reasons. 75% of our annual revenue comes from tea sales to companies in san francisco, where companies with enjoy our tea on site. some examples are airbnb, uber, dropbox, square, thumbtack, u.s.f., i don't want to mention anymore, but those are some of the key ones that are probably the most applicable to this circumstance. i understand the frustrations of dedicated restaurant owners in the supervisor's district, and i get that it's competitive. i do think that it's an overreach and a slippery slope, though, if the city starts getting involved with telling people where they can eat. i'm a big believer in the competitive spirit. in fact, the supervisor said that people in his district own restaurants can't compete with free. while i was at cpnc hospital, my wife was giving birth to our twin girls a couple months ago,

they offered us free meals four days in a row. i had none. i walked two blocks away to get the kind of food, coffee, and tea that you wanted. you can actually compete, and i do think the competitive spirit is the way to ultimately offer the best product and service. the feedback we get from a lot of these employees is that the city still has a ways to go cleaning up the homeless issue, some sanitation issues, it's inconvenient for them to venture out. it's not that they don't like the food, it's just that it's not practical and convenient to actually leave the, you know, their own site, their own breakrooms, refreshment centers, and cafeterias. i'm not saying i have the solution for all of these things, but i don't want to start putting band-aids on a bigger problem. i think suggesting banning a cafeteria in a private company to me seems like kind of an overreach and a little bit too drastic of a measure. i take great pride in being a local business owner.

we provide quality products. i think this ban would make it harder for businesses like mine to grow. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi, guys. i'm a little nervous. i'm also a san francisco native, so i grew up seeing the different changes that happened in san francisco, but also one of the reasons why i feel concerned about banning our cafeterias is because it also, like he said, gives us stability, but i do also have home issues that i can take charge of. like, for instance, my mom had a stroke a few years ago, so it gives me time to think about her and the kids that are also involved. also, it takes a lot of weight from having to think about what i'm going to buy and figure out what i could do to keep our family together, you know, some of those things also play a part in a lot of people's roles, and thinking about going to school and finishing a degree, so that

i could further my life. so i think that is one of the things that should also be included, that it's not just about keeping the community together, but also thinking about the broader problems that are in other people's lives. so having stability does help a lot. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is jen, i'm the executive director of s.f. city. for those of you that are not aware, we are san francisco's tech advocacy organization here in town. so, there's been a lot of really great points covered today by a number of our members and their workers, and i'd like to kind of cover a little bit more of a larger ecosystem. i, fortunately, as the industry representative, am able to take a look at many different companies and really get a feel for the impact of this

legislation. so we represent tech companies both big and small. many of the companies that are here in the room today. we have been able to gather some data that's, you know, quite significant. there is hundreds of jobs so far that we have identified that would be at risk with this legislation. these are really good jobs, as we've covered already today. some of our employers are paying on average 30% more than the market. we also have really good opportunities through these jobs for people to be upskilling and breaking into the tech industry. many of these different employers have great programs for employees that start in the kitchen to move on up to other departments. i actually just spoke with a company yesterday, where they lost one of their best chefs to become a customer service manager. so there's some really cool opportunities that are happening in these companies, and we really want to be cognizant of just how good these jobs are. and on the other end, as you guys have heard from the tea

companies here in town, obviously, there's a lot of tea here in the room. there's a lot of vendor contracts that are currently being held with these employee cafeterias. i don't have the exact number, but i can tell you that there is tens of thousands spent at some of these cafeterias just at san francisco businesses alone on a daily basis. these are not small contracts. and while the legislation is meant to affect future cafeterias being put in, as you guys know, tech is always changing, and, quite frankly, pretty much every tech company in town is either looking to move, expand, or has growth on the horizon, so it may not affect existing cafeterias right now, many of our members are going to be affected either in the imminent future or down the road. a few other things that i wanted to cover with these future plans to move, there's going to be a number of jobs that are in the pipeline that are going to be quashed. at least 350 that i've identified.

in summary, we support small business, and we support bringing different initiatives to grow the local community and work with restaurants, but, quite frankly, this kind of job loss is not the way to do it. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. hi. >> good afternoon. my name is alejandra, and i've been a cafeteria worker at facebook for almost three years now. i'm a member of unite here local 19, and we're against this proposed law. before i worked in the cafeteria at facebook, i worked in a restaurant doing food prep for about three years. when i worked in the restaurant, i didn't have a regular schedule, i didn't have secure hours or any benefits or guaranteed raises. the working conditions aren't always the best either. i was working in a restaurant when i was pregnant with my daughter, and i tripped over a cable in the kitchen and i fell.

i didn't want to get sent home, because then i wouldn't get paid, so i didn't do anything about it, just hoped for the best. i was on medi-cal when she was born. now after my coworkers and i organized the union in the facebook cafeteria, i can see a career in this job. i enjoy what i do. i can strive for a better position. we have guaranteed raises. i finally have health insurance, and i don't have to be stressed about money or what to do when my daughter gets sick, and we don't have to rely on public assistance anymore. i have job security that my family can rely on, and most importantly, i now feel proud of the job i have. i'm proud to work at facebook and proud to be part of the growth that's happening. not only has my life gotten better, but hundreds of my coworkers and their families' lives have gotten better, and here's just a few of them. food service workers like me can only benefit from the growth of the tech industry if they are organized. now that we organized, we feel

like we are part of the team and we can grow with the company. i want my future coworkers in san francisco to have the same opportunities that working in a nonunion restaurant didn't give me. please vote no on this proposed law. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. okay. you can use the other mike there, too. [ speaking in spanish ]

>> translator: good afternoon, i'm a cook in flagship facebook in menlo park, and we are opposed to these proposals, because cafeterias are an important source of good jobs for our families. [ speaking in spanish ] >> translator: i have been with the company for almost eight years, and i'm one of the workers with the most seniority there. throughout these years, i've seen how facebook has evolved, and i've been able to live through the changes that happened since we achieved the union contract. [ speaking in spanish ]

>> translator: i have benefited by getting a pension. in the future i will have social and economic security. we have also achieved better treatment from the managers towards the workers. now we have respect and dignity. [ speaking in spanish ] >> translator: the most important part is that we have much better health insurance. before the union i used to pay $180 a month just for myself, and it was too expensive to get coverage for my wife. now i have good health insurance for the two of us for only $17.50 a month. [ speaking in spanish ]

>> translator: and this is very important for me, because my wife right now is going through a health crisis. i want the cooks of san francisco to have the same opportunities that i have had with the cafeteria and the union. thank you for your time. >> president hillis: thank you very much. appreciate it. >> excuse me, folks, if we could refrain from the clapping. >> president hillis: next speaker, please. >> edin louis, hotel and restaurant workers union, we represent 4,000 food service workers, and he's not here right now, but i want to appreciate what commissioner richards said at the outset about equality. we can create tens of thousands new jobs in the city and it will only make problems worse. every crisis facing our city from housing to health care traces back to income

inequality, and the only way you address that is by finding ways to support workers who want to organize into unions and fight back for good jobs for working-class people. we have 2,300, almost 2,500 workers on strike right now in the streets trying to raise the standards in the hospitality workers industry. this is a massive distraction. what our city needs to be doing right now is figuring out how we create more good jobs for working-class people, how we organize into unions. and i'm not here to say every corporate cafeteria brings a good job. there are many corporate cafeteria companies where working conditions are terrible, frankly, but from first-hand experience, workers in that industry have a better shot at organizing into a union and winning the respect from their employer that they will not campaign against them when they try to organize. than in restaurants or in catering companies.

the union's standard in cafeterias in san francisco, $20 to $23 an hour, depending on your classification, free family health care, a pension when you retire, medical coverage when you retire. those are standards that let people continue to live in san francisco. again, not every corporate cafeteria brings the promise of that, but we have a fighting chance of making this industry that leading edge that we need in the city. don't roll us backwards, especially now when our backs are to the wall fighting tooth and nail to raise standards. come and help us. don't obstruct us. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here on behalf of the golden gate restaurant association. the golden gate restaurant association supports the intent of the cafeteria ban to apply only to nonretail corporate cafeterias, be applicable only to new buildings zoned as offices, not prevent the

provision of free food or snacks, rather the building out of a full service nonretail cafeteria operation. we're still encouraging on the catering of food from local restaurants and caterers and providing the local goods from those restaurants, caterers, and small businesses, and we're not asking to impact existing businesses retroactively. i'm here to address creating health code amendments to differentiate between cafeterias that operate as a full service daily nonretail cafeteria, versus a kitchen that may be used for cooking and preparation. in addition to changing the health code, we'd like to address other options. as far as catering, we'd like to support the idea of catering to have local businesses be more involved in these cafeterias and these small and larger buildings. as far as the impact on jobs go, while it is true the restaurant jobs have less ideal hours since their busiest times are evenings and weekends, there's a massive shortage of workers in the

industry. if you were to search restaurant jobs, you'd find everything from neighborhood coffee shops to michelin-star restaurants across the city that are starving for talent right now. additionally, according to the commerce and inventory, even establishments represent more than 35% of all retail sales tax in san francisco with more than 4.7 billion in taxable sales that supports our local economy. the survival and vitality of the restaurant industry is critical to san francisco's overall economy. traditional restaurant jobs create a path to other jobs that have much higher wages. with the tips and everything involved and have good compensation or the small business ownership of opening restaurants and small businesses in parts of the city or the bay area itself. as the commission considers what happened in the mid market area and promise of central soma rezoning, we think it's a critical time to think about the ground floor experience in our city. vibrant communities have the

promise of new jobs in the context of the greater economic impact they have on the local ecosystem. the notion of the ban is a consideration of whether the requirement of mixed-use zoning can actually achieve the city active street scape that we're hoping for, that our general plan contemplates, and we hope after careful consideration you support our recommendations. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is marta. i'm working for the cafeteria, this is very important to us working in the cafeteria. working in the cafeteria is better for me, because i work before seven years in the other business, so for now in the seven years that i was in there, i didn't have, like, a lot of wage, so right now i'm working

in this cafeteria. i have more benefits for my family and more time with my family, and also they were granted free hours to have more money for my family, and the other business, sometimes they don't have, like, a lot of hours to offer for my, so i have to look for two different jobs. so this one is better for me, so it's better to have cafeterias for now, and this company, all the people that we work, the coworkers and the managers, they are very nice persons, so the other ones sometimes are more -- sorry. for me, can you please consider it to have cafeterias?

the small business is good also, but for us, the cafeteria is very important. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is sagita. i work in the cafeteria. i am against banning the cafeteria. i have some story to tell, and i work for this company, the company is very nice, they treat us very well, and my story is i live at costa bay and me and my sister work for this company, and we work different hours. the most important thing for us, flexible hours. i start at 7:00, she starts at 10:00. my sister is very sick, she's sick in bed, she's very sick, and my brother works at night. so me and my sister, they have kids, and then early in the morning my sister takes in the morning because she starts at

10:00, and i get home early, so i get home in the afternoon, at night. so besides doing very nice, they give us a good faith and also i don't have to worry. i leave 4:00 in the morning to get here at work in the morning, so we get to eat here. and they are very nice, and we have the weekend off. that weekend i get to help my brother. if we didn't have the flexible hours to work for this company, would have been big trouble, so my brother would not be able to work at night. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is justin. i also work in one of the cafeterias. i've worked there for about three years now, and it has been the best job i've ever held, and i cannot believe i work at somewhere so special. i think one of the things we really do is we also have a big impact on the local community, as well as our employees. we heard from martha. i've actually worked with martha

the past five or six years. we started a different company together that i left to work where i am now. she was one of the people that i wanted to come and work with me, just because she had such a strong work ethic, and i knew that this kind of style of working and hours would really benefit her life and her growing family. in addition to that, we also partner with some amazing people, not just the tea companies that are here today, but companies such as 1951 coffee, which is across the bay, which is -- has a program right now to help train refugees from other parts of the world, of course, how to become baristas. we celebrate them. we've also hired a few of them into our own staff to give them stable employment in a time of transition, as well as work with other tea companies such as the phoenix collection. i wanted to just say that, because they are local, and david hoffman is a really amazing guy. and -- excuse me for a moment.

places like seneca fosters abuse, we have partnered with to celebrate foster awareness month, and interacted with some of our own people through the company that we are currently at to kind of help foster additional training for them. sorry, i lost my train of thought there. but yeah, so i see a lot of impact that we've done, and we've made a lot of differences all around the bay area. thank you very much. >> president hillis: great, thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is harry o'brian. i'm here today on behalf of first republic bank. we sent you a letter earlier in the week. i have some extra copies here just to be sure you see that. we're really here today to ask that if this legislation does move forward, that you recommend an expanded grandfathering and

legitimization process for these cafeterias. there's historically been a lot of confusion within the department about how to approve those, so as you know, there's a situation that first republic has, where the cafeteria was approved by the department, built out at a substantial cost, and then ultimately determined by the department that that permit was issued in error. we've been to you once to try to get a conditional use for that, and that was denied. we're in the process of developing a new proposal to come back to you, would incorporate some public access to the cafeteria, take-out window and public seating in a portion of that. we have a concern specifically with respect to that facility that if this legislation move forward quickly, we wouldn't have an opportunity to resolve that awkward situation before it came -- before the legislation became effective. so we would like to see an expanded grandfather

legitimization process. also like to echo something somebody else mentioned earlier about the difficulties then of relocating these facilities. if a company opens a cafeteria in leased space in an existing building, they would not be able to replicate that cafeteria in a different building, unless there was some specific provision made for relocation in the legislation. so, that's another way even for existing facilities that were legally established, that those jobs you've been hearing about could be at risk. so i think that would also be an important thing to address in this legislation. got a little more detail in the letter. i won't repeat all of that. thank you for your consideration. we appreciate it. >> president hillis: all right, thank you. next speaker, please. and if anybody else would like to speak after this gentleman, please line up on the screen side of the room. >> good afternoon. my name is zach burlich, i'm the

chief financial officer and owner of a company founded in san francisco in 1976 by my grandfather, and we've grown within the bay area from just a few employees to now having over 300 employees who all live within san francisco and the greater bay area. i know the restaurant industry is very volatile, and we take much pride in the fact that 80% of our customer base are small and dependent operators. but it's with partnerships with larger customers like the ones that are being talked about today, that's how we maintain stable business base through which we can afford to pay all of our 300 employees a living wage and ride out the ups and downs of the normal restaurant industry. as part of our contracts with these companies, we, ourselves, have not seen any notable contraction in growth with our

other smaller independent operators, and have only seen about the same to more restaurant openings since this phenomenon has hit the city. rather than our operators become a small percentage, they've grown and increased our business base, and i would assume it's because the amount of people these companies are bringing into the city. outside of this, the relationship with the tech companies help us in our purchasing power with our vendors, both local and national. the amount of product we purchase for these cafeterias allow us to exert some pricing pressure on those vendors and bring down our own cost to goods, which in turn we can pass along to our smaller independent operators, which we wouldn't be able to do if we hadn't been buying the volume we do with the larger corporations, and as you know with restaurant margins being so small, any cost decrease we can pass along to smaller customers because of the larger customers, it's a benefit

to them and keeps them in business for longer, which is, i think, what everybody would like to see happen today. outside of that, the companies that we contract with have made a great effort to buy local, from local vendors, and these vendors wouldn't otherwise be able to contract with a company like mine and, therefore, wouldn't be able to contract with the smaller companies that we then can offer their product to, since it was brought in for facebook or airbnb. when we bring those local products in, we can sell them. in closing, i myself am a proud member of the san francisco castro district. i live there, i've lived there for a long time now. i see firsthand the problems and the benefits of the tech industry has brought into the city, but as some of the other previous speakers, i don't think these cafeterias are really on the top of the docket that we need to address before we move on. thank you.

>> president hillis: thank you very much. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, i think. yes, seeing none, we'll close public comment. thank you all for your input. we'll open it up for commissioner comments and questions. commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: thank you, mr. president. lately we haven't been in favor of bans too often. last couple times i think we heard some potential bans over cannabis or hotels, and in interest of what we think is best for the city and this commission, we'd like to actually hear those items and have them earn the approvals. we're not up here handing out approvals for no reason. every thursday we actually want project sponsors or developers to come here with a really thought out, robust plan that's going to benefit the residents,

the businesses, and the city as a whole. so i don't think a ban is going to solve the problem here. i really would like to acknowledge the groups that recently formed 2501. happy for you. i'm glad to hear that your voices are being heard, and you're actually going to get paid a decent wage. it's a very important deal for people to make a good income so they can stay here in san francisco, so they have enough money to also after paying their rent go buy food, go to the movies, go shopping, go down union square, and so in order for this city to function, we have to take care of our residents, take care of our businesses, and give the tools that enable them to succeed. i think time, time within the work day has a lot to do with this also. i think we'd all like to have enough full-time to go walk around, go have a sit-down meal, and then, you know, leisurely stroll back to work.

in the construction field you only get a half-hour lunch, so a lot of times people don't have time to go out and find a sit-down restaurant that's maybe not busy enough for them to have a quick meal and get back to work before it's time. i do think we should do as much as we can to encourage within the cafeterias the use of local businesses, local suppliers, and especially the local residents, paying them a good wage. i'd really like to see maybe some more information on the wages that some of these restaurants are paying their workers compared to maybe what the workers in the cafeterias are making, and then we can kind of go from there and see what the delta is right there. but i see this, i see the cafeterias, you know, mainly a lunchtime issue, and i don't think they are singly at hand for maybe a decrease in business

at the restaurants. there's some restaurants in my work neighborhoods that i've been going to for years and years, and the prices have just increased and increased, and sometimes it's cheaper and easier to just bring your own food. so i don't think everyone can afford to eat out at restaurants every day in the first place, especially for maybe multiple meals a day. also along the lines of kind of encouraging more local involvement, we do have seems like i'm seeing some real good partnership opportunities with possibly these restaurants that are saying they are seeing decreased business. maybe somehow the cafeterias and these restaurants can literally have a pipeline together so everybody's happy. but totally ready to hear what the other commissioners have to say. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: thank you. i just want to thank everyone who came out today, especially those who shared your personal experiences and stories of working in cafeterias.

it's incredibly helpful to hear. you know, i think that this, as many people have said today, this is the exact right time for us to be having a community conversation about how we encourage a vibrant downtown in which people with lots of diverse backgrounds and experiences interact with each other and which we're supporting small and local businesses, in which we're bringing people together around food and culture and all of the things that make san francisco so wonderful. and so i understand and support the intent of this legislation to really take a hard look at that and try to work with the code to try to find ways to encourage that vibrancy. i have a unique perspective on this issue. i've always worked in the nonprofit and philanthropic sector, but i've had the privilege of getting to work with a lot of companies that actually do have cafeterias, and i've gotten to see firsthand how they have used those cafeterias to spur job creation, to support our local nonprofits, to raise

hundreds of thousands of dollars for our local organizations, and to connect the different parts of our community together. i've seen companies take on interns from local culinary job training programs to help people upskill and then hire those folks into living wage, good jobs that can really help stabilize and support their families. i've seen people transition from those kitchen staff jobs into the companies directly, and, you know, be upskilled into different types of positions and have their career trajectory and lives change. i've seen companies take chances on local small business leaders who are doing more cottage food industry stuff and pop-up stuff and hire them inside to have a stand or be a vendor to them and actually have spurred and supported their businesses. i've seen companies use their cafeterias to host local nonprofits' fundraising events, and as a nonprofit worker, being

able to partner with a company where they are taking full control and care of all of the events so you literally just have to show up and bring your donors and then have employees actually come and support your nonprofit and get exposed to your nonprofit, because you can meet in this really beautiful intersection of a community cafeteria has been really exciting to see. and i've also seen employees see it as -- see their cafeterias as a resource to help community. and one company in particular, there were a group of employees who were volunteering at a local high school, and realized that the local high school students needed to fundraise for food for their prom, and they decided to donate their lunch and cafeteria food to the local high school for their prom. all of this is to say that i've seen really creative uses for cafeterias as places of connection and local community support, and i think that those

types of activities are the things that we want to encourage, not discourage. you know, my own community organizing work i've found that it's important to know when to use the carrot and the stick to try to help to encourage the type of social change that you want to see, but i think instead of posturing ourselves in the perspective of a ban, we have an incredible opportunity with lots of different community members that want to be part of the solution of making our downtown vibrant, to bring them together, whether it's through a working group or a series of holistic initiatives to come together to figure out how we can revitalize our mid market area. and so i'm really hopeful that that working group will form, will expand, will bring the right perspectives to the table. and really, again, create an opportunity to encourage a thoughtful, more robust package of legislation and initiatives.

i really do think that the recommendations of the planning staff were thoughtful and interesting, and i'd love to dig in on those more, as well. and i think that with those recommendations, it just feels clear to me that this whole thing needs a bit more time to bake, and i just, you know, could not in good conscience support legislation that, again, i think is well intentioned, puts at risk a huge potential for our community to come together in the name of very narrow legislation. specifically around cafeterias. so, i am not in support of this legislation, but i would love to hear what my fellow commissioners think. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: thank you, commissioner johnson. i could not say it better. only thing i would add, to me,

as one of our speakers, public commentors, said, there is really no more important fight right now in the city than income inequality, and any opportunity that we have to provide easier ways for workers to organize, have a collective bargaining agreement that allows them to have a living wage is really, really important to me. and so i understand supervisor safai's intent in this legislation. i just think in the cost-benefit analysis, i cannot support it as it is. i do appreciate the staff's work on it, and i would say that given our recent experience with one front street, we do want to, you know, be clear about the siting and other things that we're trying to achieve in terms

of activation of the street particularly, you know, after hours, but i think that that's a separate issue than, you know, an outright ban on the cafeterias that are in companies right now. so i will not be supporting this legislation either. >> president hillis: thanks. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so, i've been a beneficiary of a company cafeteria for probably 25 of the 30 years i was in tech, so i understand, you know, what it's all about. i probably gained 50 pounds eating all the food that was supplied to me. it's interesting, this is a very well-intentioned goal. it's getting the conversation started, and i think when i read the case report and actually thought about mid market and the twitter building and the market struggling and restaurants going out of business, it is a sobering fact that we have this going on amidst all this prosperity, and i thought when twitter would locate and kings lane would locate at mid market,

we'd have a vibrant commercial center there, and that's really not happened. the goal, i think, is increasing foot traffic on sidewalks by having employees patronize local businesses, and the balance with that is, creating wealth for small businesses and opportunities for entrepreneurs. so, you know, shared prosperity here. we need to strike a balance. we need to keep and stabilize these great jobs and hopefully unionize all 44 of those cafeterias and increase that job pool, but also we need to make sure we create jobs for small businesses and families that run them, but the conundrum is the pie is only so big. i mean, unless you keep adding workers and workers and workers, what's the balance there? where you have critical mass of people eating at the cafeteria, but also people, you know, going out there on the street. they don't eat lunch twice, only eat lunch, hopefully, once. i do agree with the terms commissioner johnson said, i'd rather use a carrot than a stick, and to that end i think

the planning staff's recommendations were the most spot-on i've seen in any set of recommendations. there's none that i disagree with. i think on number three, the interesting thing is, one of the things i wanted to say is, first story if they are open to the public, we tend to view these cafeterias as binary, either have to be on the ground floor, tenth floor, 30th floor, and it's not accessible to the public, but the last employer i was with, they were in a high-rise with a little complex of buildings next door, and i look and say the first tower now and all the retail space in the rooftop park, you could have your employee cafeteria not in the building, but four doors down and still be open to the public. we can get creative here, because this is a forward-looking piece of legislation. not like we're trying to retrofit what we've got in the existing buildings and cafeterias. we have a lot of planning going on for all these 6 or 8 million square feet of office space in the pipeline. this is the time to actually get creative. one other thing i'd like to say is, i'd like the -- i wouldn't

like to prescribe or legislate the fact that companies have to give vouchers, but i like the voucher concept as akin to what we had of the commuter check. you have $100 a month, whether you use it or not, and generally, who throws $100 away? you use it. if you get a restaurant check, a card with $100 on it to spend at a restaurant, that's a great way to do it. i really think these are all spot-on, and i completely support planning staff's recommendations. >> president hillis: great, thank you. i'll just chime in. i agree with most everything that was said today. i appreciate supervisor safai coming here and kind of explaining his intent, because i agree with his intent. i don't necessarily agree with kind of where the legislation went. i think by his own admission, this is a bit blunt in how to do it, just by banning all cafeterias. so i can't support that unless there's a lot more kind of data and thought into why we would do

that. we heard today and received e-mails some of the great reasons why we'd encourage these kinds of cafeterias if done right, especially the ones that have organized labor and are paying good wages and benefits, and those that are using local suppliers for kind of the chain of goods that they are then selling or providing through employees. so i think staff's recommendations were good, but i think we need a lot more thought. i mean, there may be geography to this, there may be certain sizes we want to do c.u.s for, but i think a lot more thought and data needs to go in. we hear about mid market, yet if you walk to the twitter building now, i'm sure it's pretty busy and there aren't vacancies there. i know there's been some closures in mid market, but if we get to know why there were those and why there are

vacancies. downtown where most of these cafeterias are, i don't think we see a lot of vacancies or kind of a dearth of restaurants or food service outlets. we tend to see more kind of chain operations downtown than what we're seeing in some of these cafeterias, so i just don't think this is ready. i couldn't support it as-is. i know the staff is saying recommend approval with changes, but to me it's somewhat of a disapproval, because it's saying, you know, pretty much upend what's here and rethink it. and that's what i think we have to go here. so i don't want to necessarily -- i support where the staff is going, but i would lean more towards, you know, disapproving a ban and kind of rethinking with some of the folks who actually testified today on how we could, you know, make the cafeterias that exist and new ones like the ones we heard about. so, i echo most everything that was said by commissioners. commissioner richards?

>> commissioner richards: i'll make the motion, and i'd love to hear amendments to it, if there's any concern, but i move that, you know, this commission doesn't really support an outright ban. we do support more exploration through the recommendations to the planning staff, among other things that we've heard today, and i'd move to take that and get it to the land use committee and get this thing rolling, get the conversation continuing. i recommend moving this out of here today with the explicit understanding that we're not supporting a ban, but planning staff's recommendations around how to do this more with a carrot and stick approach with the six or eight recommendations that they had. >> president hillis: i think there's also additional recommendations that could come forward. >> commissioner richards: sure. >> president hillis: maybe staff can explain what it is that's in front of us. i mean, to me, this is a ban, so if we're saying we don't approve a ban, we're disapproving this when asking for alternatives to come forward. i know you all are walking a fine line on this, too, but i'd

say let's just be clear, we don't support the ban. that's pretty much a disapproval. >> page four has alternatives to a complete ban with all things listed, which is what we're trying to say. we don't want a ban, we want to explore alternatives and other ones we come up with today. >> secretary: you could say recommend disapproval, because that's how the ordinance is written, and with the caveat that said and explore other alternatives as outlined in the staff report, or you could say recommend approval with modifications as outlined in the staff report. remove the ban, but do the modifications. i think a disapproval might be more clear, and have them kind of go back to the drawing board, but either way the time is up on the 29th and they can move forward with that after that. >> president hillis: okay. >> commissioner richards: if we want to be clear, i'd recommend

disapproval and explore alternatives. >> president hillis: i think it's good to be clear. >> second. >> president hillis: could be other alternatives, too. that's kind of a start, but we heard alternatives today i think we should explore. all right, there's a motion and a second. jonas? >> secretary: indeed. so, just to clarify, the motion that has been seconded is to disapprove the proposed legislation with a recommendation to explore the alternatives. on that motion -- [ roll call ] so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5-0. commissioners, that will place us on item 15. if those persons exiting the chambers could do so quietly, we'd certainly appreciate that. items 15 a and b,

2016-012474cua. 118-134 kissling street. this is a zoning map amendment and conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff, the first item before the planning commission is adopting the draft resolution for zoning map amendment to san francisco map sheet zn-07 to rezone block 3517 and lot numbers 039, 040, 041, and 042 from a residential enclave that's r.e.d. to a residential enclave mix r.e.d.-m.x. the second item is a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 303, 823, 847.58 to permit construction of vehicle storage stackers with 96 spaces serving an existing

automotive repair use doing business as royal automotive group with a new screen wall along kissling street located at 118-134 kissling street. again, within the red-mx district. the project includes construction of a four-level, 30'6" on lots 039, 040, 041, and 042 for an existing automotive repair shop expansion. the project also includes construction of a 32'7" tall screen wall along kissling street. on march 10th, 2016, this planning commission approved motion 19588, adopting findings related to the approval of a c.u.a. pursuant to planning code section 303 and 844.71 for enclosed vehicle storage with a total of 132 spaces for an

existing automotive repair facility within the zoning district. the project was phase one of an automotive repair expansion for the entity doing business as royal motors. on october 19th, 2017, planning commission resolution number 20031. planning code section 813.58 states that vehicle storage enclosed lots as defined by section 890.132 is not in the residential enclave zoning district. section 8.758 states in 890.32 in the residential enclave mixed district. without the rezoning, the existing and intended use at 118-134 kissling street would not be permitted. therefore, a local industrial business would not be permitted to grow and expand at its

current site. since the publication of the pact, one letter in opposition of the project has been received and printed for the planning commission. the department recommends adoption of the draft resolution and approval of the c.u.a. as the project is on balance consistent with the general plan and planning code requirements, applies with the applicable planning code, the general plan, the rezoning and the proposed project allow the expansion of an existing industrial business. the kissling street frontage will receive site upgrades, including new street trees, a substantially reduced curb cut and sidewalks, which support the pedestrian environment and public realm. the proposed project seeks to retain the existing industrial progress in the city as envisioned in the commerce and industry element, the rezoning and proposed project promote retention and expansion of an industrial firm, which provides employment opportunities. the project is consistent with and respects the varied

neighborhood character. the proposed kissling street frontage is in keeping with the prevailing pattern of industrial characters in the vicinity, and provides appropriate mapping and scale for the adjacent context. the warehouse industrial and alley character within the zoning district. this concludes staff's presentation, and i'm available to answer any questions. >> president hillis: all right, thank you, ms. jardines. project sponsor? >> thank you, commissioners. on behalf of the project sponsor, royal motors, we're here today to propose the second phase of a modernization of royal motors auto repair operation at the current building at howard and kissling streets between 11th and 12th. due to the construction of royal motors new dealership building, the operation needed to shift and be combined on this one site. so just as a quick overview of

the project, the existing operations consist of one single building used for auto repair. the project is going to construct a carwash, only not a retail one to be used only by the operation. construct a series of stackers on the surface lots of the project to increase the storage capacity from 81 to 228 parking storage spaces, and, again, the stackers will be used both for customers getting their cars repaired at the site, as well as overflow inventory from their dealership at south vaness. then, of course, constructing screen walls on howard and kissling to screen this off from the public view. it would significantly improve the operations of royal motors and have a benefit to the neighborhood. right now there's a parking garage across kissling street that royal motors needs to use to move auto repair cars back and forth through the site.

that's happening on kissling street, a very narrow street, so this is going to improve the cars moving around the neighborhood, and it also will enhance the existing p.r. operation that's existed at the site for more than 40 years. they have 102 service employees at the site and the -- back in 2016 this commission approved essentially the entire project with the exception of the stackers on the lots along kissling street, and that was because of the zoning has been issue. and we're here today to get the zoning map amendment done and get the stackers on that portion of the site approved. r.e.d. and r.e.d.-m.x. are very, very similar. the only difference is essentially it allows some additional auto uses, like the vehicle storage we're proposing today and commercial uses up to 1,250 square feet. so these zoning districts are very, very similar and allows essentially just for us to add the stacker operation to the

kissling side of the street. and really the r.e.d.-m.x. zoning district areas don't look that different from r.e.d. they are both mixed residential industrial areas in the west soma area. the intent of both is to allow existing industrial businesses to stay and grow while having -- while minimizing the impact on neighboring residential buildings. so, there's a couple of, you know, small differences between the two, but essentially, they are indistinguishable as you walk down these streets. we did -- we were contacted yesterday by the owner of the adjacent building. just like we did on howard street when we were here two years ago, we're more than willing to work with them in terms of screening out the operation from their use, acoustical screening, and even talking about how the stackers stack up against their property. unfortunately, that conversation

didn't go anywhere, unlike on howard, where we are working with that property owner to make sure that the operation does not have a negative impact on their living space. so, again, this is going to help an existing p.d.r. business continue in the city. it's been here for 40 years. i will note that the car wash construction is starting next year. we're going for the permit right now, so this is a project that is in process, and we respectfully request that you approve it. and i'm here with any questions. >> president hillis: all right, thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: not much to comment on. we, you know, heard this i believe it was in may. i think it's a great thing to do. it makes sense. it meets the intention of the zoning. i move to approve. >> second. >> secretary: thank you, commissioners, on the motion to approve this matter with conditions, well, first to adopt the zoning map amendment and

then to improve the conditional use authorization with conditions. [ roll call ] so moved, commissioners, that motion passed unanimously 4-0. commissioners, that places us on item 16 for case 2017-015181-c.u.a. at 412 broadway. after hearing and closing public comment you continued this matter to october 25th, 2018, with direction from the commission by a vote of 7-0. as this is a second hearing for this matter, we will limit the project sponsor's presentation to three minutes and public comment to one minute. >> good afternoon, president hillis, commissioners. andrew perry, department staff. the case before you is a request

for conditional use authorization to extend the hours of operation until 4:00 a.m. daily for an existing restaurant and nighttime entertainment use doing business as the penthouse club and restaurant. the business is located at 412 broadway and except for the extension of hours request, no other changes are proposed. commissioners, as mentioned, this item was last before you on september 13th. at that hearing, the department had recommended disapproval and you had a draft disapproval motion in your packets. public comment was heard at that last hearing with a number of speakers lending their support for the requested hours extension. in continuing the item to today's hearing, the commission directed staff to prepare a draft approval motion and also requested that additional information be brought back to this commission for further consideration and discussion. the additional information requested by the commission included the following, first, the status of legislation at the state level to expand alcoholic beverage service or drinking hours until 4:00 a.m. second, an update on any current pending or approved m.c.d. or

cannabis retail applications in the vicinity of the proposed application. and an understanding of the hours that those businesses might operate. third, copies of any studies that were referenced by the project sponsor or supporters at the last hearing regarding reductions in crime, noise, and other nuisances due to staggered bar and entertainment closing times. fourth, data on police calls for service and the immediate area surrounding hustler club at 1031 kearny street and around broadway generally. as a reminder, data on the hustler club was requested due to their weekend authorization, which is the only such existing authorization for an entertainment venue in this vicinity. if possible, commission requested a member of sfpd be on hand to answer questions. the commission requested suggestions for metrics that could be used to evaluate whether the trial had been successful or not. it was noted that both the

project team and neighborhood groups should come to agreement on the selected metrics. commissioners, yesterday you should have received a memo from staff discussing each of these points, along with several attachments, including both the revised draft approval motion as was requested and the original draft disapproval motion. academic studies and submittals from the project team regarding staggered closing times and police call data for the requested geographies was also included. please note that staff only received the call data this past monday, october 22nd. i also have several copies of this memo and its attachments with me here today. to briefly touch on the other points of information, first, the 4:00 a.m. drinking bill, although approved by both the state assembly and senate at the time of the last hearing was vetoed by governor brown. at this time the bill will not move forward as law and those certainly similar legislation may move forward in the future. second, with regard to cannabis, there are four pending cannabis retail applications within a

quarter mile of the project site. in order to proceed, all four applications would require conditional use authorization before this commission. while both the north beach and broadway m.c.d.s permit hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m., the c.u. process for these cannabis retail uses would allow an opportunity for the commission to limit hours as condition of approval if you choose to do so. generally speaking, the location of elementary school at 350 broadway limits the possibility of new cannabis uses along broadway to that area west of kearny street. in other words, cannabis retail use could not locate along the 400 block of broadway, adjacent to the subject penthouse club. with regard to metrics, staff did not receive any concrete proposals from either the project sponsor or the neighborhood groups. staff recommendations for metrics appear in the memo. lastly, with regard to police call data, staff has had limited time to review the material. however, in general the data do appear to show that police calls

for service remain at a higher level after 2:00 a.m. during late night hours along the 1000 block of kearny street, with several calls linked specifically to the hustler club at 1031 kearny street. officer steve matthias is available today to answer any questions you may have about that data provided or sfpd's patrol operations around this area generally. as a final note, over the last week staff has received approximately 40 e-mails of neighboring residents in opposition. 25 e-mails of support were received prior to the last hearing. several neighborhood groups, the telegraph hill dwellers, coast association, gateway tenants situation and vallejo home owners association remain opposed to the hours extension, while the north beach business association support the application. thank you, commissioners, that concludes my