In about a month, San Francisco restaurants will have the opportunity to join the City's voluntary ban of trans fats. While fellow big cities like NYC and Philadelphia have done the logical thing and banned trans fats, restaurants will be able to undergo an inspection process and pay $250 for ... a sticker (pictured, via the Chron/Health Dept). Of course, the vast majority of restaurants already ban the bad fats, and a similar program for green restaurants has produced one (one!) city certification in the last four years. But that's not deterred the health department people; in fact, they are simply in love with their brainchild and in a Chronicle piece, they wax poetic about the program and its pretty pretty logo. Here's what we took away:
Why Restaurants Should Pay $250 For a Sticker, Part One: "... restaurant owners who prove they serve nothing containing trans fats will get bragging rights in the form of a decal with a green heart emblazoned with a silhouette of the Golden Gate Bridge and the words 'Trans Fat Free San Francisco Restaurant.'"
Why Restaurants Should Pay $250 For a Sticker, Part Two: "The sticker ... is so attractive it's worthy of framing, according to one public health official."
Yesterday, Bauer said the current economic slump was the most uncertain time for restaurants he's seen, but not everyone is that pessimistic: "Conventional wisdom would have it that increasing costs for raw materials are pinching restaurants, which pass the increases on to customers. Diners, you would think, would then cut back on eating out. It makes perfect sense - except that it isn't happening. 'My opinion is that the Bay Area is 100 percent bulletproof,' said Carlo Middione, who has owned the Vivande Porta Via restaurant on Fillmore Street for 27 years." [Chron]
Yesterday's Chronicle had a 1500-word puff piece on Chip Conley and his (still) booming Joie de Vivre empire, which has managed to thrive during bad economic times and is now looking to expand its restaurant side. Conley says that the next two years will see JdV restaurant revenue expand from $15 million to $70 million, and also dishes on three of his dozen current restaurant projects, including Joey Altman's Oakland endeavor and Midi (above), the French resto going into the old Perry's space on Sutter that was inspired by an unlikely, uh, actress: "Midi will be a California brasserie that is 'Bridget Bardot inspired.' That is intended to mean 'lively, colorful, modern,' while the name is a play on mid-day snack and mid-district between the Financial District and Union Square." As mentioned earlier, former Ponzu chef Michelle Mah will be in the kitchen. Given that the space has been completely gutted, Midi is a ways off, with a tentative ETA of fall.
· Joie de Vivre Finds Room to Grow [Chron]
· Breaking: Perry's Downtown Moving to Steuart Street [~ESF~]
To San Franciscans—and particularly industry folk—the increasing difficulty of doing business in the city is nothing new. The recent hubbub over the Healthy SF mandate has been well-documented around these here parts and elsewhere, but over the weekend, The New York Times decided to take a step back from the situation, and basically create a comprehensive list of the ways in which San Francisco's Board of Supervisors has intervened in everyday business life. No matter what you may think of the various hot topic issues at play here, taken all together, the article does paint a pretty bleak picture regarding the supervisors' questionable impact on business, worrying everyone from Mayor Gavin to New Yorkers. Among the high(low)lights of the Board's recent laws and proposals:
· Business owners must offer health care, typically a rarity in the restaurant industry except for managers, to all employees.
· Employers must offer 9 days sick leave to all employees.
· Chain restaurants must post nutritional information for all menu items.
· Minimum wage is $9.36, more than $3.50 above the federal rate, and will increase next year.
Shuna Lydon discusses the lack of chef-owners who still work the line, and in the process shares some tales from her time at the French Laundry, revealing among other things, that only six people can really cook at a time in the tiny kitchen, there is no talking, Thomas Keller puts in 19 hour days, and when on the line, you don't mess with Keller: "Thomas's approach was more like Chinese water torture-- he would repeat the same sentence over and over until he had what he wanted in front of him. Something like this: 'I need an agnolotti. I need an agnolotti. I need an agnolotti. I need an agnolotti. I need an agnolotti. I need an agnolotti. I need an agnolotti. I need an agnolotti. I need an agnolotti. Agnolotti. Agnolotti. Agnolotti. Agnolotti. Agnolotti. Agnolotti. Agnolotti.' You get the point." [Eggbeater]
San Francisco isn't the only locale feeling the pinch of the economy, and people up north are starting to worry about their dining scene's future: "I'm get bummed seeing folks like Mark Malicki move out of town while yet another Panda Express or Taco Bell open for business. I see hopeful local restaurateurs decide to wait it out rather than dive in ... The cost of living is just too high for many young chefs to take a chance in Wine Country ... Despite my kvetching, there are a few glimmers of hope on the horizon. Philadelphia-chefs Matt and Sonjia Spector are busy remodeling the former Stomp spot (1457 Lincoln Ave.), with an expected opening date in June for their small-plates spot, named JoLe. [Santa Rosa PD]
And now, some bad news for the GGRA and other opponents of the controversial health care ordinance: the same judges who approved the law in January have been assigned to the big hearing next Thursday: "The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disclosed Monday that Judges William Fletcher, Alfred Goodwin and Stephen Reinhardt will hear oral arguments April 17 on a lower court ruling that found that the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act pre-empted the San Francisco law that requires employers to spend a certain amount of money on employees' health care coverage or pay certain fees. Those judges in January allowed the law, being challenged by a San Francisco restaurant trade association, to go into effect pending a final decision by the appeals court. In allowing implementation of the law, Judge William Fletcher wrote that San Francisco has a 'strong likelihood' of prevailing in its argument that ERISA does not pre-empt the ordinance." [Business Insurance]
One of the hottest topics of the 2008 restaurant industry thus far has been the myriad rising costs that have descended upon San Francisco. It's a well-known trope at this point: between health care mandates, rents, recessions, a hefty minimum wage and even smaller issues like Gav's new water crusade, city restaurants are dealing with more costs than ever. For most intents and purposes though, the dining scene remains relatively healthy (if a little whiny), unlike say, the floundering restaurants down the Peninsula:
Many restaurants on the Peninsula are feeling the bite of an uncertain economy.... area residents are spending less eating out, restaurant owners say.
"People are very insecure with the country, and they're keeping tight with their money," said Carmelo Iacolino, one of the owners of Buon Gusto Italian restaurant in South San Francisco. "We're paying the bills, but it could be much better."
Though the entire health care hoopla is dying down up here, the LA Times dedicated 1,000 words this morning to the Healthy SF mandate. For the most, it's a fairly-comprehensive summary of the situation, from Mayor PlumpJack's enthusiastic support to the Supreme Court appeals, and finally, to the ways in which various restaurateurs are dealing with the increased costs. Some tidbits to be salvaged from the wreckage:
San Francisco diners are apparently OK with the surcharges: "Restaurant patrons so far don't seem to mind footing the bill for expanded healthcare. 'We haven't noticed it, so I guess it's not that big a deal,' said Stacy Wong, a Tres Agaves customer waiting with friends to lunch on Jalisco-style fish tacos."
Restaurateurs are not: "But restaurateurs are irate, saying they eke out livelihoods on profit margins as slim as two pennies on the dollar. The program is burdensome for the city's 4,200 eateries ..."
Newsom, acknowledging the law's shortcomings: "No one argues that our program is perfect, but it's better than anywhere else ... City Hall is not going to back away."
A long time coming, menu labeling for San Francisco chain restaurants, also known as Supervisor Tom Ammiano's pet project, was unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors yesterday. The ruling is anticipated to affect over 200 local restaurants, ranging from the likes of McDonald's and Starbucks to Pomodoro and Chevy's. However, the big news is that Ammiano and Co. notched the approval of the protesty Golden Gate Restaurant Association, by increasing the chain designation from 15 to 20:
The Golden Gate Restaurant Association, a group representing San Francisco restaurants, initially opposed the bill, but withdrew its opposition after Ammiano agreed to changes ...
"There are some small local companies that will have a little more time to grow prior to being impacted by the ordinance," said Kevin Westlye, executive director of the restaurant association.
Once upon a time, no one passed up the opportunity to work at the likes of Chez Panisse, but thanks to all types of soaring costs, more and more out-of-town industry folk might be steering clear of the Bay in favor of other, developing West Coast towns: "Marco Shaw of Fife was on his way to Chez Panisse in Berkeley, Calif., and living in an overpriced, overcrowded house when the lure of Portland's remarkable culinary scene managed to outshine the chance to work at Alice Waters' legendary restaurant. He thought Portland would be a temporary detour on his way to the high altar of American cooking, but he never left town." [OregonLive]
For all you struggling restaurateurs: when in doubt, turn to performance gimmicks. It has worked out well for Tony Gemignani of Castro Valley's Pyzano's Pizzeria, who has racked up pizza awards across the globe and holds Guinness records for the biggest pizza continuously spinning and most rolls across the shoulders in 30 seconds: "What inspired you to go from making pizza to turning it into a performance art? ... Being an independent business is tough with all the giant pizza chains out there and I was just trying to get people into the restaurant by doing a little marketing. It's a competitive market, like other things." You taking notes, Tyler? [SFE]
KQED's Michael Procopio pens a manifesto of sorts, calling out the many local restaurateurs who have put on a song and dance about the health care debate, and it's good: "What is most irritating to me is that these charges are being implemented by some of the busiest -- and most influential-- restaurants in the city. These chefs and owners have ridden mighty high in the good times. Now that the going has gotten tougher, they're still busy as hell but, rather than deal with their problems gracefully, these darling prime ballerine of the food press are bitching to the audience that their toe shoes are too tight ... Yes, this is a troubling time for the city's restaurants, but if these restaurateurs could stop their covert complaining and blame-gaming long enough to realize that their integrity is potentially at stake, they might hopefully get back to the business of doing business ... I just want them quit their pandering, stick out their grease-encrusted chins, and remember that the show must go on." [BAB]
Last week, Senor Bauer—along with plenty of others—rightfully took exception to the Wall Street Journalarticle that depicted the San Francisco dining scene as a "big white blank." In today's edition of the BauerBlog, our town's biggest restaurant mouthpiece brings up a bigger, and perhaps more important, question that surfaced in the course of the prior discussion: is a restaurant exodus imminent in San Francisco? With this new thought embedded in his head, Bauer put on his detective cap and got to investigating:
NOE VALLEY—Lest you think that Chris Cosentino would only offer his Head to Tail dinner to New York this year, we have word that for the first time ever, Incanto will offer the special dinner for not one, but two nights this year. It's still a ways off, but as of now, the dates are Monday, June 9th and Wednesday, June 11th. [EaterWire]
SAN FRANCISCO—The city is getting closer to approving an ordinance that would require chain restaurants to post nutritional information in their menus, as the measure passed the Board of Supes earlier today. Naturally, the various restaurant associations are not pleased: "While gaining support from health advocates, the legislation is meeting resistance from the restaurant industry, which views the requirements as burdensome and possibly illegal. [the CRA's Lara Diaz] Dunbar said the association is likely to challenge the San Francisco measure in court if it becomes law." [Chron]
TELEVISION—It's nice that Emeril's new show is embracing the whole green movement, but you'd think they could find a better place to shoot the show (you know, like at real farmers markets): "...we can now look forward to Emeril Green, a daily show on Planet Green, the new eco-lifestyle network from Discovery. The new network is launching this Summer and Emeril Green begins in July. The series will highlight Emeril's love of fresh, top quality foods and will be shot entirely on location at Whole Foods locations across the country." [YumSugar]
NB: waiters can get stabby when you try to take away their tips: "Williams Carlos Escobar, 23, of San Francisco, was working with a 44-year-old Burlingame man at Yaya Cuisine on 1108 Burlingame Ave. when the two began a dispute at about 11 p.m. regarding how to divide an unknown amount of tips, according to Burlingame police. Escobar then reached into the busboy station, grabbed a handful of forks and stabbed the man in the left side of his neck and left leg several times." This coming on the same weekend that a man shot at servers in an attempt to get out of paying a bill at Joe's Crab Shack. What's going on here, people? [SFE]
Yesterday, the Rules Committee for the Board of Supervisors heard testimony from both sides regarding the proposed ordinance that would require chain stores to disclose health information (including calorie counts) directly on menus. Here are the arguments for both sides:
Con: Tiffing with the city once again are the restaurant associations. This time, the California Restaurant Association is the biggest opponent, though they are opposed because they say they'd like it to be implemented on a statewide scale. Meanwhile, the GGRA took a back seat and continues to hope that they'll be able to cut a deal. According to an ABC7 report, the GGRA's desire is to list only calorie counts, but in all restaurants, because nothing says elegant like looking down at the menu at say, Michael Mina, and seeing a calorie count for the lobster pot pie.
Last week, after Delfina's $1.25 health care surcharge was brought to light by the BauerBlog, Hawthorne Lane denizen Two Restaurant also came under some scrutiny when it was discovered to be tacking on a similar charge to its diners' bills. The rub, of course, wasn't the charge itself, but the fact that Two had already provided health care to its employees prior to the Healthy San Francisco mandate, thus giving the impression that the new charge was a bit opportunistic.
Owner David Gingrass recently sent an email to explain the happenings over in SoMa (his full letter is after the hop). The short version is that yes, he offered insurance to all full-time employees prior to the mandate, and now he is using the $1.25 surcharge to provide a private, better insurance plan to all workers (the mandate says only full-time employees must be insured). In other words, he's going above and beyond the minimum city requirements, with the help of the $1.25 per diner boon, which should please his employees and supporters of health care, but might further annoy those diners opposed to the new surcharges popping up around town. His words follow:
[The bill] will: "(1) require chain restaurants to provide, per standard menu item, the total number of calories on menu boards and food tags, and the total amount of calories, saturated fat, carbohydrates and sodium on menus; and (2) revise existing requirements for providing nutritional information on alternative disclosure media."
On the surface, the Board of Supes' bill appears to be a good move, as pro-health and anti-chains are pretty much shoe-ins for gaining support in San Francisco. However, a piece in the Sunday Chron reveals the other side of the argument, from the point of view of smaller, local chains like Extreme Pizza that argue that the law will turn their menus into Excel spreadsheets: The other side of the coin >>
In about a month, San Francisco restaurants will have the opportunity to join the City's voluntary ban of trans fats. While fellow big cities like NYC and Philadelphia have done the logical thing and banned trans fats, restaurants will be able to undergo an inspection process and pay $250 for ... a sticker (pictured, via the Chron/Health Dept). Of course, the vast majority of restaurants already ban the bad fats, and a similar program for green restaurants has produced one (one!) city certification in the last four years. But that's not deterred the health department people; in fact, they are simply in love with their brainchild and in a Chronicle piece, they wax poetic about the program and its pretty pretty logo. Here's what we took away:
Comments
To San Franciscans—and particularly industry folk—the increasing difficulty of doing business in the city is nothing new. The recent hubbub over the Healthy SF mandate has been 
One of the hottest topics of the 2008 restaurant industry thus far has been the myriad rising costs that have descended upon San Francisco. It's a well-known trope at this point: between health care mandates, rents, recessions, a hefty minimum wage and even smaller issues like Gav's new 
A long time coming, menu labeling for San Francisco chain restaurants, also known as Supervisor Tom Ammiano's pet project, was unanimously 
NOE VALLEY—Lest you think that Chris Cosentino would only offer his Head to Tail dinner to 
Yesterday, the Rules Committee for the Board of Supervisors heard testimony from both sides regarding the proposed ordinance that would require chain stores to disclose health information (including calorie counts) directly on menus. Here are the arguments for both sides:
Last week, after Delfina's $1.25 health care surcharge was brought to light by the 
The city has certainly been busy with restaurant regulations lately. Already in this new year, we've had the 
