San Francisco Youth Commission
Minutes
Monday, September 20, 2010
5:30-8:00pm
City Hall, Room 416
There will be public comment on each item.
1. Call to Order
Chair LaCroix called the meeting to order at 5:31pm.
Commissioners present: Zukerman, Marshall-Fricker, Liang, Sun, Hewitt, Perez, Fierro, Hirano, Beaulac, Yang, Benezra, Herzstein, Kaminsky, Chan, LaCroix, Lin.
Commissioners absent: Nauer.
Staff present: Yedidia, Jay.
2. Approval of Agenda (Action Item)
Commissioner Zukerman moved to approve the day’s agenda, seconded by commissioner Sun. The agenda was approved unanimously by acclamation.
3. Approval of Minutes (Action Item)
Commissioner Kaminsky moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of September 7, 2010, seconded by commissioner Marshall-Fricker. The minutes were approved unanimously by acclamation.
4. Public Comment on Items not on Agenda
There was none.
5. Executive Committee & Staff Report
Commissioner Benezra, who serves as the commission’s Legislative Affairs Officer, talked about the 12-question survey of San Francisco’s youth that the Youth Commission would be writing, conducting and analyzing in the coming two months. She announced that each of the commission’s three working groups and the Executive Committee would be tasked with writing 3 questions each for the survey, and that the final survey would be approved at the next full commission meeting of October 4, 2010.
Community Outreach Officer Fierro stated that, as would be the norm for the rest of the 2010-2011 term, the Executive Committee had calendared all the items for the day’s meeting (i.e., September 20). Commissioner Fierro also encouraged her fellow commissioners (and the public!) to submit items to the Executive Committee to put on future meeting agendas.
6. Legislation Referred from the Board of Supervisors
A. File no. 101096: Setting Nutritional Standards for Restaurant Food Sold Accompanied by Toys or other Youth Focused Incentive Items (Supervisor Mar; Campos, Chiu)
Presenters: Lin-Shao Chin, Legislative Aide to Supervisor Mar
Documents B, C, D, E, F
Ms. Chin spoke relatively briefly—using using well under the ten minutes granted her by Chair LaCroix—in favor of the proposed legislation. She argued that the proposed ordinance, which sets nutritional standards for any restaurant meal that comes with an “incentive item” (i.e., toy) for youth, addresses San Francisco’s so-called “food deserts”—that is, neighborhoods in San Francisco, many of which are primarily low-income and populated with people of color, that are bereft of healthy food options. Ms. Chin contended that the legislation would encourage fast food restaurants to provide healthier food.
Youth Commissioners Zukerman, Benezra, Yang Liang, Herzstein, LaCroix and Fierro asked Ms. Chin questions. These questions included, among other things, whether the intent (or probable effect) of the ordinance would be the closing of fast food franchises that currently offer incentive items in the City and County; how Supervisor Mar would respond to the California Restaurant Association’s claim that the ordinance would do nothing to reduce childhood obesity; how such an ordinance would be cost neutral (a very important point in light of the City’s overwhelming projected deficit for the 2012 fiscal year) given that, following on the fiscal realities of enforcing Santa Clara’s so-called happy meal ban, enforcing Supervisor Mar’s ordinance would cost the San Francisco Department of Public Health (DPH) some $250,000; whether the law’s nutritional standards would have the effect of making incentive meals more expensive for fast food restaurants; whether the Supervisor had polled people who live in “food desert” communities in San Francisco on their opinion of the proposed ordinance; and how reasonable it is to assume that the law would be effectively enforced, given that all punitive consequences for violating the ban are contingent upon on the complaints of San Francisco residents (most of whom, presumably, eat fast food).
In the course of her fielding of commissioners’ queries, Ms. Chin conceded that there is no extant empirical evidence for such a law effectively combating childhood obesity; a similar ordinance, which was passed in the Spring of this year and became effective a mere few weeks ago, only applies to the unincorporated parts of Santa Clara County. Ms. Chin also cautioned that Supervisor Mar would not claim that this proposed ordinance would, as such, end childhood obesity in San Francisco; rather, Supervisor Mar feels that this ordinance is one strategy among many—she stated that he supports, for example, a pilot nutritional education and exercise program at Francisco Elementary School. Ms. Chin stated plainly that the Supervisor had not polled members of the public—whether they be residents of “food desert” communities or others—on their opinion of this legislation; instead, Supervisor Mar has been working with a number of advocacy organizations on the law. Ms. Chin noted that the ordinance as written would be cost neutral because, should it pass, DPH would not hire additional inspectors to enforce the law. Supervisor Mar has met with a number of owners of fast food franchises in San Francisco, and has assured them that the intent of the law is not to drive them out of town. Ms. Chin said she did not know whether the nutritional standards for incentive meals prescribed in the ordinance would make such meals more expensive to produce for fast food restaurants. Ms. Chin said she “did not know” whether the “average citizen” would call the City to complain in the event of a possible violation.
Chair LaCroix thanked Ms. Chin for her presentation and her answers. There was no public comment.
Legislative Affairs Officer Ava Benezra then read into the public record two letters expressing opposition to the proposed ordinance, authored, respectively, by California Restaurant Association (CRA) President & CEO Jot Condie and Creative Consumer Concepts’ Founder and CEO Bob Cutler.
Commissioner Zukerman then moved to support the proposed ordinance, seconded by commissioner Chan. Staff Mario Yedidia, acknowledging that this was the first time the current term of Youth Commissioners had ever considered a piece of referred legislation, reminded commissioners that they should feel free to discuss this motion, that they needn’t feel that debate was over, that—in effect—they should feel free not to rush.
Commissioners then discussed the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Fierro spoke in favor. She said that while Mr. Condie’s letter notes that the CRA supports exercise among children as an essential tool in combating obesity among young people, as Ms. Chin had noted, exercise alone (or this proposed ordinance alone) would not end childhood obesity. Rather, the proposed ordinance was one tactic among many that, taken together, could very well decrease childhood obesity. Commissioner Yang suggested that it seemed reasonable to conclude that the ordinance, if passed could help combat childhood obesity; thus, given the Youth Commission’s Chartered duty to represent the best interests of young people, perhaps the Youth Commission should urge the Board and Mayor to approve and enact the law. On the other hand, commissioner Yang suggested that in the effort to combat childhood obesity, perhaps City money (and the City’s legislative energies and the staff time of DPH employees) could be better spent on nutritional education.
In turn, commissioner Herzstein commented that while he found the spirit behind the proposed ordinance quite admirable, he was opposed to the law; he cautioned that, if passed, the law could have the ironic effect of penalizing young San Franciscans who are effectively forced because of socioeconomic class and the reality of “food deserts” to eat at fast food restaurants. Commissioner Benezra echoed commissioner Herzstein’s admiration for spirit and the aims of the ordinance, as well as his overall discomfort with the law’s possible effects.
Commissioner Zukerman urged his colleagues to consider who was profiting from the current set-up regarding meals with incentive items, framing this in terms of “youth” versus “corporations.” Commissioner Herzstein countered that fast food franchises were locally owned, and therefore were sources of livelihood for small business owners many of whom probably have children who are members of the Youth Commission’s constituency.
Commissioner Sun spoke in support of the ordinance, arguing, metaphorically, that sometimes parents know best—and casting Supervisor Mar in the role of parent. Commissioner Liang suggested that it was problematic that there was no provision in the ordinance that would require the City to collect data that would help determine whether or not the ordinance was succeeding (i.e., helping curb childhood obesity).
Commissioner Hirano finally suggested to his colleagues that they heed the initial comments of Yang—namely, that it seems reasonable to conclude that the proposed ordinance could do something good for young people (i.e. help curb child hood obesity) and that, as such, the Youth Commission should support the ordinance. Commissioner Hirano then moved that the Youth Commission support the proposed ordinance, seconded by commissioner Fierro. This motion passed by the following roll call vote: “Ayes”—Zukerman, Liang, Sun, Hewitt, Perez, Fierro, Hirano, Beaulac, Yang, Benezra, Kaminsky, Chan, LaCroix, Lin. “No’s”—Marshall-Fricker, Herzstein.
Commissioners Zukerman, Benezra, Herzstein, Fierro, Hirano and Yang committed to helping craft a substantive memo reflecting the commission’s preceding discussion to be transmitted to the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor as an accompaniment to the Commission’s support of the ordinance.
7. Presentations
Commissioner Liang moved to take item 7B out of order, seconded by commissioner Chan. This motion was approved unanimously by acclamation.
B. Request for Partnership: Neighborhood Empowerment Network’s Awards
Presenter: Daniel Homsey, Director, Neighborhood Empowerment Network, City Administrator’s Office, General Services Agency
Documents H, I
Mr. Homsey provided the Youth Commission with an overview of the Neighborhood Empowerment Network (NEN), a joint project of the City’s Department of Emergency Management and General Services Agency. NEN brings together community organizations, neighborhood groups, merchant associations, academic institutions and City government in an effort to improve quality of life and strengthen the social fabric of San Francisco’s neighborhoods. Each year, NEN hosts an awards ceremony in City Hall, where neighborhood leaders are acknowledged and celebrated.
Subsequent to his Powerpoint presentation, Mr. Homsey requested that the Youth Commission move to formally endorse a partnership with NEN. Concretely, this partnership would mean that in the immediate future, the Youth Commission would (1) help develop a framework for a new NEN award for a neighborhood youth leader; (2) solicit nominations for a neighborhood youth leader from community members; and (3) come to the NEN awards!
After commissioners Zukerman and LaCroix asked brief questions, commissioner Fierro, seconded by commissioner Zukerman, moved that the Youth Commission enter into a kind of partnership with the NEN vis-à-vis this award ceremony. This motion was passed unanimously by acclamation.
Chair LaCroix thanked Mr. Homsey for his presentation.
A. An Overview of the Recreation and Parks Department
Presenter: Bob Palacio, Neighborhood Services Manager, Recreation and Parks Department
Document G
At the outset, Mr. Palacio stated that one of the intended goals of his presentation was to begin the process of regularizing and making more regular communication between the Recreation and Parks Department (RPD) and the Youth Commission. Mr. Palacio then provided an overview of RPD, with special emphasis on the department’s new recreation model, which was borne out of, in large part, the $12.4 million General Fund reduction with which the department was saddled for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. Mr. Palacio made special mention of the department’s retooled and robust scholarship policies and fund. Finally, Mr. Palacio described RPD’s creation of Community Recreation Councils—neighborhood-specific advisory bodies, that are still in their incipient stages of formation, that will advise the department on local issues—and invited the Youth Commission to provide suggestions, comments or recommendations regarding their structure and membership (especially with respect to young people!).
Commissioners Fierro, Kaminsky, Chan and Sun thanked Mr. Palacio for his presentation and asked clarifying questions regarding the Community Recreation Councils, the substance of the department’s scholarship policies, RPD’s standardizing of its pool programming, how the projected deficit for the upcoming fiscal year would affect RPD’s programming, and the status of the department’s relationship to First Tee.
Public Comment:
Dede Hewitt encouraged the Youth Commission to inquire into RPD’s recent firing of full time recreation directors and the effects of these terminations on the community, especially as this relates to gang and violence prevention; she also encouraged the Youth Commission to inquire into RPD’s scholarship policy;
Javonte Holloway, a Western Addition resident who lives down the street from Hamilton Recreation Center, expressed his regret that recently laid off recreation directors weren’t rehired;
Ahmani, a member of the Western Addition community, spoke against the firing of recreation directors, called for more youth programming and asked for the Youth Commission to get more regular updates from RPD on the new recreation model;
Marya Robinson said that on August 13th all front-line recreation workers were laid off and that on August 14th there were not enough employees in place, and argued that RPD had located its budget cuts precisely at the point where the department interacts with youth;
Marcus J. Snails, 12 years old, spoke out against the firing of recreation directors, given the father-like relationships many recreation directors have with the young people who frequent RPD facilities;
Marquis Chapman, spoke against the layoffs, arguing that recreation directors provide important mentorship;
Stanley Gough encouraged the Youth Commission to ask what services, if any, RPD was providing for young people reentering neighborhoods from Juvenile Hall.
Chair LaCroix thanked members of the public for their comments and for staying to speak throughout such a lengthy meeting. She said she hoped the Youth Commission would be able to provide them with some answers to their questions.
C. Request for Feedback and Partnership: California Music and Culture Association’s (CMAC) Campaign for a Violence-Free Halloween
Presenter: Freida Edgette, Director, Barbary Coast Consulting
Documents J, K
Mr. Terrance Allan, Secretary of the California Music and Culture Association (CMAC), a new trade organization of late-night entertainment venue owners and music promoters, described CMAC’s consciousness-raising campaign promoting a violence-free Halloween in 2010. He invited the Youth Commission to CMAC’s kick-off at The Regency on October 20th.
There was no public comment.
Commissioners Fierro, Benezra and Yang asked clarifying questions.
Commissioner Herzstein moved to endorse CMAC’s Dare to Take the Scare Out of Halloween campaign, seconded by commissioner Kaminsky. This motion was approved unanimously by acclamation.
8. Youth Commission Business
There was none.
9. Attendance Review
None to review.
10. Announcements (This includes Community Events)
Commissioner Sun invited her colleagues to a Saturday, October 2, District 4 Cleanup event, set to take place on the corner of Sunset Ave & Pacheco St.
11. Adjournment
Chair LaCroix adjourned the meeting at 7:35pm.
Supplemental documents for agenda items are available for review at City Hall Room 345. Minutes are also available on the Youth Commission Website at www.sfgov.org/youth_commission.
ACCESSIBLE MEETING POLICY
The Youth Commission meeting will be held in City Hall Room 416. The formal address of City Hall is 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, CA. The closest accessible BART station is the Civic Center Station at the United Nations Plaza and Market Street. Accessible MUNI lines serving this location are: MUNI Metro Lines J-Church, K-Ingleside, L-Taraval, M-Oceanview, N-Judah, and T-Third Street at Van Ness and Civic Center Stations; 9-San Bruno, 19-Polk, 47-VanNess, and 71-Haight Noriega. For information about MUNI accessible services call 923-6142.
The Commission meeting room is wheelchair accessible. Accessible curbside parking spaces have been designated on the corners of McAllister and Polk, and Grove and Polk. There is accessible parking available within the Civic Center Underground Parking Garage at the corner of McAllister and Polk Streets, and within the Performing Arts Parking Garage at Grove and Franklin Streets.
If you require the use of an American sign language interpreter, a sound enhancement system, or a reader during the meeting, calendars and minutes of the meeting in alternative formats; such arrangements can be made by calling Mario Yedidia at (415) 554-6446, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. Late requests will be honored if possible.
Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities should call our accessibility hotline at (415) 554-8925 to discuss meeting accessibility. In order to assist the City’s efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City to accommodate these individuals.
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE
(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code)
Government’s duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people’s business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people’s review.
For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance, or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact by mail: Administrator, Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, City Hall Room 224, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, CA 94102; by phone at (415) 554-7724; by fax at (415) 554-7854; or by e-mail at sotf@sfgov.org.
Citizens interested in obtaining a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance can request a copy from the Administrator, Sunshine Ordinance Task Force or by printing Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code on the internet, at http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=4459.
The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers, and similar sound-producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the Chair may order the removal from the meeting room of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound-producing electronic device. (Admin. Code § 67A.1).
In order to assist the City’s efforts to accommodate persons with severe allergies, environmental illnesses, multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical- based products. Please help the City accommodate these individuals.