analyze the reduced area. we would like to do that to show it to you. as far as this being a blueprint for a city wide ordinance, we are in conversation with supervisor peskin's office and supervisor mandelman's office about the demolition and expansion which this does overlap. that is city wide. from a planner's perspective we wouldn't have the time limit and we could bring them to you at one time for a comprehensive look to pick the best pieces from them. if you want to vote on this one with the idea of the expansion threshold, if you, you know, however long you would be willing to do that we could discuss with him amendments that might work with that. >> would a month give you enough

time to work on this? >> i mean it is up to the planning department staff. i think a month is fine. as i say, i am happy you all have made great suggestions today. i don't want to conflate the other issues, although there are some similarities, the intent and objectives are very different. i want to be clear. there might be over lap from the planning department. the objective is to control for illegal demolitions, right? and this is about -- there is illegal activity in relation to this because when someone comes in to say they are doing a kitchen or bathroom renovation and they demo the house and build 14 wednesday h bedrooms and 11 -- bedrooms that is an

enforcement issue. you have dealt with that. there are similarities. i won't disagree. i don't want to conflate them on the same day. being honest. i would prefer to have this. this is as we talked about. i think commissioner richards agrees. this is in a smaller area. see how it plays out. president melgar highlighted very specific real estate issues because the truth is there isn't this type of activity happening right across the street on aprin appallo way, the homes are more expensive. you don't see people chopping those up. i don't think the enforcement or the neighbors would stand for it. it wouldn't happen take way. it is happening dramatically in our part of time. i think it is a separate issue. i am happy to work with you.

approve it with recommendations and we continue to work on it at land use. it is better because of the general plan finding, because of the suggestion about far, the suggestion it could be used potentially city wide. if we end up in a place where supervisor peskin's legislation overlaps, then we can have that conversation them. >> commissioner hillis: i agree with the statements. there is overlap. this could be a lot clearer and easier to use. i move to continue this for a month. can you suggest a date? >> april 4th would be about a month on an extrem extremely imd calendar. >> how about after that? >> april 11th. >> is that better? >> a little. >> is april 11th okay?

do i hear a second. >> thank you commissioner moore. >> for the record we will get the map situation. i'm sorry. i didn't realize that came in so late. we will get the boundaries and map and everything clarified. >> mr. was a motion to approve with amendments that the procedurally will take up the continuance first. the notion to april 11th. (roll call). so moved commissioner that passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners that places us on item 13. 01055 2:00 p.m. ca employee cafeterias within office space planning code amendment. >> good afternoon. i will present an amended

ordinance to establish an employee cafeteria office space. there was before you in october of 2018. i would like to provide the sponsor with time to present to you the amendments. >> hello again. >> you are not going to get rid of me for a while. you all are aware of this particular issue. i know commissioner richards enjoys this conversation. just kidding. we believe when we introduced this conversation almost a year ago that we wanted to have an intense debate about really from and i know you all understand this intimately because you deal with planning issues daily. thinking about the macro

planning direction of san francisco. i believe that in many ways we are at across roads. we are on the cus you have embracing the technological revelation an influx of culture change and san francisco has gone through many of these. this is an inflexion point. when we think about some of the issues that vehicles our city the most our housing crisis and how that plays out on the streets on a daily basis, there is a lot of frustration in the city. you heard in item 15 which i am happy went before this item there was an extensive conversation about how small businesses are impacted and how the nature every tame and nature of small business is changing. in my opinion, in my humble opinion what makes san francisco one of the most unique places people love to visit, one of the reasons is the uniques network of small businesses and those

businesses that people come from and talk about all over the world. me as a planner, the way i approached this was how is small business being impacted by a particular use that is happening within our. culture and how we are moving the new culture. the idea of having on site cafeterias where thousands of employees stay within their walls from the beginning of the day to the end of the day and don't go out and patronize and support and put eyes on the street as jane jacobs so famously said. that is where we were trying to come from. it might not make sense. you understand my overall summary and what it is about. when we did the mid market tax break one of the ideas was to put and revitalize a part of san francisco that had been wanting

for investment for many years. there are thousands of employees occupying a lot of the office space, but as was reported in the chronicle today, we are still dealing with many of the same issues that we did over a decade ago. and the problems on the street. so much so that we worked and went out of our way to allow for the food trucks to come and locate in areas of the city that we had never done before. this legislation was trying to accomplish many different things, unlike my last legislation which some would say was cumbersome. special use district for district 11 did not receive national attention. this has received national attention. i wonder why it is so important. when you have a business practice that works in an

isolated office environment and you bring that to the core of the city, i think it is okay to have an intense debate is that the right way to go as a city. we started with a conversation about a ban. now we moved back and feel we have a healthy compromise. if and when you proceed with wih these, we want you to think about things. there are things i was enlightened about and really enjoyed. we had a roundtable conversation with many of the employers, employees and small businesses and vendors that are local that are sourced to use and provide services to these cafeterias. i think that is a positive thing. the work environment for the people working there. we heard positive things from the workers and employees. we also heard from organized labor. they are much more interested in this conversation. there are only 45 of these in

the city. the conversation about this is going to overly burden and create more bureaucracy, i don't buy that. 45 in the entire city. however, only one of those 45 has an organized work force. in a city that is overly and heavily an organized work force, only one. i think when we go through the conditional use process if you approve this and move it to the board we believe it allows for the companies to put the best foot forward. we also think allowing for the small businesses and retailers and those impacted by these allow them to be part of the conversation. i'm sure some of you read many of the locations where these retailers were located in buildings where the employee cafeterias were the rents are

extremely higher based on the fact they are in an expensive office building with thousands of employees, but their businesses have not seen in many instances the patro patronage fm those employees. it is hard to compete with flee. we married from work -- we heard from people that wanted to be part of this work force. it saves me time. i understand the conversation about taking away something that has already been given. very, very understanding and respectful of that. we put forward as we say a compromise proposal. we think where these are located is an important part of the conversation. we have 6 million square feet of office space coming online in central soma. we have gone through an extensive conversation about that.

we have thousands of more square feet in mission bay. i felt like it was the appropriate time to have this intense debate and say there are some employers that don't have employee cafeterias. they offer a lot of amenities and food. they encourage employees to get out and interact with the surrounding environment. others say we want to help bring them in so they can benefit from the employee environment. we think that is positive. the location where these are himself about activating ground floor retail we think is an important part of the conversation. why not? when they are open to the public, why not? if they encourage employees to interact with surrounding environment is a positive thing. we put in something as one of the things to consider is anotheanother piece of legislate worked on talking about reusable

food utensils. we don't think they should use disposable. it should be recyclable or reusable utensils. we think that is important. those are some of the things we thought would be helpful. we are not scared of the conditional use process. if small cafes have to go through this. mcds have to go through this. small renovations have to go through this. not thousands and thousands of employee kaftear uses before you. maybe another dozen or 20 or whatever. maybe if it doubled. it took a decade to get 45 in the city. we don't imagine this adds any additional burden to the process. we feel this is a important part of shedding light on these, how they impact the surrounding environment and how they can

have a positive or negative impact overall. thank you. do you have any questions? i am available. >> thank you, supervisor. >> commissioners the department supports the amended ordinance requiring this creates an avenue for operators to establish cafeterias. the amended ordinance is more in line with the resolution passed in october of 2018. for the sake of improved implementtation we protest some technical modifications. the first is to apply the ceu requirement to the broader office use definition instead of narrow general office use definition. second a the ceu to allow exception for employee

cafeterias that meet the following, located at street level, open for use by public. maximize storefront and provide incentives to employees to patronize adjacent restaurants. to further clarify the definition of employee cafeteria. four to emphasize the employee cafeterias contribune to street activation and include economic opportunities for local residents and businesses. last modification to eliminate the grandfathering date as proposed. regarding the super-vasesor's latest amendment we have not had time to formally review giving the timing of the submission. after an initial look we think some of the new findings six through eight may be difficult to implement because of the required metric. some may be better situated in

the environment code. this concludes the presentation. we are available for questions. >> we will take public comment on this item. i have a few speaker cards. dd workman, ballard, adam, henry. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am dd workman with the chamber of commerce. we have concerns about requiring conditional use permits to build or expand new employee kaftear years. it can add time, cost and uncertainty. even though this is not a ban on the cafeterias. the rechoirments may prevent them from being built or expanded. they act as a deterrent. you said that a couple items

ago. we think that will happen in this case. the concern is that they will provide excellent entry level jobs. they pay well or union jobs with benefits and serve as pathways to careers in food and hospitality industries. this may result in loss of jobs. they may impact local vendors who provide local products to the cafeterias. we support local businesses. we think there are other and better ways to incentivize workers to frequent them. we urge you to vote no on this item. thank you. >> next speaker please. >> i am the chairman and vice president of the uaw2501 representing bon appetite and

air bnb. we are not the only union shop. there is facebook represented by local two. i am not sure if the representative is here today. correction for the record. i knew up in san francisco. i moved out maybe 15 years ago because the pricing was getting crazy, but my mom lives in the city. i work in the city. my askedis come to the city with my wife and myself. i am here today representing 2501. i have a well paying job with excellent working conditions including benefits coverage with healthcare coverage and 401-k. for the majority of us in the restaurant industries we were first hand at these jobs among the best paying jobs in the field, having a conditional use permit requires hurdles that prevent creation of good well

paying jobs, expansion provides career development. air b and n of b plans to hire 90 to 110 employees to support the cafeteria at town send 19 to $23 per hour guaranteed all 110 people will make at least $20 per hour, which is $4 over the minimum wage in san francisco. i have been with the company for six years. there is a great opportunity. i have weekends off, stability schedule. i don't have to come to work and wonder if i have to work extra. we don't take away from the bottom line of the restaurants. our cut off time is 8:00. we encourage people to take advantage of the things around them. there are driving accidents attached to our businesses in

open driving businesses. there is hardwood a bar and mars bars in the area for years. i feel like tech jobs don't take away, they benefit people because you don't have to necessarily be tech smart to work in the tech job. thank you and please consider voting no on this proposal. >> next speaker, please. hello. i am part of the uaw trusty and member. i am a service coordinator and line server at the air bnb headquarters. before that i was working with post mades making 50 to $70 a dataing away the food i eat as well as transportation with bart. i wasn't making anything. i came to the company and started making at least $19 per

hour. now, i am at 26. i got a raise and promotion. i learned a lot. the company has given me opportunity to survive with the crisis with living and rent and everything. they give us a lot of benefits there. i think you guys should reconsider denying the proposal. >> next speaker, please. >> hello. i am adam thompson serving on the air bnb policy plan. i want to thank you for your interest in small accident. it is a priority that we share and have committed the focus through the partnership with the san francisco district merchants association and host community by driving visitors to merchant quarters throughout san francisco. we appreciate the willingness of this commission to listen to our previous concerns regarding a

plan on cafeterias. this proposed ordinance as drafted places provisions on employees desiring to operate a cafeteria within office space. it will make getting approval so difficult it will serve as de facto ban on office cafeterias and will hurt local workers, some of the highest paid food workers in california. at air bnb it supports more than 150 hospitality jobs. it is our view that the city should promote policies and champion creation of well paying jobs like we provide in cafeterias instead of making it hard to create such jobs. we spend millions at local businesses on an annual bases. we make more than $7 million in purchases from bay area

businesses including $2 million from restaurants and suppliers in san francisco. 75% of the food program spend support san francisco and bay area suppliers and goods and services. we urge this body reject conditional use permit for new office cafeterias. thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hello i am with the golden gate restaurant association we support the legislation to the conditional use process. we believe the process provides best vehicle for determining the necessity or desirability of private nonretail free kaftear use in the context of the general plan principles. we support the recommendation of the staff to distinguish between full-service cafeteria and break room. we hope businesses continue to

partner with local businesses in the break room type settings. key considerations are what they found for economic vitality and fairness. san francisco planning code regulates restaurants with size and use limits and caps and neighborhoods. conditional use requirements not allowing activity above the first floor to protect the balance of use and alignment with the priority principles of the general plan. it is absolutely reasonable to look at the value of nonretail free cafeterias and impact on same principles. we believe private enterprise should make best decisions. we believe when choosing the city there is a responsibility to the community. we hope you will agree and support conditional use process for. nonretail office cafeterias. thank you. >> next speaker please.

>> i thought this was the use. the jobs it is creating and also the fact that i do know like the air bnb the pizza cafe. there is a pizza play and there is no problem with people coming offer. not everybody wants to eat there. it is a benefit for those working there. it is a benefit to employees they have a place to eat if they want to within the premises or not. if they want to go out, they can go out. it is the impact on the local restaurants. you go around air bnb. i would urge you to not require this. thank you. >> thank you. i will call a few more speaker

cards. michelle, louise, karen webber, jennifer and shawn o'neill. >> hello i am the owner of granola. i am a vendor for google. we have been with google for about six years. at the beginning of our business we were 35% of our business came from supplying food, granola, cookies to google. that allowed us to stay within the city limits and manufacture within the city limits of san francisco. we built in 2012 in the dogpatch. our rent has increased so much. we were low income when i was there. we shot up to high income area. i think that with the help of google and the amount of money coming in we were allowed to

stay in business. we don't have to worry about going to the grocery stores doing demos. we make the product, send it to them and they enjoy. there is a flip side where it is branding outside of those corporate offices. people come to the farmers market stand and say i had your spiced nuts. i have seen an uptick of the sales throughout the area in san francisco and throughout. i guess i just think it needs to be reconsidered and that a lot of small local businesses rely on the cafeterias opening. we started with two cafeterias, now six. almost 10 to $12,000 per week in sales to them. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i am shawn o'neill.

i work for facebook. my rome within the company -- role within the company i manage construction. you grew up in the outer richmond district. facebook actively supports local small business. we utilize local suppliers and provide space for local companies. two examples urban remedy and andy coffee. they are open to the public. we conduct small business booths to train the small businesses how to best utilize social media to promote themselves. the current process for approving office cafeterias are fairly involved that already exist. i have an item my recently put together. it showed up on the screen. it is usually about a 20 week

processor so to getting an operating permit for a typical cafeteria in our properties. thathat is a quick example. this would add 6 to 12 months or more to the process and add to the heavy planning commission load. in conclusion, facebook supports the intent to support local restaurants. the ban and this conditional use will not achieve that goal and will have an ad versus impact. we suggest organizing a meeting of companies, community groups and the restaurant association to come up with best practices and develop initiatives that will achieve the goal without adverse impacts. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am jennifer. i am the executive director of

the tech trade association. i am here as representative of the tech industry and members to oppose the proposed conditional use authorization requiring for employee cafeterias within office space. in its current form this hinders well benefited jobs. it implements de facto ban on collaboration on small business and larger companies. individuals working in employee cafeterias in san francisco earn living wages. three receive medical, dental, 401k and paid sick leave and vacation. this legislation is going to create unnecessary hurdles to provide the opportunities. cafeteria jobs are family

friendly. they have seen the shifting schedules in the restaurant industry. you have heard from a few of these folks. while the concept might be well-intentioned. this does not protect the viability of small businesses as the nature hits small businesses against the public accessible eateries run by larger companies. small businesses need to compete against much larger competitors and be disadvantaged further. thithis is a solution in searchf a problem. they have been managing cafeterias and offering stable jobs through unions and nonprofit training plans and through the use of locally sourced goods and vendors. they have steppingstones to grow

careers in tech. this is the kind of opportunity that many leaders have been speaking about in recent months. on behalf of all member companies we oppose the plans and encourage you to disapprove this legislation. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> mynam is francisco -- my name is francisco. i have lived here for 33 years. i work in restaurants. a friend of mine got me into this job with working with google. to me it was like a dream job. i am not younger any more, and i just thought, this might be my future place to retire, right?

they treat you very nice and you have very good benefits. retirement is going to be like excellent. they tried to shut down these cafes. you are going to have like hundreds of people with no jobs or stuff like that. for me, i just would like you to know it would be nice for you guys to pass this thing to let us stay and keep our jobs. that is what i have got to say. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i work at google. i used to work mostly in restaurants. mostly downtown san francisco, and they were rough. i used to work around 14 to 16 hour shifts because one is hard

to maintain people, and, two, it was just a lot of work, to be honest. now working at google i have been there almost three years. i have good hours to have more time for myself. i have time with my family, and i don't really have to worry about having to search for a second or third job or have to work a lot of hours. i think that our like for all occasions there is more of our workers that are in the building. they go around the location more. they like to explore. they go the different restaurants located nearby, and i think they provide more to the community instead of like what they were talking about. they don't provide enough or

shut down small businesses. i think they are helping small businesses thrive. whereas thisgan or like more process for them would make it less than official for the community and for san francisco overall. i would like you to oppose on it. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am here opposing the project. i would like to say why i love to work for this company. first of all, i have they allow me to work flexible hours. i have to care for my family. i have the family that are sick. i am able to work and take care of the family because of the

flexible hours i am working. on top of that because i am coming across the bay to work they provide transportation. that is very nice of them. also we get a nice raise. on top of that when we work, we get to eat there. we don't spend our money. also that time i can spend with my family, too, for all of these reasons. i oppose. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i live in san francisco. i work for seven months for google cafe. i am very happy because i have good schedule monday through friday. before i worked in restaurant and it was too much different. now in google coffee because in

the restaurant was always changing my schedule, sometimes six hours. if it is slow they might tell you to go home. google maybe say if it is slow go home. i am very happy with the schedule and the benefits, it is good benefits. my family and me now enjoy the weekends. before working on the weekend or on sunday. now monday through friday. i am very happy. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i work for google. i am happy with the company. they have great benefits and privilege and the opportunity to grow with the company. they provide meals, plexible

hours and benefits. they provide expenses for work uniforms. it is a monday through friday job with paid holidays off with time for the families. i think this should expand so more people can benefit from the support this company provides. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i am justin. working at the cafes has given me a livable wage and not dependent on continues or bonuses and a work life balance to spend more time in the city with my family. i feel strongly about the benefits. employment has allowed me to reach out to many former colleagues i brought to the same work force that are able to share the same benefits i am able to have.

i have been living in san francisco for 15 years. i graduated from the san francisco state. i got engaged at the palace of fine arts. i have felt comfortable to live in san francisco and grow my family out here. i wish to extend the same opportunities to more people. because of this i ask you to not support the motion set forth. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i am karen webber. i work for google. seven years ago we began our relationship with google and opened our first facility with 14 team members. now just several years later we have 250 team members working for us. every day we strive very hard to

create a people culture and to provide an environment for work life balance. we offer weekend offices, holidays off, 401-k match, we provide housing and commuter stipends. one of the best things and i think this all contributes to the healthy environment. if you look at the several reports. the average turnover rate for the san francisco restaurant community is 70 to 120%. our turnover rate for 2018 was 5.25. we feel this is creating a fantastic environment for our people. yesterday i had the fantastic opportunity to promote one of the original 14 team members

that we hired as a cook to a district manager position over all of the san francisco business. we want to be able to provide life-changing opportunities and feel this ban would prohibit us from doing that. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i am steve heidi with the neighborhood association. this is a slam-dunk. i support this measure. we have got the situation that you guys were talking about earlier with all of the hurdles that small businesses have to face in the city. this is crazy to make it more adult for them. these cafeterias should be discouraged. we are not san jose. we are san francisco. the local businesses should be supported and not detracted.

i have heard articles about the companies that come in, the cafeteria is the primary reason they want the employees to eat there is production is better. how about the production of the city of san francisco? how about the production of the local businesses, small businesses? that is the most important. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am here on behalf of the first republic bank. our firm submitted a letter on tuesday. i have a copy up here. we have a pending use on file to add a public restaurant and evening community event space to the existing employee cafeteria. that was created in 2016 under a building permit approved by the

planning department. we have been working on this pending conditional use project. the project as proposed is a result of that collaboration of the department. we look forward to coming back before the commission with the upcoming plans. i don't want to reiterate the points made. i want to focus on an request to include amendment to grandfather those projects with permits on file with the city as of the effective date of the legislation such as first republic's. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> sue hester. yesterday i listened to the board of supervisors. they had 11 supervisors as sponsors on legislation dealing

with vacant retail spaces. that ask a big situation right now in the city. it is a big situation in downtown right now in the city. this legislation is needed because it shows some thought given by entities dealing with planning and land use. you are a large part of that. people who move in from suburban areas like men low park and mountain view and google and facebook into san francisco not only bring the buses transporting their people to get housing in san francisco, when they open places here, they want to keep the people safe in the same building. that is not the way an urban city like san francisco has to function. ground floor retail throughout the downtown on market street

and the places where they are talking about are the lifeblood of the city. they provide spaces other people can use. i didn't hear one person say their cafeteria is open to the public. they are not. when they basically say we have a place just for us. we are important, and we are the people that need to be served by all of these spaces. you need to push back. this is a place to push back. thank you. >> any other public comment on this item? okay. public comment is now closed. commissioner richards.

>> commissioner richards: interk to the hearings we had on home sharing where the conversation seemed to shift to the concept being on trial versus the actual land use issue, and i think ms. hester nailed it. it is a land use issue. there is definitely a benefit to the workers, to the people, the companies that supply it. no question. absolutely. i think it is where they are placed, how they are placed, how accessible they are especially in central soma we have millions of square feet of office space. how does the cafeteria being proposed support the objectives and policies of that plan? that is what i really want to understand. rather than putting it anywhere you want. we have a plan.

let's see how we implement the plan. they become dusty after a few years. nobody remembers what they were for. in my neighborhood we said after every two to five years we will see how we are going against the plan. plans are one thing, plans is another thing. i was the beneficiary in the 30 years i worked in tech to the employee cafeterias from day one to the very end of my career in tech. i also in my last tech company that i worked for for nearly 10 years the person i reported to had real estate and tax and other things. is on the build out i think it is a false narrative this is going to discourage cafeterias. you lease the space, you have

the build out and plans. you pretty much know a year or two in advance. you might walk around vacant concrete slabs this is where this is going to go. everybody is there we need a ceu for a cafeteria. i don't see difference in this. one of the speakers say corner cafes and smaller businesses have to go through why this wouldn't be any different. i don't think it will discourage employee cafeterias. i think it is more to me an optics issue. if i were in a high tech company given what we have been through plus in "new york times" i read the portions of the comments. this is the fear anytime an employee cafeteria is before us tech is on trial. i can guarantee you that is not how we make our decision. we make it based on the criteria

for land use and plan objectives. i think we have something to work here. i support staff's recommendations. >> thank you. commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: i want to appreciate the comments. i think we are at an inflexion point in our city and community, and there is this important question before us about how we move culture to be nor inclusive and connected and really encourage people to come together at san francisco again. i certainly support the intention of that. you know, as i heard the testimony today and i thought about these uses, i can see the desire for this legislation to create away for us to make sure the city's larger goals are

implemented through these spaces. i heard several goals of the city actually playing out in the cafeterias, making sure folks have good jobs with commuter sty bends -- stipends and 401ks and the support of the san francisco grown businesses in the spaces, and the challenge for me is when i think about how this legislation will play out, one of my major concerns is does it actually get at some of the goals that we are talking about and wants to shift culture and make sure more people are really out on the street and patronizing local businesses. if we implement this legislation and folks decide to open up a

ground floor cafeteria, the google cafeteria and banana joe's. i think a couple of theirs happen. employees go from the eighth to the first floor to the eighth floor because it is a cafeteria. i take this seriously the idea that companies would partner with businesses that have the capacity to run a cafeteri cafeteria/business externally which would compete with local mom and pop businesses. are you going to the google cafe or mom and pop restaurant, i am not so sure. it is hard for me to imagine a company would want to run a public cafeteria. that is why i think they would partner with large corporations to run the public facing cafe. i have questions there.

i guess i would say when i think about legislation once again i think about carrots and stickings. i heard you say that folks did come to the table when the first version of the legislation was suggested, people talked about how they could contribute to the fabric of the city. i wonder while i respect and i also am not afraid of the ceu process, it can be beneficial. why this is not an initiative and instead it is the c.u. resolution process to solved this larger issue how folks are integrated into the community. i am challenged by the legislation. i am in support of the ultimate goal of it.

>> commissioner. >> thanks. i definitely was not in favor of the ban. this was a really big move in the right direction, and before the hearing i was definitely on the fence literally 50/50. i could have gone either way and i wanted to see what happened at today's hearing. what became apparent to me. i don't look at these a jobs, i look at them at careers. when i look at whether it is a construction job or any kind of job, i don't want people out of work and the word is retention. i believe in the group i worked for when you go to work on a job, the job is done, you go back and they put you back to work. other people in the construction industry, the job is done, you get laid off and go home.

i believe in given someone a career, not a jock. retention is the name of the game. i did see the people advocating against this today talk about what their benefits were personally. i didn't see anyone from the restaurant industry counter that. i didn't see restaurant employees come up here to say about the amazing careers and retirement and guarantees and predictability people need when they have a wife and kids and need to be home for holidays. that was the tie breaker for me. i won't be supporting this today. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: this is a question of where and in what context. it is not a competition between cafeteria or restaurant. i am delighted to hear the

industry with cafeterias and had employees speak to benefits. that speaks to the industry, not land use of cafeteria. i am delighted to hear the positive results and i encourage those companies to keep growing. that is a part of what we are here to decide. we are not here to decide if the cafeteria can cause as much dangif it is not properly sited. that is what we are concerned about is the proper siting and frequency in which it can occur in active business corridors where there is competition with mom and pops and displacement. the c.u. resolution process does not have to be vindictive but clarifying.

i support the legislation. it is aways counter measure and supportive because the outright ban did not address what we need to do. we have large companies who can successfully run large cafeterias. this commission can make a major positive contribution. >> thank you. commissioner hillis. >> commissioner hillis: thank you. i hope we get as much public debate and policy debate about the next item which is much more important. it will set us on a better course of providing more housing in the policy stand point that it deserves it. you know, the last time i was here, i was debating whether a ban was appropriate. it is a land use issue we should

be talking about a ban and not a ce. i was swayed by public testimony and lack of public testimony as commissioner koppel said going the other way. we don't see building owners saying we can't rent spaces because of these vacancies. they don't come forward to say they are not making it. we do hear about the jobs and we heard more the last time we heard this which are compelling. they are good jobs. these hours seem to be ones that employees prefer, and they seem generally better than other food service jobs. i think things we learned at the last one. it took down the stereo tops of the businesses and where they

were, what they were actually doing. my trouble would be if we had a c.u. resolution for employee cafeteria tomorrow how would be decide that? if you look at what is here under conditional use and what we are to look at, i think it is. if we are honest we should stay no. it doesn't tell us we can require them to have well paying jobs or union jobs. some of these have organized labor and some don't. this doesn't give us the ability to say you have got to provide granola or cookies. if things we are discussions it scent give us tools to do that. you say this is not a debate

about tech war. how do we decide that? we think it is okay to have the cafeterias on upper floors or we don't. we are going to look around to say there is not enough? we have 5% vacancy at the transit center so we would deny? i don't know where we are going this. we make people feel good having a ceu process. after public testimony abi don't continue to see a big issue. may one will come up in the future. i don't see why this is necessary at this point. >> commissioner richards. >> pass. >> i will say i do see a value in the c.u. resolution process.

i think that, you know, having evaluating an employee cafeteria in the mid market where we put tremendous resources to thinking about turning the neighborhood around and the businesses that are in that neighborhood is a different scenario than for example the first republic cafeteria. i see what you are saying about the criteria. i do think this commission ask thoughtful, at least i like to think that. i respect all of my fellow commissioners and what everyone brings to the table. i do think that, you know, thinking about the conversation we just had about the small business impediments and streamlining. to me there is a jarsis