we are still trying to determine if any changes we proposed will require new legislation by the board or whether we can do that through existing public work orders. we are also working with the city attorney to determine what

changes may be required in order to comply if we need to to senate bill 946. do you have any questions? >> i have a fairly simple one. how is the address determined for a particular food truck? >> we generally fix the funding -- fronting property address. >> so if it has a particular spot on the block captain whenever building it is in front of, that is used for determining the notification radius? >> it is the location of the truck that determines the radius if you have a fronting property that is 100 feet long and they are taking the second parking space in calculus on the second space. >> i have a whole laundry list.

>> so do i. >> do you want to start? >> why not. i thank you are here because -- i thank you are here because we are faced on this board with determining what is there. we run into ambiguities or we run into questions from the public that seem like pretty fair questions, yet if the legislation doesn't back it up so we get kind of hung out to dry or where the legislation hasn't taken into consideration some things. so i thank you are here because we want to maybe surface some of those things and possibly officially send d.p.w. a note as to issues that should be

considered when reviewing the legislation, which is now, the last time it was reviewed, it was almost five and a half or six years ago. you may have noticed that things have changed in san francisco. it's a little bit more crowded. there are a few more vertical buildings that are up. a lot more traffic on the streets. conditions have changed and may be the legislation should be reviewed as well in consideration of that change. that's why i thank you are here. the questions. so one of the big questions is the spirits of the legislation in the first place. the spirit of the legislation in the first place, and i will ask you to comment on whether i am interpreting the spirit of the legislation properly or not. there was a shortage of food facilities in certain areas and the opportunity for food trucks was to supplement the shortage

of food service in certain areas and to supplement those services that were underserved. and to find -- be mindful there might be over service and undue competition in areas where services that exist. his that, in your mind, part of the spirit of the legislation? >> i believe so. i wasn't here at the inception of the program and i'm not entirely sure. >> you don't take exception to that interpretation? okay. we face a couple of things. let me give you one example. we had an item come in front of us where it two brilliant young man wanted to take their ice cream concept and go mobile on union square.

right on the corner of geary and powell. there is no shortage of ice cream within the area of geary and powell and one of the appellant's -- or certainly one of the commentators on looking to appeal that permit, which i think was ultimately granted with conditions. that was granted with conditions first of all, there is no need for that. second of all, he said it's too crowded and that truck sitting at that site is going to exacerbate an already crowded situation. let's just take the fact that they wanted to serve ice cream. within that area, the westin ste street, they serve a lot of ice cream. the cheesecake factory, they

serve a lot of ice cream. there are a couple of other storefronts and small businesses that serve a lot of ice cream. but one of d.p.w. post s. point of view is that it is an underserved market and these guys will fit in just perfectly. when is -- who builds that criteria for or how are we supposed to measure when an area is underserved and when an area is satisfactory -- satisfactorily served so we can have some metric to make a judgement as to whether an area is over served or underserved? >> i think we bring up a valid plan. our position has been that it was to remove foods from the legislation. it's not something we have actually consider. it may be time to take other items, as you said.

the city has changed. taken into consideration as a program has matured. but to answer your question of why we would allow them to serve ice cream where there are other ice cream -- restaurants that serve ice cream, i think my short answer is, it is not prohibited. we struggle as well with the notion of what is saturated or underserved. that's why i think we are trying to come up with a new metric to gauge when is enough enough? but no one seems to have a really good one. planning has some rules about that in certain districts and where we are working with them to gather that intelligence. we have talked about having applicant -- applicants survey restaurants within 150 feet to

350-foot radius so we have a better idea. those are things we are actually considering to try and clarify those. >> i would think those to be one of the takeaways and whether we codify this in writing or not is one of the things we should communicate to you. that ambiguity and that lack of metric and clarity with regard to underserved verses over served or the over availability. it gets into a competitive situation. the traffic thing is a whole other piece. when does a food truck create a traffic jam and when it doesn't is another item that we stumble upon too. i had to comment on it. i don't want to hug the whole thing here. the other thing is especially with the trucks, not the trucks, the carts. we have had a case here where

there were small business practitioners a very good at what they do. so they say and so we think. so they serve halal food. and on market street. they applied for a permit and people with bricks and mortar who are in very close to that part say, weighed a moment. these guys are going to pull up here with a little cart, a hand truck and they will pull out their gas tank to keep the food hot and then they will serve food and we are just serving the same food, you know, within a block away. and first of all, we are brick-and-mortar. we have wrenched to pay. if we want to update our electricity and getting pg and e. post s. attention to do that,

and getting the bill to do that it puts a big burden on us. we have all these issues. all which raises a very high level of difficulty to serve the same food that they are doing. they don't have the same burden and they are undercutting our business. how, again, this is something that we face. small business that we all support versus small business and we all support small business. but they have a car crash right right in the middle of -- right in the middle of the city metaphorically because both will have an impact on each other, with the new arrival, which is the pushcart is going to be the perpetrator of the problem. how do we deal with that? had to wait measure fairness when something like that occurs.

>> i'm not sure i'm prepared to answer that. it is a complicated question. >> yeah. that is why you are here and that's why we want to communicate and show you what we face on a periodic basis with two parts of the citizens that we really want to respect and uphold. small business -- >> you are right. they are both small businesses and they are both trying to make a living. i think we will take that back with us and incorporate it with our thinking as we try to revise the legislation. >> the last one and then i will let somebody else take a chance. accountability, or policing of certain essentials. there are requirements that toilets or handwashing or cleanliness items are available

for both the operators of the food truck or pushcart and to its customers and that you are supposed to have within a certain amount of square -- square feet in agreement with the building so either party can go in and use the toilet facilities for cleanliness and decency purposes. how do you manage that process so those who claim to have those agreements really do have those agreements? >> i think i might do for that to health. because that is not something in public works post s. jurisdiction. >> but it is part of the issuance of the permit, correct? >> we do ask for a letter from

whoever from whoever they are getting restroom services from. and so that is in our first -- when they first apply. as far as enforcement, like i said, that was with the health department. >> with the health department say that is within your purview? >> i don't know. >> that is part of the health code and not in the public works code. that is for public works. drawing this destruction -- this line. >> i really hope that given that it has been six years and given that there has been a significant learning curve and more density and more sophistication of how these people do their jobs, food is getting better and better all the time. by creating more traffic that you do your best to clarify or

identify these learning curves and the new curveballs being thrown at you and that you adjust the legislation and asked the board of supervisors to adjust the legislation accordingly. i will let darrell go on. >> i would like to say thank you for coming and being the dartboard. i guess you drew the small straw evidently, our body here is a lot of mobile food facilities and mobile card facilities. sometimes we are slightly frustrated. i will use the example that vice president brought up regarding the ice cream truck. in the legislation, it reads this legislation attempts to provide and expand the range of convenient and interesting food consumption opportunities for mobile food facilities in underserved and less congested areas of the city. at different times of the day and evening. unless you don't live in san francisco, gary street between stockton and powell is always

congested and if you've ever tried to go there during a really busy day or a holiday, you can barely get through. second of all, that particular location had street furniture on their as well -- i'm not completely reiterate what commissioner swick said, but there's lots of other options in the immediate area. so it is hard for us to hear this when the legislation itself says underserved and less congested and yet you provide or push forward a mobile food facility that is an extremely heavily congested area as well as it's not in underserved area. that is one. two, understanding that there are differences between the mobile food facility with the trucks as well as the pushcart his, we have mentioned this several times that your legislation identifies them both identically and when the department comes up before us they say know , that is

specifically for a pushcart or that is specifically for a food truck. but your legislation reads that there is no definition in your language. >> i don't have -- >> sorry that they -- there are more comments, but people are very fired up trying to get their business through when they come here. and as you kind of pass the buck to the health department and i'm sure you'll pass the buck to sfmta, is the concern about equity from these mobile food facilities and the brick-and-mortar meaning that the same rules don't seem to apply for the mobile food facilities as they do for the brick-and-mortar. as in the enforcement his portion of that. as you said, you've issued many permits into ludlow zones and most of those zones are providing only one hour or two our parking. but the facility is there for

multiple hours. yet there is no enforcement. and so allots of this stems from public safety. as commissioner swick mentioned, our areas are becoming much more dense. if you go to these mobile food facilities, you will see some of the popular ones have people waiting for a half block and they are blocking the sidewalks. who does the enforcement? is that your responsibility? >> you are correct. enforcement is with m.t.a. that being said, we are engaged with them currently to try to figure out how to better manage the yellow zones in the downtown area. it is something, i know at one point there are some four our yellow zones that were set up a number of years ago to allow food trucks to be there for a

longer period of time. i don't have all the details of those and where those zones are but they are the downtown core area. we know that doesn't necessarily work for the trucks that are trying to make deliveries either that is one of the areas that we are discussing with m.t.a. as to resolve this issue. >> it is tough not to interrupt you but it is a multi- department situation between the health department, d.p.w. as well as sfmta. in your own language, that fee is double and becomes harder to renew your permit upon any action. lacrosse department information do you guys share? so if they are getting a fine from sfmta, does that include, in your permitting process, as far as reissuing the permits?

>> i'm not aware if that connection is being made to. i would have to look into that. >> it says here that every mobile food facility permit is subject to an annual renewal fee of $125 per permit. in addition, if during the course of the preceding year the department received one or more substantial complaints against the permit location, or filed one or more notices of violation against the permits, the department shall assess additional process fees of $159.50 per permit. the department also shall charge inspection fees which are double the initial fees. do you have a statistic of how many people that are participating in this program have been charged those fees? >> i don't have that information with me tonight. >> that is part of the frustration that we end up dealing with on this panel as well. that because when d.p.w. comes here, they say, it is the health department. and when the health department

comes in, it is sfmta. thank you. >> that is true. may be there is something that needs to be coordinated better. they can only do what is under their jurisdiction. >> perhaps we should ask for public comment if there is any and then i have a suggestion to make. >> we haven't heard yet from kenny wong from the department of public health. he is here as well if you would like. >> we apologize. >> if you could move from the door, we have to keep it open for fire egress. there are a couple of seats over there peerk thank you. >> good evening. and kenny wong. principal instructor from the health department and safety program. i have been a principal inspector for 30 years. i have been in mobile foods since may of 2017.

i won't go through the application process in detail. i will provide an overhead. basically there is two routes for permits. either you go private property, and if it's private property, the approval or use of that area will go through planning and zoning. through the two ua. if it goes to public right-of-way they have to go to d.p.w. but basically the requirements are the same. as far as the health department, they have to show proof that they have a restroom at the location or locations. the cart or truck would have to be compliant to codes.

i'm also the principal inspector of plan review for brick-and-mortar. if you want to contrast that, we can do that too. i would like to get into specific questions that you may have. last time we were here, he wanted to know how many inspections were done and what type of violations occur. the name of the business has been taken off but these are routine inspections with the dates. >> mr wong, can you speak into the microphone, please? >> i'm sorry. routine inspection with the date on and the type of violations. i don't know if you can pick this up. may be close up on the violation part.

so there were 175 inspections done. we had 375 mobile foods and pushcarts. you can tell here, it says the various violations, no hot water , permit license inspection report not posted. food safety certificate of food handling, available defective plumbing, modern risk food temperatures. it goes the whole gambit.