so we have something called planned to study act. where we look at what is going on now and try to improve that. the inspectors here from the public, from the restaurant applicants, with regards to what they feel could be better, what is slowing the process down, how we can do things better and that's why we actually held off moving to the second phase until we addressed all the issues that we've had in the background. so as ms. shaw said, we're moving to the second phase. we're trying to also move the other 35 programs in environmental health to an online presence so that other applicants for any type of permits that we issue don't face the same things that the restaurant owners faced. and we started with the food program, because that is one of the largest programs that we

have in environmental health. in addition to that, i wanted to say that we are trying to streamline our inspection process so it's more risk-based following the center for disease control's five major issues that cause foodborne illness. and supervisor peskin has sponsored that. it's been before you, so we will become more in line with the counties around us using red, yellow, green. so it's consistent as you move from county to county, and also restaurant owners are not seemingly punished because they have a broken tile in the back. or a broken tile in their bathroom. or they just don't seem at that time to have paper towels or soap in the bathroom. so it's really punishing them in

that way where they lose points, this is more risk-based. it's based on food temperatures, food storage. hand washing, if they don't wash their hands and finally where the source of their food comes from. so we're making changes to the way that environmental health has operated in the past. and we're moving forward with that. any questions? >> supervisor fewer: any questions? colleagues? seeing none. thank you very much. we appreciate that. so let's open up the public comment and hear from you. i'm going to call names out. everyone has two minutes. [reading of names]

>> trying to earn a living where the two are at odds. fortunately, some of the lawmakers in the city and voters as well, have made decisions in the last five years, at least since i've been in business that have affected us and makes it hard to stay afloat. the first is minimum wage. since we opened it's gone up

from $12.25 to $15.59, which is 24% increase. and there looming threat each year. so there is this constant dark cloud hanging over wages. one of the hardest things about the minimum wage increase is that all of our employees are still working 2-3 jobs in san francisco. so i wish i could pay my employees more actually. they work really hard, but all of them have multiple jobs, you know, we like to hire people that live in san francisco, because it means they're more likely to be on time and come to their job. i'll send my statement to supervisor fewer. i appreciate your time. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm one of the co-owners of a

restaurant in di viz dar oe advis dario. we opened our restaurant 18 months ago after nearly three years of working to open it. we have a second-floor restaurant as well as a ground space. my partner and i have started to consider projects in other parts of the city, including north beach, dog patch, mid market and soma. as of late, we've started to consider san francisco a nonviable market. because the giga economy undermining full-time employment, no housing for current employees to live in sf, no transport for those employees to get back and forth to other parts of the bay area, especially after midnight, a completely inefficient and painful planning process, including the d.r., discretionary review, which

gives opportunity for future neighbors to extort you before actually opening your restaurant. ada compliance which often can take a business from being viable to unviable. pg&e schedules and monopoly pricing. prop 13, property tax, most people are unaware that they can negotiate a clause into their lease, prop 13 and the idea of triple net leases doubling or tripling in a single year if you're a landlord decides to sell the building. profit margins going to less than single digits. the rising costs of labor. on a yearly basis, in addition to opening costs not including -- i mean, including a $250,000 cost -- [bell ringing] -- liquor license, so...

>> supervisor fewer: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm andy chun. press club, 125-year-old beer hall in the financial district. former owner of a cafe on fillmore street which we had to sell because it didn't work. the city is amazing, it's wonderful. it's increasingly difficult to be financially viable unless you have deep pockets and a lot of resources that most of us don't have. i am currently going through a process to open up a new cocktail bar. the reason we're focusing on the cocktail bar segment, it only has 10 employees. our restaurants have 30, 40, 50. and the cost of labor is the number one driver of the business. when looking at 5% profit margin and the cost of labor increases, 10%, 15% year over year, it's

not hard to do the math. i'm very appreciative of the effort in the hearing and the willingness of the city to look at the issues. a lot of them are beyond the scope of what any of us can do, but having that single point of contact, going through the process and understanding your probability of opening before you commit capital to the project would be hugely useful. i am solution oriented and i applaud the effort. i think we should continue down that path. as we look through other places, i decided we're only going to be do bars. if we do a restaurant again, it can't be done in san francisco at this time. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for taking the time to listen to us. we really appreciate it and i think it's a very necessary thing that needs to happen. my name is angel davis, i have

two tiny wine bars in san francisco, both of them had to go through cu. one of the reasons we have the model is because it's easy to pay for the employees and maintain a somewhat profitable business at that level. but for both businesses for me, it took 13 months for the first business and the second one took 16. luckily, on the second one, we were in a space where we were selling wine in retail, but the profit margin is little, so it was me working all the time and then supporting the second business until we had an ability to open the bottle and serve it to customers. a lot of things i want to say, have been said. just, please, do whatever it takes and we'll work with you. it's really sad to see what is happening with the city. third generation. i want to stay here. we need you to listen to us, our

hardships and whatever you can do to help us get through this. >> supervisor fewer: next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm charlotte. i own a restaurant in the mission. i'm focused on fine dining, personally, but the speakers before me and after me are big people in the restaurant industry worldwide. we're not talking just small wine bars. angel's wine bar is voted one of the best in the u.s. so we're all proud to be part of this community, but we're suffering to consider san francisco as a viable market for our future spaces. i've had a lot of time to think about what is my largest challenge of owning a restaurant here. i started my restaurant 26 years, self-funded, no help.

so when something hits me economically, it hits me personally very hard. it's a shame that our employees can't get home with dignity. the bar is severely outdated. as we know, not safe. it is psychological trauma to my employees to worry about if they're going to, as an adult, make the train home to the east bay, because of the severe housing crisis we have. not to mention payroll taxes and everything else that feels like such a struggle to stay above water. i can't get my employees home. so i think for me, my number one problem is, having reliable transportation that is safe and effective. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> michael dellar, one market

restaurant. it's great that all the city departments are here and health and everything, because it shows there is a lot of stuff happening. i think that's great. i love the idea about the outdoor seating fee renewal every year. that would be a terrific thing to address. and there are more fees like that that everybody can take on. san francisco has an image of one of the great cities in the world. places that people want to travel to. and a big portion of that is because of our restaurants. if i could implore the supervisors, not only in this room, but in the rest of the board that isn't here, to really look at the situation in san francisco with a sense of urgency, i think we can accomplish something and do it in a way that the reputation of san francisco will not be degraded, decreased, because it's happening.

the numbers, you can ask any restauranteur in the room, the numbers are down. look at fishermen's wharf. i want to tell you one story. he lives in napa valley. he invited so friends from germany to visit. go to san francisco, the city, spend a couple of days there, and they said i don't think so. we hear it's not what it used to be. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. marian co-tello. skullers had the privilege of being inducted as a legacy restaurant, nominated by supervisor peskin. in order for us to be a legacy, i think a great part of what

made us legacy were the long-term employees. i've been there for 35 years. i was born in petrillo hill, i live there, but only by the grace that my great-grandfather built there in 1907. i wouldn't be able to afford to live there. i will be losing three senior managers in the next few months to texas, arizona, and way up north, mainly because there is opportunity, but there is opportunity for housing. and we had the benefit of very low retention for many, many years, but that is not happening anymore. people are leaving the industry. people are living so far out that they can't take bart. we have to adjust schedules simply so they can take it in the morning. let alone if you do work the later shifts. my employees that do live in the city, are more fearful. they're not going to walk home to north beach anymore.

they're going to take a cap, take über or lyft, because they no longer feel safe. and they are no longer willing to deal with what they feel they need to deal with, just what is going on in the streets. thank you for your time. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. matt, bistro and wine bar. we've been open for eight years, in the castro. bordering on dubose triangle. my partner and i have lived around the neighborhood since 2000. i'm with several groups, on the board, castro merchants and retail strategy committee. i'm very invested in my community. a couple of ideas. we've talked about employee dormitories, so for folks who just need a room, shared

kitchen, reduced rent. you can fit more people in there. housing is the number one thing we deal with on a daily basis. 75% of the folks come from east bay or further. my chef, many times she sleeps in her car. maybe if somebody has an extra room. we need more day time activation spaces. people who have shared spaces in neighborhoods and not downtown, they tend to stay to go for happy hour, go for dinner, dry cleaning, et cetera. so let's loosen up the shared spaces in neighborhoods. in castro, retail strategy committee, we are doing -- trying to do landlord rent surveys. we would like to know that

single landlords who don't live in san francisco have unrealistic visions of what rents are supposed to be. so we would like some transparency on folks for what everybody is paying a little more. let's continue the conversation. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. next speaker, please. hi. my name is kim. i apologize, i missed the beginning of this because i wasn't made aware of the hearing until yesterday through an e-mail of a friend, and i was at a photo shoot i couldn't get out. i apologize, but just focused on permitting. i have a small restaurant a few blocks. we've been open three years. it took me two years to open. i don't want to blame it on permit,ing, but it was eight months because of permitting. i am very lucky that i have a landlord who chose to turn my

payment in investment. i applied to expand my space in september of 2018. my space is 700 square feet next door to me and i am still in permitting. a lot of this is because it stopped when the historical society decided to -- i'm trying to think of the correct words here -- flag my gates, which my landlord put up, to protect myself and my business due to the homeless situation. we weren't made aware of the pause on the permitting for a few months. we still have permitting through january. it is a change of use. but if i didn't have a landlord who found out a pop-up tenant who would rent month-to-month, there is no way i would be considered. i love san francisco, but i don't really even want to expand anymore.

even though it will help my business, it will double my revenue, i don't know if i want to. i just got approved for a loan to buy property, a bar, and i'm looking outside of the city, it's disheartening, the efforts we have to make. i don't want to crap on the system. i want to help. if there is anything that i can do that any of us can do, because we're san francisco, we want to help. if it's making people aware -- [bell ringing] -- >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. next speaker, please. good >> good afternoon. i've spoken to you previously, but happy to reintroduce myself. we opened five restaurants in five years and employ 200 women and men, building a brand that is quickly become part of the cultural fabric of san francisco. as the person who does all the developmental work, i can say

while it's easier for us to open them internally, it's exponentially more difficult to open them externally. due to the city's conflicting directives. this should not be the case. we do the same thing each time. the brand is the same, the menu, the equipment. we're not reinventing the wheel. we know the process, i know the key people and yet we get tripped up. we manage to find a new land mine not previously encountered. one story, our location that was broken into, cash stolen and ipads and we've had other locations broke into, including our main office. on the design plans was the inclusion of the security gate to protect the windows. these plans underwent review and

were permitted. we were in the process of having it installed when members of the preservation department drove up and said it be removed. they withheld our permit to operate until it was taken down. we're fortunate to have your office of workforce development, she is a god send, even for seasoned operators myself. this city -- well, every week i get requests about opening in their neighborhood and i -- [bell ringing]. [applause] >> supervisor fewer: next speaker, please. >> hello.

while we've given a lot of voice to the challenges we face in the cost of running a business, we need to take a look at the cleanliness of the streets and the homelessness issue. i know it's a focus, we haven't talked about homelessness and i know that you here probably aren't in a capacity to talk about length, but i ask that each of you go back to your fellow members and to give us an opportunity to further talk about how we can work together to clean up our streets. i've had my restaurant in the downtown market broken into by a homeless person who tried to break into our liquor room.

hire security for two weeks to be in the restaurant because i didn't feel it was safe. >> i filed my payroll taxes. and the restaurant wage theft was one of two areas of focus. the other being construction.

i felt like i was doing what i could to represent an industry that was trying to respond well to an issue which is really ironic. and bums me out. at the very same time, businesses that sell food to our customers through online platforms were setting up business in san francisco those very same years. and they were setting up their businesses on a framework that was beyond wage theft that was fundamentally exploitive of the labor pool by classifying workers. so the commission that the businesses take in our free market society are well beyond the range of margin that a restaurant has, which is anywhere from 0 to 6%, so a 20%

commission is well beyond that. i'm post -- to ask you what your priorities are and who your customers are? in the way that we regulate [bell ringing]. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. next speaker, please. [applause] >> good afternoon. my name is brian, owner of kitchen out of the mission, i'm also a board member of the golden gate restaurant association. i want to reiterate. first of all, the service industry is the life blood of the city. we're the reason why san francisco has held up as a gem historically as a city to visit across the world and we provide

unique cultural experiences. we also provide employment opportunities or blue collar, immigrants, students. and so i encourage you -- and i'm thankful that your inviting us to speak here today, to be courageous about the type of change and not just think about having change around the margin. think about the business models that we need to operate within in order to succeed and try to prioritize the actions that can be taken by everyone in this room that can have the biggest impact possible. not just new restaurants, but existing restaurants, businesses, many of which have been in business for decades and are now closing at rapid rate because it's difficult to operate within the confines of the current environment, given

the real constraints of our business models. let's also realize we're all on the same team. we want vibrant -- >> i want to remind the audience, you're not allowed to eat or drink in the chamber. so please refrain or you'll be removed from the chamber. >> -- come visit our restaurants. [laughter] we're all on the same team. we want to get back and work together. let's take the south line as mentioned. we're all willing have the conversations. >> next speaker, please. >> one of the current operators at cafe floor. a 46-year-old restaurant in the castro. thank you, supervisor fewer, for holding the hearing. i would like to speak directly

about the question on the sidewalk permit. in 2013, cafe floor paid $2365 for its sidewalk permit. in 2018, it paid $4338 for its sidewalk permit. during those years, there have been no visits. there has been one person, i think stopped by, and i don't know what services or time and material were generated in my going online and paying those bills, but that's a lot of money to increase almost over $2,000 in those handful of years. that's one example. cafe floor needed to split its operation and receive a permit for the kitchen across the from its restaurants because the restaurant is too small. when scott wiener passed the legislation and enabled the restaurant to continue to be

open and now we're paying for not one restaurant -- not one restaurant fee, not one registration, not one health, we pay for two. so our 40-seat sidewalk cafe pays for not one, but two restaurants. it pays almost -- [bell ringing] -- twice the amount in sidewalk fees in half a dozen years. these are concrete real things happening in the community that as the last speaker said, we need to do something about and do something about them right now. or we will be gone like everyone else. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. next n. -- next n. -- next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm luke. i really have fallen in love with the industry and i may request an additional minute, what hasn't been touched on is

the issue of the tech platform, which is very much in the news. we call them grub hub or tablets. they're gaining $5 billion a year in market share. they're up to 25%. they charge user rates 25-30% fees. it's been in all sorts of news in the districts because i'm sure all of us read the articles about restaurants all the time. about how many places are closing because of that. or they don't realize they're losing money for several months, several landmark restaurants in san francisco have closed and they lose money while they do that. they're subsidizing, running ads. don't ruin your night by going out. that's $100 million advertising against the heart of the city. and these are small mom-and-pop businesses, with local artists that meet and try to make ends meet. they're virtually integrating. they're opening kitchens.

16 kitchens that are owned. it's like crop-sharing, but for a kitchen, and you have to use their platform. it's really what it is. it's user-risk to people. and the virtual restaurants don't exist. they're taking the tips away from people. and then there is new technology, starbucks in the castro permit was to sell 2000 sandwiches. now they're selling 2000 sandwiches from a turbo chef, so why get bacon and eggs. so the permitting system hasn't kept up with the technology. the big digitals, they're buying restaurants as part of it. [bell ringing] >> supervisor fewer: thank you, sir. any other public speakers. seeing none, public comment is

closed. >> supervisor haney: thank you, chair fewer, for calling this hearing and thank you to everybody who came out. you know, i think we all agree that our restaurant industry is the life blood of the city, one of the public commenters said that. and that it is having a very difficult time right now. i think that was reflected in all of the comments i heard today. there is a couple of things i wanted to say. one, it sounded like everybody wants to be a part of the solution and has a lot to share. and that we need to figure out what the right ongoing venues are for that. we heard presentations that show we're trying and there has been changes around process, that are intended to address the issues, but it also sounds like that wasn't reflective of the experiences that a lot of people are having. and that actually we can do more and better. so one of the things i would hope would come out of this.

showing the commitment based on what they're telling us. i think that's something that is clearly needed when we have this commitment to doing better, but that's not experience, at least at the level it's needed. i also think there is a lot of different departments that folks need to deal with. and so i was interested in the beginning from oewd's perspective, where is that single entry point to make sure that you have the full support of this building and the city government, as you have to navigate these multiple departments. and really making sure that we're having the efficiencies. so what does that look like? also seems to me like, there is opportunities for really more specific and substantial changes to be made to support this

industry. whether that is in process, whether that is in zoning. but i think the level of crisis that we heard about from the industry, there is a clear feeling that we aren't responding with a level of urgency and the breadth that really is being experienced on the ground. you know, i just heard yesterday, was mentioned around pedros and pete's. for me, that street, king street, you would think that would be an area that would be doing very well. and yet those businesses are struggling and closing. so imagine how hard it is for the businesses not in that position, that don't even have the benefit of those tens of thousands of people coming. i had on my list and glad the last speaker brought this up, really looking at the impact of the delivery services. i think that's totally transforming the landscape of restaurants in a way that the city is maybe behind the ball in

how we can be supporting restaurants. and small businesses. we also have a situation where many of those businesses are here. so our opportunity in terms of the tech companies and platforms, how to regulate them, how to actually, if possible make them part of the solution, or at least make sure that we're working and protecting the store fronts in this context, affordable space and housing came up. transportation. i mean so many things that if we're going to have a wholistic solution, we need to be working together. i don't know what your thought was in terms of what would come out of this, but i'm interested in how this can be an ongoing conversation and how we can benefit from these ideas to come up with responses that really meet thes crisis that we're facing. clearly have a need to turn this

into action. >> supervisor fewer: absolutely. commissioner safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you, supervisor fewer. thank you, supervisor haney for the comments. i think it's right on. one of the things that i have heard over the years in office now is that there is a lot of good intentions going on between the planning department, oewd, building, but there doesn't seem to be as much as we've strived to do that, there still needs to be more work to coordinate and streamline. we hear great stories, but then we also hear horror stories. there needs to be a general understanding. i like the presentation to have a point person. but not everyone knows to go there first. if i'm a restaurant owner, i'm going to figure out the type of lease i'm going to get. i might not even know if the space is permitted for that when

i'm signing my lease. sometimes that happens. i go over to building and planning and i'm working through that and then all of a sudden, i find out that public health wants a whole different set of materials that building was not aware of, because they don't know the certain types of tiles or other things that might prohibit a business from opening. i'm not making that story up. that was from a small business owner in my district that spent $100,000 to open up a new business downtown and literally, just walked way after spending months and months to open up that business. so this hearing is exceedingly important, but there needs to be a way to figure out how we're not just operating in silos. when i go to building and talk about the permitting and the layout, there should be a way to

relate back to the agencies. planning is not worried about the type of tiles. that's not their job. but it is a crucial step in getting your final signoff to open up your business. if you don't have that, your entire business won't be able to operate. so i just think that -- i think one of the outcomes of this is to have a report back at some point to get an understanding how we're getting some of these different city agencies that begin to cooperate and work better together and function better on behalf of. i would think that the golden gate restaurant association and those industries that are entities that set up to work with restaurants, also can be a point of contact and say, this is step one. this is where you start. so i want to thank supervisor fewer and all the different city agencies that came out. i know everyone is well intentioned and wants to help open these businesses. as you saw from planning, we did everything we could. we removed the notification

process. changed our zoning table and are ready and open for business. anyone that wants to open a restaurant in mission, we're ready to go. we're here to help. >> supervisor peskin: my apologies, we were having a conversation with the mayor relative to the impacts of the central subway on small businesses in chinatown, which as we all heard, unfortunately, last week, is going to be delayed by some time. >> supervisor mandelman: i want to one more time thank you, supervisor fewer, for your commitment and diligence on this issue. and for holding this hearing. i want to thank all of the folks in the restaurant industry who came out to tell your stories and it was saddening and frustrating, not inconsistent with things i've heard from folks trying to operate restaurants in my district. it is -- i know particularly

galling to be nickel-and-dimed and delayed and fined by a government that seems unable to deliver the very basic public services that residents and small businesses might expect as the pre-conof their ability to -- precondition of their ability to operate successfully. i share that frustration. i think my colleagues do as well. and we need to continue to work on the larger issues. i think we've heard some more specific areas where we might be able to make progress. i'm happy that supervisor peskin and supervisor fewer have both expressed interest in looking at where there may be fees. i think there is a conversation about the tax reform and that may be an opportunity. we provided enough tax incentives for large operators in the city to grow and thrive and maybe this time around, we can provide some additional support for the smaller businesses. [applause] but, also looking at these

particular fees, one that didn't come up that i've heard about, is this fire alarm fee. every time there is a false alarm that goes off, particularly for a new business trying to figure out how to operate, it's very easy to quickly run up a bunch of false alarms and you end up in the first year owing a ton of money. maybe that's something we could look at, but i think there is a long list of fees that make sense. one of the city agencies not here is the fire marshal. each business, each time, as the owners pointed out, it's never the same story. there is a different problem each time that slows you down. but certainly the fire marshal has contributed their share. know everybody is trying, but again, i think there is how to

make it so when six different agencies, or six different departments are looking at these projects that this potential for endless delay doesn't continue and everyone keeps in mind that the goal is to get the business open as quickly as possible, except we can do that consistent with safety and our other needs. so anyway, i think this is just the start of the conversation. i'm looking forward to participating, going forward with all of you. with that, thank you, again, supervisor fewer. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, supervisor mandelman. before i recognize and thank supervisor fewer for holding this hearing, i want to apologize for my absence. as i said earlier on to ms. thomas -- not to ms. thomas, but really everybody. i want to focus on things we can do.

which is the area of fees. secondary units, in-laws as people used to call them in san francisco and to that end we passed legislation eliminate those fees and most, if not all circumstances. so i think we should start looking at that in the realm of restaurants where i actually had my staff look at it. there are 22 different fees that apply to restaurants that are starting out. not all of those apply when you're in an established restaurant. i also think that as a matter of policy, we should start with hanging onto the restaurants that we've got. i think that is where we should put our immediate attention. i know the barriers to interest, you have to get conditional use,

insofar as we're at the tipping point and that number of, yeah, i remember 30 years ago, the stat, or at least in the popular culture was every day, there is a restaurant that goes in and out of business in san francisco. but when you say that there is now a 9% tipping point, let's do everything we can for the restaurants we've got. the 22 different fees, many of which apply to the restaurants that want to come, i want to get to. but there is a bunch of those that we touched on today as it relates to public works and sidewalk and table permits. so let's start having that conversation. let's have it quickly. and let's rationalize those different permit fees. that is probable the low-hanging fruit. i want to say as a supervisor with historical perspective, in the old days every increase and every fee came to the board of

supervisors. and we would wrestle with it. later on, after the down turn in the economy in 2001, we actually gave the controller and the departments the ability to actually raise those fees automatically based on various formula having to do with the cost to the city and consumer price index and what have you. i'm sure ben rosenfeld is saying it wasn't cpi, it was cost recover, but it may be time to bring all of those things back to the board one by one, so we have to evaluate them one by one. those are my perspectives and with that, i sincerely want to thank supervisor fewer for holding the hearing. >> supervisor fewer: well thank you very much. i really sincerely want to thank everyone for coming out and educating us on the challenges of our restaurant industry. i don't think anyone here

disputes the fact that, the restaurant in san francisco, kind of put us on the map. we're a culinary destination. when you come to san francisco, you expect to be eating very, very well. whether it's high end or on the lower end spectrum. and we are slowly losing, i think, that legacy that we had. a lot of restaurants, which actually are memorialized in movies and books and literature, have all shut down because of this crisis, which is happening. it is heartbreaking when i see one of my favorite restaurants going under. just thinking about, going to miss those meals so much. so i think everyone in my neighborhood feels that way. i think everyone in my colleague's neighborhoods feel that way, that our restaurants are not only gathering places, but they're places -- not only feed us and our families but add to the vibrancy of our neighborhood. having said that, i think that

we are the city -- the city could be doing more and i want to say that, you know, we have been doing -- today we heard about the streamlining. we heard about helping with the navigation of this really complicated system to open up a restaurant. we talked about expedited permitting, license consolidation, business tax reforms. i think there are things that we could be doing. and we also talked about elimination of fees. and i mention also the condo-izing of retail space, that could be a possibility as we have no control over the rent control of retail spaces, which i know is hitting all of you hard. i wanted to mention that i passed vacant store front legislation last year, looking at loopholes on how to keep one city block, why an owner can have five empty store fronts on

the block, across the street, legacy business, not allowing the businesses on the other side of the street to thrive because of these five empty store fronts that she continues to leave empty. we wanted to close the loophole and we did. you can no longer put a for rent sign, but you must register and there is a fee and every year that you own that empty store front, you must have an engineer or architect actually write, do an inspection and deem that it is safe and not a fire hazard. as supervisor peskin is now looking at vacancy, also we didn't know how many vacant store fronts we had. i was told in 2016, i had zero. so i had my neighbors crowd source and we had 156. and now when we can get an accurate accounting of how big the problem is, we can tackle it. i'm writing legislation about

construction mitigation fees, because i know, when i say that helmand's palace had closed down -- luckily, only for renovation, but when i thought it was permanently closed along the van ness corridor, my heart fell ali little bit -- a little bill. luckily, they're just remodelling. we did not have a mitigation fee for any of the small businesses. during these long construction projects you have in front of your stores, so now we're writing legislation that we must add in a budgetary item that talks about mitigation for small businesses. as they lose revenue through the long construction projects. another thing i think that we need to look at restaurants -- i'm so glad that is brought up today, as a lay person, i don't know the difference between cocktail bars and a restaurant.

i don't know the nuances and the expenses of it. and now i am realizing that actually we should be separating these smaller venues and larger venues that have many more employees and many more health restrictions on them, all those things, looking at them in separate venues. i want to say, i don't think a lot of them are represented here, but in my district and supervisor peskin's, many of my restaurant owners, english is their second language. you are having a difficult time and english is your first and only language, you're having a hard time navigating the system, hiring employees, you can imagine people with english is not their first language and all the legal ease that goes with this and the permitting of that. i would like to see attention put toward when we talk about all the things we're doing, navigation, streamlining, that we make sure we're offering

these in different languages so that other -- and you know, i just want to say, the cool thing about san francisco, you can eat food here that is food from someone who has been cooking in thailand for how many years and they're bringing it right to us. this is the wonderful part of san francisco. we want it make sure those small businesses also are viable and are not going under. and then i just wanted to say about the delivery platform thing. yeah, super upsetting. and the fact that many times you must offer delivery in order to stay competitive. so i have been talking to my staff about maybe some out of the box tt ideas about pooling delivery efforts together. not depending on the platforms, but how can we create even through a city department maybe, a delivery service platform that you're not paying 20% or whatever for this delivery

service. i think we can do more with streamlining and i think we should keep track of that to see if we're really reaching the potential with the strategy. also, i think the idea of condo-izing retail spaces, we should explore that more. homelessness, the cleanliness of our city, yeah. so, yeah. i think that it is an issue. so i'm just not going to say it's not an issue. it's a huge issue. in fact, i'm going to a homeless community meeting in my district tonight that i know is not going to be a pleasant one. these are huge problems. i want to say that san francisco is experiencing the largest wealth gap it has ever experienced before. it is not just happening in san francisco, it is all over the place. if you go to l.a., it's a nightmare. if you go to fresno, you will

see it, the west coast. this is an issue we're trying to get a handle on. i know supervisor haney, 60% of homeless population lives in his district. calling for more services, pit stops, 24 hours a day, those type of things, but we hear you. i think this is an issue that, you're right, we all need to work on it together, it affects you, us, it affects all the residents in san francisco. i think that should be on the list when we come together and talk again about issues. also, i think we didn't hear from the small business commission. and i want to know about the program and whether or not how effective they are. because we're putting invest in neighborhoods. i've seen some of this in my neighborhood that didn't do anything. so wondering how they're working

to bring out information to small businesses on site, on the corridors specifically and how often they actually keep track. and what is the relationship between those merchants associations, also, and between oewd, small business commission and the merchant commission and are they hearing from them and what strategies are they bringing fort? and i want to say, the housing thing is a nightmare. i get it. that there is nowhere for your workers to live. the working class folks of san francisco. oh, my god. god bless them. but, yet, they keep city hall running. they keep our city and county of san francisco running. the people that clean our streets. the people that serve our food. the people that drive our buses, the people that educate our children, the people who diaper

our children, all of these workers cannot find housing. it is a horrible situation. i think one thing we can all do, and i just want to give a plug for housing bond for affordable housing, we're behind. we cannot let developers depend on developer to build affordable housing. we have to put skin in the game and build affordable housing. too. i like the idea of dormitories. although, not everyone is going to want to live in a dormitory, but for some of the workforce, that trends younger, a younger workforce, or ones that don't have families, whatever, i actually think the idea of employee dormitories is one that should be explored. and we should be looking more in san francisco about workforce housing. when we talk about middle

income, your employees are not middle income. your employees are low to moderate income earners. they're mainly low earners. if you're making the minimum wage in san francisco, you're not making a living wage and this is why your workers are working two or three jobs. thank you for bringing that up. we know we have minimum wage because we want to hope to raise the viability, the economic stability for the people of san francisco when we know that is just ridiculous when they're making $16, $17 an hour. however, i do think that as we have, as a city somehow created this huge gap and this shortage, and i think that what we should do is make a commitment, not only to be building -- bringing these big companies to san francisco, but also that we have people that can serve the workers of san francisco. i am a fourth generation san

franciscan. and there was a time -- you know, you could work a living wage job and you could find a place to rent. you didn't have to share a one-bedroom with four people. you could actually find a place. i think we're working toward strategies to identify how many vacant units there intereare in francisco that we don't know about. but workforce housing, in the form of employee dormitories, which sounds dismal, but i'm sure we can make it better is a possibility. i want to thank you for bringing that forward. i want to keep the current restaurants afloat. i know we talked about opening new restaurants, but we have some that our residents depend on and they would be sick to see them close. let's work together on this. i think our next steps should be a working group that actually brings the city departments

together and that we can actually have different people in the industry. and people in the industry, would also reach out to our -- other members of the industry that -- where english is not their first language and let's hear from them also about some of the struggles they're having to keep afloat. i'm sure the same ones you have, but how well are we communicating with them? i want to thank the city departments for coming out today and trying to tackle the problem of the things that are challenging our restaurant industry. i want to thank all the city departments for putting their -- of doing this good work of streamlining and trying to navigate. i think you also, your hands are tied where we have this large wealth gap and lack of affordable housing, i don't know what you can do about it.

mr. star, from planning, not to put you on the hot seat, but i think it does stem from planning. i want to thank everyone for being here. i wonder if this is an item we should continue. if so, i would like to make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> actually, you're not a voting member. >> supervisor peskin: supervisor fewer, thank you for the amazing recitation of everything big and small that has been uttered inside and outside of this hearing. and i want to stay focused. i want to say, look, i don't want to overpromise. we're not going to, in the context of this discussion, solve the homelessness crisis, housing crisis, but there are things we should do. and i'm saying this to my friend and colleague, supervisor fewer, we have to set our sights on things that we can do.

i think there is widespread agreement on the panel around fees which is, i think, low hanging fruit. that we can pursue. i'm happy to continue the larger conversations that we're having in many different venues around other remarkably vexing issues. there are things we did not talk about that are actually in the purview of this committee that were written about on sf gate a few months ago as it relates to ghost kitchens, that i don't think we touched on, unless it happened when supervisors safai and i were out of here. to supervisor fewer request that she made, yes, we will continue this to the call of the chair. and let us drill down on some things that we can do. i would like to end this, because i get to do that as chair, by