or because it will finally be negotiated through the development agreement. the other provides a benefit to the project sponsor and i don't think that that leverage is needed for the project sponsor in this case. there is no way within a week's time that he developed agreement will be hammered out between the community and the project sponsor to ensure that there is some type of housing that is a part of this key site proposal. again, all of this -- this is the only key site proposal that is duly developed agreement. all of this will get hammered out in the months that will follow the passage of the central soma plan. >> just so i am clear, does the agreement have to come back before the board of supervisors? >> yes, it does the mac wouldn't it make more sense to wait to allow for the developer his agreement to go forward and if there is no agreement reached with the community on this particular issue then we would not be finalizing the agreement? >> one provides a guarantee to the project sponsor in my amendment provides a guaranteed to the community.

i would prefer to move forward with some type of commitment to guarantee the community that there will be housing. if the board should choose to do the other way around, which is to provide some type of guarantee for the sponsor, that will be the will of the board. i will be moving forward to amend this at land use or the full board of supervisors. >> i was curious. was this brought up early on in the process? i am curious as to why, now at this moment this additional change. >> i did bring this up. not 15 days ago but at the full board of supervisors, everyone here in this chamber hurt me on september 25th. it was made very clear by the members of the public and the community groups that there is not enough housing built in this plan. and we have been hearing about it for least a year. i have made a very strong commitment from over a year ago to ensure that amendments would be made to the central soma plan to include as much housing and

affordable housing as i could conceivably squeeze out of this plan. there's only a number of ways to do it. one is the amendment that i introduced with the support of the land use committee in july where we rezoned all of the parcels outside of the key site to be housing oriented. rezoning everything north of the freeway and south of the freeway and the second is to ask all of the key sights to do their part in building housing either by contributing land for affordable housing or building housing themselves. this is the only key site of the seven that is not committed to any type of housing. again, i should say of the sex. there is a seventh key site without a proposal currently. it is waiting for the approval before it moves forward with some type of proposal to the planning commission. so this is my commitments. again, there is a wide diversity

of community groups. when groups agree, i really think i need to move forward with the greatest amount of housing as possible. i heard that loud and clear at the planning commission in may and at the land use committee in the summer and again very clearly on september 25th at the board of supervisors appeal. that is why i had been doing everything that i can to move as much housing into this plan before the board of supervisors. i think that i have been fairly clear along the process. you can see my quotes in the san francisco business times from january or february where i committed to putting as much housing into this plan as possible. that is allowable within the e.i.r. i have really fulfilled that commitments with these amendments that i've introduced. >> i have some additional questions. thank you. how does this impact overall -- i know this particular site, even before i was on the board of supervisors was an issue that

was going to the ballots. it didn't go to the ballot and was about preserving people that had been operating in this location for decades? there has been conversations about swapping land to ensure that there is temporary site his during construction. there has been a significant amount of conversation about this. i wonder how this impacts the overall negotiations and conversations. part of this is about preserving a special piece of san francisco i wonder how that impacts the overall conversations. that is something that i'm considering. i hear what you are saying, supervisor, and i respect the fact that the communities pushing and want something. as you said, this is one project out of the entire site that are being apps owned that has a developed agreement. >> this is the only key site that has committed to development agreements. i would love for all of them to do development agreements but i

cannot mandate that. >> i get it. >> this is the only key site moving forward with the agreement that would come before the board of supervisors. >> i think because of that, i think it gives the community and everyone that much more assurance. i don't understand. i have not heard the argument as to why we need this amendment now. i understand why you are doing it, but if there was no development agreement to, i would say yes, i am with you because you need the leverage and you need the ability to ensure that you are going to get some form of affordable housing. by the fact that this will be coming back to the board for a development agreement approval, it seems to me like that is a strong assurance that you will have the ability to negotiate affordable housing, whether it is on site or off site. >> you can look at it either way from the project sponsor perspective, you can say because there is a developed agreement later on that will become -- that will come before the board of supervisors, there will be flexibility for the board of supervisors to rezone this parcel back to allow for office

space. so you could also make that argument as well. >> or you could -- i mean, -- >> you could argue either way. >> india basin, they had to have a final approval. we were able to get much more than was on the table before their final agreements. i think that approval gives us the authority to ensure that we will get the appropriate -- we can go back and forth all day. i don't think, at this time, i'm not supportive of this amendment i think the fact there is a developed agreement ensures there will be an ability to negotiate something and i think probably what needs to be negotiated is the ability for there to be a fund for acquisition of small sights. it sounds like something that would make more sense on this site rather than putting conflicting use as. it is one thing to be across the street from loading and unloading and another thing to be right next to or above. i think that is what concerns me for those who would be living there.

i would not want to live next to trucks going in at 1:00 am or 3:00 am or on top of -- actually , i did that in college and had to move my dorm room because i couldn't sleep. anyway. side note. >> thank you. ok. thank you, very much for that dialogue. i wanted to go back to the mint issue. i know that we had talked about giving a week span of time. i know this has been an ongoing conversation. i am wondering if maybe oewd staff are working on the mint and can speak to this project and where the status is of things. whether it is negotiation or the project in general. >> thank you. i'm the project manager. i'm here today with others from

the historical society. as i understood from prior conversations, there was a discussion of potentially a full restoration of the planning commission recommended amount of funding of $20 million. that is what we came prepared to talk about today. this notion of additional funding, be a tide to additional parameters or detail is news to us on a project team. is something we can be happy to work with you on but as of today , that is new information. i would love, throw out quick clarifying points on where we are in the hopes of focusing the conversation. firstly, the only thing related to the mint that is part of the central soma packet that is in front of the committee is the recommended planning commission

recommendation of a 20 million-dollar allocation to the capital project. so there's no other print preapprovals are rezoning related actions as part of the plan. all of which would have to come before you at a future date. we are not planning on rezoning but for their project approvals would all come before the board for review. second quick thing, as currently constructed, the proposed allocation of the c.f.d. revenue futures would go to the fiscal rehabilitation of the mint. city dollars going to a city infrastructure project. we are not intending to make those available or otherwise re grant to specific community groups, including the current -- the perp -- or even our long-term partner.

i wanted to clarify that. maybe there was confusion around the $20 million going to particular neighbourhood groups. city dollars for a city infrastructure project investments. and then lastly, both the proposed interim lease, which is a separate item at a separate board file, the intention is to activate and steward the mint for the next few years until such time as we are ready to proceed with the fiscal restoration project. both as proposed with the interim leased and -- lease and the long-term restoration project. they are built around this concept of public access and community activation. and with the chair's permission i was going to ask to share a few words on the long-term project this notion of a cultural community commons which is really core to -- there has been some conversation about how we will partner in the future with community groups and what

kind of access and activation of the space they would have in that model. >> thank you. >> thank you. it is great to see you. on behalf of the california historical society, we are honoured to be working in partnership with the city and county to revitalize and bring back the old u.s. mint into a vibrant and sustainable plays for history and culture for all of us. one of the key tenants of this exploration, which i think he remembered, we received a million dollars grant from the state and then the city is also matching that. we are deep into the planning process. we are midway through and hope to bring back to you next year, may be before this time, let's say before halloween, a full -- fully proposed a fully developed project. the cultural commons is a key idea with chs and for many of

our community -- community partners with whom we have worked. we look forward to exploring this over the next 6-a months. as we work with our full team of architects and museum designers on this. what we do know after our initial community meetings and our initial capital campaign feasibility study is that this commitment by the city for the city's owned own resource is a key component to kick off the project in ways that are meaningful, those two donors and other agencies who would be willing to invest in this project. i look forward to speaking and we have been honored to speak with many of our community members and partners since i have come to c.h.s. years ago. we have worked about 250 different partners in the bay area. sometimes that is for an evening program and sometimes that is for a much longer and sustained set of efforts. we believe deeply in the community partners response. i'm happy to answer any questions. i deeply appreciate your

incredible deliberations on this and i know the mint is a very small part of this. i appreciate the attention that you have paid to it its. thank you. >> thank you. i do look forward to future conversations around the community cultural commons concept. i think that is exactly what supervisor kim was looking for in terms of partnership with the mint. the point i made last week was that of course, i want to support that effort but i also want to make sure that the project can -- its rehabilitation and so forth can be kicked off, which is quite expensive. it will be beyond this 20 million-dollar pot for 15 million-dollar pots that we are allocating through the central soma plan. i think, again, there are probably negotiations underway, but i want to make sure the project can move forward on its own. with that said, i know that supervisor kim has additional amendments that are currently being drafted. but as i have stated in previous

meetings, i would like to add back the 5 million into that pot that was suggested by planning commission from the regional transportation fund. >> ok. at this time, do we have any other comments or questions? >> i do. >> what i would propose is that we move forward amendments that perhaps are not controversial with this committee. so if we can move forward with amendments -- actually, i am looking at last week's. i have so many. if we can look move forward all of the amendments except for the tenth amendment and we can take a roll call on that. we will move forward with those

amendments first and then i will make two more amendments and then supervisor tang, you have an amendments. i may be amending that next monday with the additional language of linking the $5 million to below-market rate space for other nonprofits and cultural organizations in the south of market. i just want to confirm, is the 14-foot p.d.r. height included as part of your list? >> no. >> hold off on the flower march 1. >> so amendments of 1-9 and then i will make two more amendments and then supervisor tang, i believe you have a an amendment. >> is that all right. >> yes. >> there is a motion to amend as was stated by supervisor kim and we will do that without objection. >> great. i would like to move forward with the tenth amendment which is to rezone a portion of block

377 a lot 0052 m. you are. >> i'm sorry. i thought -- we are not holding back on that one for next week? >> no. >> there is nothing that will happen between now and next week this agreement will take weeks, if not months to negotiate. so there is not going to be a commitment that will be made in a week's time for education or a fee. it will take some time. >> i would like to move forward this amendment today. >> for the supervisor his consideration, you are considered to doing this m.u.r. would you be willing to postpone this and allow parties to talk with you? may be you can get some form of commitment in writing that would talk about small sites acquisition or land dedication and then we can have a better -- >> this project is so big. >> i understand. it would be a very complicated

amendment. >> there may be major changes through the agreements that have nothing to do with this housing portion. i'm happy to talk to outside of committee about that. >> know , know , i get it. >> i really need to move central soma out of land use next monday so if making that amendment next monday requires a continuance, then i am not open to waiting on this amendment. >> deputy city attorney? >> yes, if you make the amendment today and continue it you can pass it out next week or remove it next week. if you make it next week, it will trigger another continuance inland use. it is a subjective amendment. >> i guess what we could do is what we did when you asked me at rules, to leave it in for the process of moving things forward but allow for the option to

remove it. i would think that we would encourage the parties, both the flower march representative and community members to talk with one another and talk with the supervisors' office and you can get some form of commitment in writing. you may not be enough for the development agreement but it may be enough to satisfy the needs of the community and the supervisors' office to make a commitment in some form of small sites acquisition or contribution to land or in lieu fee or whatever it may be. i think that is where the. we can go ahead and move forward with the amendment with the knowledge that i reserve the right to make a motion to remove it next week. >> would you like a roll call vote on that particular one? >> no, that is fine. we can roll call it next week. again, i think that may be -- the project sponsor is here and

their representatives are here. may be they can talk and talk with supervisor's office. that is fine. we can do that. >> all right. item ten, this is regarding assessors block 377 a lot five. we will take that amendment without objection. >> that's fine. >> ok. the second amendment was the amendment that i was asked to weighed a week. to bring forward the land use committee. it was amendment date last week. this is to allow the project on fourth and harrison to provide a minimum of 14 feet floor to floor p.d.r. ground floor height and reduce the mass reduction controls on harrison street and on fourth street with contention on the project providing land for affordable housing, currently this is a discretionary approval and i understand that the planning commission would be very likely to support this as a discretionary approval by the project sponsor did ask for certainty in moving forward with

the project as they have proposed. we can take a roll call on that. >> ok. to the city's attorney his office, his is also one of those new amendments that if we, i know we talked about it, but we have not taken action. >> there is a question if this is a substantive amendment. [indiscernible] >> go ahead.

>> basically, same situation. it is substantive. if you made it next week, it would trigger another continuance. >> ok. roll call vote on this one. >> yes, please. >> on the motion to amend the legislation by stated by supervisor kim. [roll call] >> there are two aye. >> this amendment passes. i will make a motion to restore the $5 million to the mint project from the regional transportation fund as was recommended by the planning commission. roll call vote. we will do that without objection. sorry. deputy city attorney? >> just a clarification because there has been confusion about how this piece works. the committee can certainly make that amendment. we would reflect that amendment in the ordinance itself as in

section 434. just referencing the plan that was adopted by planning and the change. but the committee is not amending the implementation. >> thank you. that -- thank you for that clarification. we are ok with doing that without objection at this time. ok. colleagues, any other further questions or comments or discussion? >> i just want to thank the land use committee but i will thank you next monday. >> with that, we are going to continue items 11-15 to the next land use committee meeting of november fifth. we will do that without objection. are there any other items before us today? >> there is no further business. >> thank you. we are adjourned.

>> good afternoon. welcome to the special meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. today is november 2nd, 2018. thank you all for being here with us for this important matter. i will begin with attendance and i will lead the pledge of allegiance. we'll move to communications and then the members will nominate and appoint their presiding officer pro tem for the day. to roll call for attendance. [ roll call ]

>> we have a quorum. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. please join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america. to the republic, one nation, under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> thank you. during the call of the rolls those marked present, those marked not present were supervisor kim, supervisor peskin and president cohen. my office is in receipt of three requests to be excused from

today's meeting by supervisor kim peskin and president cohen. in a moment, a motion to excuse the members from today's meeting will be presented by the presiding officer pro tem, when appointed by the members. but first, to our organizational issue, given that the president of the board is not present at today's meeting, pursuant to board rule 4.7 the clerk of the board will call the meeting to order and additionally, given that the president is not present, the members will decide who, among them, will be the presiding officer for today's meeting. historically, the most senior member of the board is appointed to be the chair. but it can be another member of the board. once this member is appointed, the appointment will terminate at the end of the meeting today. the nomination requires a first, a second and a majority of the members present. and if you are ready, i will call the names on the roster as they appear.

if there is one nomination, we will just vote on that nomination. if there are more names than one, then a different type of voting will occur and we'll cross that bridge if it's necessary. so, if you are ready to make a nomination, nominations are open. supervisor ronen, your name is on the roster. >> thank you, madam clerk. i have an opportunity to talk to supervisor yee and ask him, as one of the senior most members of this board if he would be willing to pre side as president pro tem of this meeting and he said that he would. and so i'd like to nominate norman yee, supervisor yee and thank him for his willingness to play this role. >> thank you, supervisor ronen has nominated supervisor yee. is there a second? >> second. >> supervisor safai is the second. are there any other nominations to be made? >> call ones and twice.

there are no other nominations, nominations are closed. so then, supervisor ronen, thank you for removing your name from the roster. motion made by supervisor ronen and seconds by supervisor yee to nominate supervisor safai to nominate supervisor yee. can we do that with unanimous content. ok. supervisor yee, congratulations. chair yee now. i'll take a moment to hand him the gavel.

let's get started. first of all, i have your chair protem. colleagues, may i have a motion to excuse president cohen, supervisor peskin s there a second. supervisor fewer. madam clerk. can i have roll call. >> clerk: on the motion to excuse supervisors kim, peskin and president cohen. supervisor fewer. >> aye. >> mandelman. >> aye. >> supervisor ronen. >> aye.

>> supervisor safai. >> aye. >> supervisor stefani. >> aye. >> tang. >> eye. >> yee. >> aye. >> brown. >> aye. there are eight ayes. >> good. president cohen, supervisor kim and supervisor peskin are excused from today's meeting by unanimous vote. please call today's item. >> clerk: the board of supervisors approved a motion to convene as a committee of the whole today, at a special meeting of the board of supervisors. for a public hearing regarding the month-long major labor dispute between san francisco hiss pit tally industry to include the 2,000 hotel workers who walked off the job at southern marriott operated hotels citing the company's failure to keep up with the escalating cost of living and growing job insecurity. >> ok. thank you, as a clerk stated the

motion to enter into a committee of the whole was approved on october 30th. therefore, we will now convene as a committee of the whole. are there any opening statements from the members before i open to public comment? supervisor ronen. >> thank you so much, chair yee. i wanted to just start out by thanking my colleagues and thanking the clerk and the city attorney's office for being here. it's very unusual that we call a special meeting of the board of supervisors to hear an item on a friday afternoon, especially four days before an election. i think the willingness of my colleagues to come and hold this special meeting and for us to make these arrangements is testament to how important this issue is to the city and county of san francisco. so i just really wanted to thank

all my colleagues for moving around your busy schedules to be here. i also want to note, my disappointment that the c.e.o. of marriott isn't here. i did send mr. sorenson a letter asking for him to be here. i did receive a letter in response declining to come here. but i just wanted to ask now if there's any representatives from marriott who showed up today? if you have, can you please make yourself be known. i don't see anyone. i know we do have overflow rooms in room 263 and in the north side court. if there is any representative of marriott, please come to the board chamber because we would like to hear from you. i will say that there are

thousands of workers, of your workers from your hotel here and all over this building right now and i'm incredibly, incredibly disappointed and in fact insulted that you decided not to show up today. i just wanted to give you an opportunity to come and you will be welcome to speak at any point during this hearing if any representative shows up. i proposed that we hold this hearing because i've been becoming more and more concerned about the marriott hotel strike, which is just entered its second month. and as far as i'm aware, this is the biggest strike that san francisco has seen in any industry in more than a generation. as i said last week, i know that going on strike is one of the hardest decisions that anyone could possibly make. when thousands of san franciscans feel the need to lay down their tools and to walk off the job, it is a sure sign that something is not right in our

city. that is why i'm again, so grateful for my colleagues who agreed to hold this special meeting as a committee of the whole and i think all of us agree we need to hear from the work worse have taken this action. we would like to hear from the company effected again, i will say it's unfortunate that they're not here. this strike touches on nearly everything we, as supervisors, are asked to weigh in on. from income inequality to environmental sustainability, to healthcare and the budget. almost everything at stake in this dispute is something that all san franciscans hold important. looking out at the audience and having seen everyone in the howl ways on the way to this room, it's obvious who these striking workers are. they are across section of our city. they are our neighbors, our family members, our friends. they represent the best of what san francisco has always been, a community of working people from

diverse backgrounds who stand together united in a common cause. we all know how important the tourism industry is to san francisco. in 2017, visitors spent $9.1 billion in san francisco. hotel companies clearly play a key role in that economy. i have already mentioned that i reached out to mr. sorenson to speak of this hearing. i really sincerely hoped they would be here to tell their side of the story. after all, san francisco is known as one of the most important tourist destinations in north america. we generate some of the highest room rates in the country and are a market every hotel company wants to be in. our city isn't just another profit center on a spread sheet somewhere. our city is a place where real

people struggle to build a future, to raise families, to grow old together. doing that is getting harder and harder for so many. from what i hear, that's the reality that led to the strike, which is the subject of this hearing today. i want today see if any of my colleagues wanted to make opening remarks before i call up the president of local 2 to speak from the union's perspective about what is driving the strike and what this dispute means to the city as a whole. i want today give an opportunity to any of my colleagues, if anyone wants to make opening remarks. i'm not seeing any. >> supervisor ronen, i just want to say i'm very thankful that you called for this hearing. this issue is very important to many of us here. if not all of us.

and certainly what is happening in the city is not what i like to see of san francisco. we need to help this situation be resolved. thank you, very much. >> thank you so much. with that, is it ok if we call up the president of unite here local 2. >> colleagues, would you -- is there any objection to have him speak as a speaker, presenter? >> thank you, supervisors. thank you for taking this very rare move to call for this urgent special hearing about a crisis with the marriott corporation in this city that's in fact turned this city, turned san francisco and its tourism industry upside down.

i, along with striking workers, a short time ago, met with mayor breed, who continues to be very supportive of our campaign and it's central goal. that one job should be enough. today, this board, this committee of the whole, will hear firsthand testimony from striking marriott workers. about why this crisis occurred in this city. what is at stake for this city? if it's not quickly and fairly resolved. and make no mistake about it, folks, this is a crisis. there are 2500 families that have been out on strike for a month now. they made that difficult decision, they made that sacrifice, they took that step after months of failed negotiations with this company. you know, a century ago, in this country, working people fought and struck and did everything they could to impresses on their bosses the need for an

eight-hour workday due to the exploitation of those times being driven and overworked. the need for a weekend. they were successful in making that demand heard. they were successful in winning the weekend. they were successful in achieving the promise of security and security and quality of life. today that promise is all but gone. you know, too often hotel workers, service sector working, marriott workers here and across this country have to work multiple jobs just to survive. the work they provide reaps record profits for the corporations for which they work. just to pay rent in this city, a housekeeper working at the marriott has to work 40 hours a week. 40 hours a week, a full-time job that only does enough to pay the

rent in this city. that's why more and more of our members, that's why more and more working people in this city are working two sometimes throwe jobs. they're commuting longer and from longer distances from further away. that's a burden, not just born on our members, on those wor workers. it's on their families and especially their children. the average full-time marriott worker in this city earns $44,000 a year. i don't have to tell you what you already know. that's enough to make ends meet here in the bay area in today's bay area. so, that is what has driven this campaign. that's the under pinnings of our campaign. that one job should be enough. that is why workers took this step. this courageous step to walk out on strike to fight for themselves and their families. 30 days ago. now, since that time, we've seen

some movement at the table from this corporation. in negotiations earlier this week, we made, for the first time, significant progress on one of our key objectives. real job security. the ability to really negotiate over new technology and the workplace. and food and beverage operations. we believe that progress was made and that we took those steps because of the action that workers have taken. that being said, we are still significantly a part on issues that matter most to working people in this city. on the issue of healthcare, healthcare in this market in northern california here in this city, healthcare is all but out of reach for working peoplement for hotel workers, union hotel workers in this city, because of years of struggle, because of campaigns in the past, we have achieved a standard where the cost associated with health

insurance are born by the employer. and while some employers may squawk and say it's an unfair burden to impose on employers, it certainly can't be born by working people, who just barely make enough to pay the rent. we, as of today, as of today, 30 days into a strike, our contract expired august 1st. months of failed negotiations. we still today do not have a commitment from this company to maintain workers ehealth' health benefits over the next several years. the marriott corporation, worth $49 billion, in this city, a city that is a life blood industry worth over $9 billion. if the marriott corporation is not going to step up and say

yes, we will protect your healthcare, yes, we have a responsibility as a corporate citizen in this city to do right by our workers, if they won't do that and if we won't hold them accountable to do that, then what will other corporate citizens do? who are we as a city? this brazen position that this company has taken and unreasonable position, has an impact on the entire industry and in fact, it's an attack, not just on the workers at the marriott corporation. not just on hotel workers in this city. but on working people in this city and in fact on this city as a whole. and that's why we're here today. we're here to tell our stories. we're here to tell you about why workers have taken this step. why we're out on strike. what this strike means to us. what it means when we say one job should be enough.

at the end of the day, when you boil it all down, to its real core. when you think about those words. one job should be enough. it really is a modest demand and it's something that marriott can achieve today. we go back to the table with this company here in san francisco on november 12th. we know we're gathering stanley cup or the and we're stronger by the day. we will last one daylonger than the marriott corporation. with the support of this board and the city and the mayor, we know we're going to win this fight. i can't say it any better than the strikers themselves many of with that i'll turn it back to the chair. you will hear testimony today directly firsthand from striking workers that will really tell the story of what this campaign is about. i thank you. [applause]

>> i just want to remind the audience, if you need to express a positive expression, just wave your hands. we'll see all your hands. it's against the rules for us to make noise out there. if you are hearing something you don't like, just go thumbs down. [laughter] >> thank you, very much. supervisor ronen. >> yes, i just had a couple of questions for you. you made a couple points that really struck me. through preptation for this hearing, i learned that marriott employs more people worldwide than google sales force and facebook combined. is that right? >> that's accurate, yes. marriott is the largest hotel corporation in the history of the world. and they're the largest hotel

employer here in san francisco. >> so then, the outcome of this strike and the precedent that's sent about this contract, about what healthcare benefits these workers received, what job security in this changing economy happens, the impact of this is not just going to impact these 2500 workers here in the san francisco but potentially millions of workers through out the country and perhaps the world. i wanted you to speak a little bit about that. i didn't realize that until i started researching this, and the severity and what is at stake in the strike hit me very hard. >> i think that's absolutely right. you know, the marriott corporation is not the worst hotel corporation in this country. i mean we're not making the point that marriott is somehow any worse than any other corporation, any other corporate

employer. marriott is by far the largest. as the largest, they are the industry leader in this industry and they have a unique responsibility as the industry leader. here in this city, you know, as a large employer, certainly what we achieve here in san francisco will set a benchmark and will set a standard for the other hotel workers in this city. i think when you look nationally, when you kind of zoom back to the rest of the country, what marriott does in multiple cities across the country will set a standard for working people across the country. but to your point, supervisor, ronen, it's not just about hotel workers. it's about working people, it's about service sector ploy's and working people in general in some of our largest cities. and what role do corporations have and what responsibilities to the largest corporations in