tv [untitled] November 8, 2010 7:30pm-8:00pm PST
i did not of the public works is the first with the second on the agenda. as the introduction, these people add to the richness of san francisco and activate public spaces within the city. why are we changing the rules right now. this is hard to understand and sometimes hard to enforce. this is not evenly applied in this can be expensive. we have worked with a number of stickle but -- stapled groups, my office and the planning commission. we have also been working closely with the restaurant association and some organizations that work with the food vendors. there are a couple of regulatory tracks that we have to deal with. the first is the public rights
of way. i will deal with that one and he will deal with the second one. but the ordinance is established that mobile food vendors must have fires ratification one's career. this is a clarification as mobile food may have to go back to the health department to do different kinds of locations. currently, the police department issues permits on streets and sidewalks, and a public hearing is required for all pyramid prohibition against sales of this food -- a one person has to determine what this says. there is at least a $7,500 annual fee to get the trucks started. and here the new regulations that we're putting forward as
part of this legislation. the jurisdiction to transfer the police department to department of public works. this is so that matches the definitions in the health code. the law applied to them for five locations at a time so each card is a separate permit, and this can include five locations. the applicant must show the current fire permits and you have this permit you should show the staff that you have this. if you have not done this you will be directed to go to health to get your inspection. we will check for compliance with the americans for disabilities act, and many of the other roles, will be adopted after this legislation
will making process, which is also a public interest. things like, the park in the month hands down. this will be done after the legislation is passed. this is a major feature of the new proposal. after the application is filed, there will be a notice to all the businesses within 300 feet or one block of the requested location but we do with most of the noticing processes in the city. it will be the responsibility of the applicant for listing businesses within 300 feet. and the public works department will send out an official notice to those businesses and i will know that for the requests, to sell food after o'clock, you
must notify the residence as well as the businesses. and if there are no objections received by mail from the notice, the permit will be issued as long as this will comply with all the other rules. if there are objections that will hold a hearing in front of a hearing officer in which case any issue that needs to come up will be aired, with these kinds of issues. if there is no objection, we will move this -- and if there is an objection, let's provide the venue for this discussion and the hearing officer would make the decision. and this may be appealed to the border permanent appeals. this would not certain how well that you concede this. this is difficult because this depends on how many locations. we have an example of a food
truck with locations in the public street. currently, they would pay about $9,400 in police and health department fees. there is a fee that is not included here. under this proposed change, they only paid 3000. to renew each year, this is about 1500 per year. and assuming that there are no violations the previous year -- if there is a violation, there is a higher fee of about $2,300. this is incentivizing following all the rules. there are some laws about grandfathering these, and the
police department, when this becomes effective, they will have 90 days to apply to this process and they will issue these permits for the same application fees one year from the new permit. the applicant will go through the regular process that i have given. and permit holders are subject to vocational requirements and they have a year to come into compliance. the permits that go back of the 1995 -- the grandfathering disability keep their current locations. the single individual or entity can receive permits for more than 7 mobile food facility. each of them can have an unlimited number of locations
with a can of the more than seven under any other ship. that will not be operating in residential districts, only a neighborhood where commercial or industrial. and there is a provision that permits may be revoked after six months or nine years. and that is the public or changes on streets and sidewalks. i will turn this over to daniel, the will take you to the proposed revisions covering the local food vendors on this kind of property. i will come up with a couple of amendments with the city attorney. >> good morning. justice is slides to quickly go through, with the street from puzzle the those outside of the
public right of way. before i die than to this, last week the planning commission unanimously recommended that you adopt this proposed ordinance, along with one minor change and i will mention in a moment. also, the supervisor mentioned earlier, the planning code currently treats mobile food facilities as they would any other brick and mortar restaurant. this does not fit any of the temporary use provisions and we have to regulate them like any other permanent use. with this requirement and this -- this applies to the global food facilities as well. and given that these facilities are mobile by definition would not think that this is
appropriate. >> the primary thing that this would do from a planning perspective is create a new category of use called intermittent activities. this may be proved for a one- year renewal -- renewable. under specific conditions. specifically, the activity must be located outside of the building, and it must be located outside of the residential districts. and must only operate during the principal times of operation. this can only be on the property only 324-hour days, or no more than six -- no more than 612-hour days.
the uses and the temporary rather than permanent. there is one exception that i draw to your attention, this is under planning cut section 312. if in this district, this has more than 225 square feet, which is the size of a single truck, was within 50 feet of residential district, it must go through neighborhood notice. this is where that one change from the planning commission comes in. there was a discussion about this figure, and the commission is recommending that you increase this to 300 square feet, and i can talk about the reasoning behind this if you choose.
this number is reflected in the legislation that you have before you right now. the new activity category would supplement the existing controls, and the street food vendor did want to operate seven days a week, was of the else that would not be allowed as the intermittent activity. they could seek to do this as a permanent use so long as the sleaziest by the typical domain. the planning staff and the planning commission believe that this legislation has a solid step forward. and they believe that this brings in new vitality and provide small business opportunities as it enriches the culture of the city along with the ordnances that it precludes
the potential for significant adverse impact. and as such, the planning commission did recommend approval. thank you for your time. >> ken rich, from otwd. i wanted to go over some fixes. i wanted to cover one on the beginning. in a conversation with the planning department, on the legistlation and the planning code, you will remember to qualify you would have to be on the property six days a week for 12 hours or 3 for 24 hours. we'd like this at seven days a
week for 12 hours. there are a bunch of them that the attorney can go over that are more or less technical. >> that was requested by the planning department to allow seven-day operations. i want to welcome john, who has done a great job. let's talk about the school issues. we've gotten emails on them. >> i misspoke. the change is proposed not seven days a week, but no limitations. this is not that much different but i just wanted to be clear. >> i will go over the very
straightforward, non-technical amendments. and i will talk about the issues as part of the presentation. the first set of amendments i want to mention either for item number four, the planning code amendment. on the second page, line 20-22 have been deleted. we are taking this as part of the legislation. the only other part of this is on page 5, lines 12-13. we have to determine if there is notice that will be required for the planning code process, to be very clear when this is required. there are a half-dozen amendments within the department of public works code, and i will
run through these. the first of these is on page 5. there are unset -- unsubstantiated complaints and he mentioned -- the may be a higher annual fee for the complaints filed against the mobile food facility. we have to have substantiated complaints. we want to look into this matter so we do not have these complaints. the exchange is on page 8, to clarify the minimum requirement for the pedestrian passage between a mobile foot facility and the sidewalk.
this would change to parallel the same provisional used, for the display merchandise. this is in chinatown and other areas. we're doing this for enforcement purposes. and on page 9, there are a couple of amendments i want to talk about the deal with the issues that you mentioned on line three. we are clarifying that the prohibition, within 1,500 feet of the school, only applies monday through friday, 7:00- 5:00. and the next clarification is in the subsection, line 4-10 on page 9. he was mentioning that certain
that listed had been in existence since 1995 had some additional grandfathering in terms of their location, and this simply clarifies that the only exemption that is allowed is for the new regulations of the department of public works, in terms of the vocational requirements, and the distance from this because they have been in this location for such a long time. some people interpret this to believe that this is for other kinds of exemptions, that this could be closer to the school, but the language that is here right now clarifies that this does not specifically say this, but these grandfathered projects, they have new and additional requirements outside of the legislation.
that would still be subject to these limitations of 1,500 feet away from schools. on page 10, line #2, this deals with an issue that has come up quite a bit, the senior debt of all -- the single day of operations for the permit. if people like for the truck to come to their house or their business, we have a special provision for them to allow for this permit. this came up in the planning commission hearing. they were wanting to make certain that if you were in a residential area, you could have close to the same kinds of parties in this commercial area. the specifies that you can have a single day permit residential district.
the last that wanted to talk about, and this is simply for clarification on page 12, line four, this issue makes sure that there is still this issue of, if the protests is filed against the location, the department of public works, one thing that they could look that is whether or not the new vendor likes the food. we were within 200 feet of the existing food service, and this would change up to 300 feet. ts is similar to the same group of people who get noticed. and again, this will only come up if there is the actual protest and this is something to consider. these of the proposed amendments for today. thank you. >> i know we have a member of
the small business commission, and i just want to invite and give them the opportunity to speak. the talk about the golden gate restaurant association, and how this is incredibly valuable than his input has been very great. >> thank you very much. a question for the city attorney, are these changes -- >> we could act on these changes today. >> thank you. >> i also wanted to say that stephanie and peter are here. >> i did not talk about the school districts, so we should take the department. >> the director of the office of small business. the small business commission has not had the opportunity to
get the legislation. we want to extend the greater appreciation for supervisor dufty to take the initiative on this and ken rich and beau hayward for all the department of components on the. and we are excited about the changes that are being proposed. they are going to be doing a great job to create a mobile food and by men for the city. and the commission when they heard this -- a couple of the amendments here have addressed some of the recommendations, that the committee had an understanding that there are concerns for the 1,500 foot -- they did make the recommendation to have this be
at 1,000 feet, consistent with the medical marijuana dispensaries and the board of supervisors to determine this. if such as meeting notice -- note of this. and also, the grandfathering in of the current permits, if that is extended, that i think the approach that we are taking at the city for having the director of dpw really create the fine details of the requirements of the mobile food vendors will have to follow for you the the push carts or trucks is the right way to go. it will make things more fluid. we will be able to more quickly respond should we need to make modifications. i was just at the california planners association in southern
california talking about what the city is doing, and other cities were very impressed with the approach we are taking. thank you. >> thank you very much. i believe there are a couple of other departments? >> dpw is here. did you want to say anything? no? the health department, you are happy as well? >> anybody from the school district? >> good morning. i just want to thank you for your leadership on this issue. we appreciate you maintain the 1,500 ft buffer in the legislation before you. it is important to us that we have healthy choices for our students at lunchtime and we do not create a situation where students who qualify for reduced
price meals meet on campus, and those who do not go to a food truck for a different option. so thank you for respecting those issues. >> only the high 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