>> chair peskin: good afternoon to the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, monday, september 14, 2020. i am the chair of the committee, aaron peskin, joined by supervisor and member dean preston, and shortly to be joined by supervisor ahsha safai. our clerk is miss erica major. miss clerk, do you have any announcements. >> clerk: due to the covid-19 health emergency and to protect board members, the city, and the public, the city hall and board room are closed. however, members will be participating in the meeting remotely.

committee members will be attending the meeting through video conference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. depending on your provider, you can view on channels 26, 78, or 99, as well as sfgovtv.org, which is currently streaming the call in number across your screen. each speaker will be allowed public comments which to speak by calling 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 146-963-1010. again, that's 146-963-1010. press pound, and pound again. when connected, you will be in listening mode and muted.

when your item of interest comes up, press star, three to be ad hitsmitted to the queue. alternatively, you may submit public comment the following day: e-mail the land use and transportation clerk, myself, ericamaj erica.major@sfgov.org. items acted upon today will be included in the board of supervisors agenda on september 25 unless otherwise stated. >> clerk: can you. i'd like to welcome supervisor ahsha safai. with that, could you please

call item number 1. >> clerk: yes. ordinance amending the existing building code to extend the date for completion of work for the seismic retrofitting of tier four wood frame buildings to september 15, 2021. each speaker will be allowed public comments which to speak by calling 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 146-963-1010. again, that's 146-963-1010. press pound, and pound again. when connected, you will be in listening mode and muted. >> chair peskin: thank you.

before i submit this, i wanted to thank mayor ed lee for having the courage to mandate seismic retrofits of soft story buildings of san francisco. i want to thank many folks who have participated in the previous tiers. it has not been cheap, it has not been easy, but we are now in the middle of a covid-19 crisis, and i do want to say that i believe supervisor mandelman's legislation is timely and appropriate, and the extension, god willing, we will not have an earthquake because in the incident him, we've had -- interim, we've had everything else. and with that, i will turn it over to mr. temprano.

>> thank you, chair peskin. it's good to be with you on behalf of supervisor mandelman to discuss this ordinance that will amend the building code to extend the date for completion of work for the seismic retrofitting of buildings to september 15, 2021. as chair peskin noted, the city's mandatory soft story retrofit program was established in 2013. the program requires the retrofit of older multifamily unit buildings to a soft story condition. tier four to be completed often have commercial space with residential units above.

the current deadline for completion on these buildings is tomorrow, september 15, 2020. the 1,114 tier four properties identified in 2013 are estimated to hold approximately 2,028 businesses. of these 1,114 tier four reports, approximately 41% still need to complete their retrofits. >> chair peskin: i'm sorry, mr. temprano. would you please represent the percentages? >> sure. that was 41% needing to be completed. even prior to covid-19, small businesses in district 8, and i'm sure in your district, as well, it reached out, concerned

that a city mandated closure of three to six months could force them to permanently closed. they looked at 140 small business spaces in districts 1, 2, and 5 that had been retrofitted prior to 2005. 30 to 40% of these businesses saw a turnover following that work. many now ask the risk of shutting down again to allow seismic retrofit work just as they are rehiring staff and trying to reestablish desperately needed sales. seismic retrofit work is an emergency and urgent, but the reality is that small businesses and owners need more

time. by extending this date to september 15, 2021, we are allowing this work to be completed, and hopefully, it can be completed at a time that is less disruptful for tenants and ground floor businesses. we have heard from a number of residential tenants who are sheltering in place, often working from home and are finding their locations unuseable. i will note at a previous meeting of this committee, there was a need to update other deadlines, including the deadline to install fire alarm systems. while this is not addressed in our current system, we would allow for additional amendments to be introduced while still

moving this time sensitive piece of legislation forward. i would like to acknowledge and thank the director of small business, regina dick-endrizzi. with that, i would like to thank you for consideration of this item and take any questions you might have. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. temprano, and i don't see any of my colleagues in the chat box, so let me just start by addressing the issue that i think you just asked for, which is relative to the fire alarm, do you have amendments that you want to propose if this item is

delayed? >> we do not. at a previous meeting, you and supervisor safai had addressed some additional concerns. i think if there's a motion to further extend deadlines, we're happy to have this legislation be a starting point if that's the easiest way to go about it. >> chair peskin: got it. absence the amendments, the issue is whether or not we duplicate the file and we continue it and amendment it whereas something is introduced and sits under the 30-day rule unless waived -- okay. we can put that in the parking lot for now. okay. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: so i think just my thought -- thank you, tom, and mr. chair -- in this

regard. i think it makes sense to duplicate the file and then for some amendments made to clarify around fire alarm upgrades, so i would be in favor of duplicating the file, for sure. >> chair peskin: okay. so we'll circle around to that a little later on. why don't we go to d.b.i. as first, this is a d.b.i. issue, and we'll to the small business commission and miss dick-endrizzi. i think it would be helpful if you talk about how the tiers work, what m.o.v.s or

endorsement remains today, and i really want to thank d.b.i., who has embraced this program and, god fore bid, in addition to -- forbid, in addition to everything that we're experiencing, covid and air quality, that we have an earth quick. d.b.i., the floor is yours. >> thank you, supervisor. so with the retrofit, compliant generally has been pretty good. we've got 75% compliance rate right now. the first level is assembly spaces. there's only seven buildings

total, and we've completed five, and there are two occupying outstanding on that. sorry. i don't have the information on that, but those two are special cases. second is larger apartment buildings, 15 units or more. that is at 86 completion rate, with 74 total buildings that have not completed at this point. >> chair peskin: 86, you mean 86% -- >> percent. >> chair peskin: and what was the universe of tier two? >> tier two was 515, required to be completed by september 15 of 2018. at this point, we have 74 that are not in compliance, and notices of violation have been issued, and those are somewhere

in the abatement process or list. phase three is the sort of catchall category. that is the largest tier by far. it is 3,383. at this point, we have 80% of those completed with 20% not. that's 686 buildings. those were due to be completed on 9-19-2019, so they're almost a year overdue at this point. we've filed m.o.v.s that those are some buildings with tenants in them, so we're willing to work with those building owners -- if they have outstanding circumstances, we're not going to require them

to start work right away if there's some reason not to. and then, the final tier is tier four, is a total of 1,024 buildings. of those, 599 have been completed. >> chair peskin: i'm sorry. what was that? out of 1,024, how many was completed. >> that was 599, and our total that have not been completed are 495, but that's still at a 40% need completion rate. >> chair peskin: and for those that have, that would be a certificate of final completion? >> yes. >> chair peskin: thank you. >> you're welcome.

>> chair peskin: so do we have questions, supervisor preston or supervisor safai? those are relatively figures over time. to mr. temprano, relative to the folks in fear three, was there any thoughts from supervisor mandelman's office of how we want to deal with them or why? >> sorry. i have a timer going off, apologies. >> chair peskin: your time is up, tom. >> i'm done. no, we really did just focus on tier four specifically in this legislation because the deadline is -- is now, and there was such -- so many buildings that impacted so many special and residential tenants that were still out of compliance, so we really didn't dig into tier three. >> chair peskin: and so, mr. murray, you characterize tier three as kind of the catchall,

how would you characterize what was in tier four for those 1,024 buildings? >> tier four are commercial ground four and are in liquefaction zones. >> chair peskin: so subject to p-waves and s-waves. why weren't those -- i'm sorry. why weren't those included in that initially? i'm sorry. i missed that. i was off the board for seven years. >> i'm sorry. i don't know that. >> chair peskin: and relative to the 40% rate, can you characterize why the remaining

stragglers haven't performed timely? >> sorry. i was muted there. generally, it's cost. you know, with lining up a contractor in tier four, i would imagine that a lot of constructors planning to start construction were delayed by the covid crisis, but it's still the same set of issues running through any major project. it's the cost and finding a contractor and all of that. i will say that they were required to have their building permit filed by 9-15-2018, so it's not an issue of getting the permits, and i believe that 99% of them actually have the

permits issued, it's just a matter of starting work. >> chair peskin: okay. ms. dick-endrizzi. >> thank you, chair peskin and supervisor preston and safai. i won't repeat much of what tom said, but the small business commission supported this report, that an extension of this deadline would be needed. again, just to highlight that because of the covid, construction one was stopped, so during the early months of covid, that even when businesses were closed, this kind of construction could not take place, and that with the high number of properties that

were still needing to complete, that we would need to create a time frame where property owners and businesses could figure out the best time to get the work completes. so the commission is and our office is supporting the compensation. i'm happy to take any questions. >> chair peskin: are there any questions for either mr. murray or miss dick-endrizzi? seeing none, are there any members of the public on this item one for public comment? >> clerk: thank you, mr. clerk. it looks like we have 11 listeners and three in queue. d.t., if you can let us know when the callers are ready. >> chair peskin: first speaker,

please. >> i apologize. i raised my hand too early. i was hoping to speak on this, the next item. >> chair peskin: okay. we'll get back to you, so if you'll get back in the queue. next speaker, please. >> [inaudible] i'm sorry. i want to also comment on the item number 2. >> chair peskin: okay. we'll get you back in the queue, and next speaker for item number 1. >> i'm sorry. i'm also -- i need to wait for my [inaudible] chec. >> chair peskin: sounds like the next item is going to be pretty popular. all right. are there any other speakers for item number one with regard to extending the retrofit

compliance deadline? madam clerk? operations? >> operator: there are no more callers. >> chair peskin: all right. why don't we wait for just a moment before i close public comment. going once, going twice, public comment is closed. colleagues, first, let me duplicate the file and make a motion to continue the duplicated file to the call of the chair. on that motion, madam clerk, a roll call, please. >> clerk: for the file, item number one has been duplicate. on the motion to duplicate and continue to the call of the chair -- >> chair peskin: i think the duplication, i can do myself,

but continue to the call of the chair. >> clerk: correct. just noting the duplicate go motion. [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes on the continuation. >> chair peskin: and then i make a motion to forward this to the full board of supervisors as a committee report for hearing tomorrow, september 15. on that motion, a roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion as stated -- [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes.

>> chair peskin: all right. next item, please. >> clerk: item 2 is an ordinance amending the health code to establish cleaning and disease prevention standards and practices in tourist hotels and large commercial office buildings to help contain covid-19. each speaker will be allowed public comments which to speak by calling 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 146-963-1010. again, that's 146-963-1010. press pound, and pound again. when connected, you will be in listening mode and muted.>> chair peskin: thank you, ms. major, and thank you, supervisor safai and supervisor preston for your patience in

continuing this item for a couple of weeks to make sure we created the space for additional speed back and dialogue for a host of key stakeholders in the hospitality and office industries, including the building owners, their workers, and other parties. and as i've said before -- actually, i said it in a movie that was on public broadcasting a couple of nights ago, i was proud to represent a district that has been the goose that lays the golden egg for san francisco, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in tourism and office revenue and event revenue for the city and county of san francisco. we all know, these industries have been remarkably hard hit

by the pandemic, particularly by the mixed measures and announcements emanating from the federal government and the c.d.c. san francisco has so much at stake, and we, as i said earlier, need to adopt industry-leading standards rooted in public health guidance. i want to rebrand san francisco as the safest tourism destination in the united states of america. i've said this to the building owners and stations, i've said this to unite 2, and i've said this to hotel council. as of today, we have done a small partial reopening for personal businesses, and as we look at reopening more and more

indoor activities, particularly in very transmissive settings. we have to look from what we've all read in the media in disastrous openings like las vegas and other cities and establish strong guidelines that really protect everyone and reattract tourists to san francisco. singapore, china, france have adopted very similar cleaning standards based on recommendations from donald trump's beloved world health organization, and i really think that san francisco can and should be the industry leader here, and as we say, as goes san francisco, so goes california. as goes california, so goes the united states of america.

and we should be the gold standard for the state and the nation. and as i said, i've met with all of the stakeholders in the past several weeks, and they have all suggested a slew of amendments. i think there have been a total of 33 from the industries, which colleagues, what is before you today and has been circulated, i have adopted about half of them, either in whole or in part, and i really want to thank stakeholders for this feedback. and some of the stakeholders have actually done that in a way that was much more helpful to my chief of staff, sunny angulo. in other cases, it was much broader, high-level feedback as

came from the building owners and managers association. i know there's been concern about what we call opt in or opt out, which, very simply put is, if you are a guest in a hotel, you get cleaning unless you decide that you don't want daily cleaning in your room. that's exactly the way the system works now. i will say that when i go to a hotel, and i stay a couple of nights, and there's a little note on top of the towels that i can make the environment better and not use water, i don't have my towels changed. i mostly go backpacking and stay in a tent, but we're actually preserving customer choice, so if a patron wants to opt out of daily cleaning in

order to conserve water and do their part for the environment, they can continue to have that option. in addition to revising, clarifying some of the definitions in the ordinance, these clarifications really seek to tighten up the definition of cleaning and the clarification of employees in language, and i think that is fundamentally important. and given the fact that we're furthering -- we're further limiting the scope of this ordinance, i've been advised by council that these amendments are nonsubstantive in nature, although i think we spent a lot of time trying to reach a consensus that works for all parties without compromising public health and encouraging more tourism and office use. i want to make sure that we haven't missed anything, and i'm totally open to additional

feedback. supervisor safai, thank you for your cosponsorship, and you're welcome to offer any comments or amendments, and if there are no other comments, i would like to open this up for public comment, which based on the last item, we apparently have quite a bit of. with that, vice chair safai? >> supervisor safai: yeah, thank you. i want to associate myself with your comments. i appreciate working independently on this. since we can't work on this together, we had to work independently with the respective agencies, but i appreciate your work on this. i would like to say, i draw this analogy. it's very similar to the airline industry. there are some airlines that are still selling middle seats during this pandemic, that are allowing passengers to go in and be fully, fully on top of one another. that's their choice. i don't think that's the best practice at this moment.

there are other airlines that are choosing to remove the middle seat, and i think it's very similar to what we're talking about, particularly when it comes to cleaning. in the common areas, we've defined that, narrowed it. high-touch surfaces, appreciate those amendments, but the idea of daily cleaning is one, to me, that's very similar to the analogy that i just gave. if you want to allow infections to be there, and you want to say you don't want your room cleaned until you leave, that's going to probably put the house cleaner and those involved more at risk, but if you -- and you have that option. but if you want to allow -- and i think we should still allow daily cleaning -- can be done in a very safeway. the guests wouldn't be in the room. the guests would be out of the room to ensure that you're cleaning and paying attention. same thing with the larger

hotel buildings. i don't want to lose sight of that. i think that's really important because this is about tending a message -- sending a message to the industry, to the employers, to the tenants, that we are going to take action to ensure that the virus is not spreading. if i can go set in my dentist's chair where he's 6 inches from my face, i think we can figure out a safeway to have hotel rooms cleaned, to have offices cleaned that will encourage people to come back and participate in our tourist industry and allow people to go back to work and help our economy. so with that, i'm proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation.

>> chair peskin: thank you. supervisor preston, anything you want to add? no pressure whatever. >> supervisor preston: thank you for that. i was muted, but no comments, please. >> chair peskin: thank you for that. madam clerk, if you and operations could have the first caller brought up. operations is bringing up speakers. if you have not done so already, press star, three to enter the queue, and if you have already done so, please wait to speak until the system says you are unmuted. >> hello. my name is nicholas javier, and i'm a proud member here of united local 2. when i was laid off in march, i

couldn't afford paying rent. it's hard to put into words the level of fear and anxiety not knowing that you might be able to pay rent the next month. thankfully, i moved in with my partner, but the extra $600 from the c.a.r.e.s. act expired. i won't be able to go back to work unless patrons and customers can rest assured by knowing that we can ensure that our cleaning levels are safe. the many things that this virus has taught us, we must do these things the right way for all of

our sakes. i'm asking to do this the right way. the companies want us to go the extra mile to wow the guest with our service, we must also wow the public with health and safety first before profit. all of our livelihoods depend on it. thank you very much. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is kevin carroll, and i'm the president and c.e.o. of the hotel council of san francisco. i want to thank you, chair peskin and supervisors safai and preston for providing us with the revised legislation, and thank you, supervisor peskin, and sunny angulo's work, as well, your chief of staff. in reviewing the document, we just received the changes in the last 24 hours. we want to thank you for the amendments you made based on the requests that we had after

meeting with you to discuss. please note the hotel council is committed to having the strongest and safest hotels in san francisco. there are two recommendations that we asked for and were looking for that have not been addressed with the current program that's the basis of our continued opposition to the ordinance. the first is to eliminate the mandatory daily cleanings and allow our guests unfetortered access to choice of cleanings. we also would say the second item is not to require

operators to have dedicated personnel responsible for disinfecting exterior doors of the hotel. we respectfully ask that the item be delayed for further review and discussion, and we thank you for the time for discussing this. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. carroll, and my recommendation, if my colleagues agree, would not be able to send this as a committee report, but to send this with a positive recommendation, which would allow us another week to discuss this. next speaker, please. >> my name is troy flanagan, and i am the president of the san francisco lodging

association. thank you, supervisor peskin, for creating opportunities for constructive discussion to address our concerns with the bill. however, based on the language circulated, we remain strongly opposed to this measure. we feel strongly that the safety of our employees and guests should remain in the hands of public health experts. ensuring the safety of guests and hotel associates is paramount. unfortunately, this ordinance that is before you today goes well beyond public health guidance and will increase public health exposure risk for our employees and our guests and put an incredible strain on

especially small independent hotels. many jurisdictions have provided guidance or mandated that daily guest room cleaning must be upon the request of a hotel room guest. increasingly, hotel guests are telling us they don't want that contact. 65% are saying they would be uncomfortable with housekeeping entering their room without advance permission. please delay decision until we can discuss this with public health measures and safely rebuild san francisco's public health jobs. >> chair peskin: thank you. and just for the record, everybody on this panel has already voted for an earlier

incarnation of this measure, so the chances of us voting against this are slim to none, but that is at least the chairperson's prediction. next person, please. >> good afternoon. my name is maria mata. i am a housekeeper at marriott hotels for ten years. i am a proud member on united 2. this vote will require my hotel to follow the world health organization recommendation for cleaning and safety of covid-19. this is important to me because i work in [inaudible] i also live with my mother, son, and young daughter. my mother is 88 years old. i was to make sure that my -- i want to make sure that my hotel is doing the right thing. i don't want to get infected, and i don't want to infect my

sons. it's also important for the business. if we make san francisco the cleanest, safest place during covid-19, the guests will come back. if we don't disinfect and clean the right way, the guests won't trust our hotel. the right way to clean is to clean more, not to clean less. this is how we can protect the workers and rebuild the guests' trust in our hotels. please listen to us and vote yes on this ordinance. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is [inaudible] and i'm also housekeeper at san francisco marriott marquis for more than eight years, and i'm a proud member of united local 2. nobody knows better than the

housekeepers like me on how to clean a hotel room, and cleaning is important to me. it's much harder to sanitize a room that nobody has cleaned in days, but now because of covid-19, we have to be more careful because it can survive for days on the high touch items [inaudible] thermal control, and the wood head boards, beds, chairs, and night tables. covid-19 can even be on the trash, and covid-19 [inaudible] so we should follow the highest standards of cleaning and safety. as a housekeeper, we are the experts, and we are the one who enter the rooms to clean. we know that the right way to open our hotel is to clean more and not less. please listen to us and support

us by voting yes. thank you so much. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker. [inaudible] >> -- to take the cleaning protocols to ensure that employees and guests are kept safe. hotels are altering traditional operating procedures to reduce the risk of infection during this virus and beyond. the american hotel lodging association has issued safe

stay, industry-wide guidelines to provide hotels with a comprehensive set of best practice protocols. california lodging hotel association has adopted safe for its safe cleaning program. based on my 45 years of public health practice, specializing in infectious health and disease transmission, i find these measures appropriate. face coverings, distancing in all of indoor common areas, and guests requiring to choose contactless check in options as well as daily room cleaning limit contacts between hotel

employees and guests. [inaudible] furthermore, it has some arbitrary cleaning requirements that are not only unnecessary but potentially detrimental to worker health and safety by exposing workers potentially to covid-19 as well as unhealthy cleaning sources. thank you very much for listening to me today. >> chair peskin: next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm [inaudible], president and c.e.o. california lodging and hotel association. we represent more than 6,000 hotels in california and more than 215 hotels in san francisco. we greatly appreciate your amendments to the healthy buildings ordinance offered by

supervisor peskin yesterday afternoon. however, some of our concerns still have not been addressed. in supervisor peskin's comments, he mentioned his intention was to preserve consumer choice, and we agree completely with that. this issue is a fundamental concern to our association, especially for our employees. just this morning, the san francisco department of punl health put out a statement as part of the guidance for opening hotels, is asking for daily cleaning increases the risk of community transmission by staff because of exposure to potential covid-19 positive individuals.

so the amended [inaudible] over a matter that the public health department has highlighted as a serious and elevated risk, which is why we maintain our vigorous opposition to the proposal even as amended and hope that we can continue to work with supervisor peskin on continued changes. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. thank you, mr. chair and supervisors. i don't have much to add. i think that chair peskin, supervisor safai both said it quite well.

>> -- and we look forward to the vote today and then the full board. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> so supervisors, i think there are a number of loopholes that this item hasn't addressed. so if you want the rest of the world to follow what we do here in san francisco, i haven't

heard a word about using tools like the ultraviolent rays. i haven't heard a word about asymptomatic workers or guests, and i've said this before, that we need to consult somebody who is -- tourists don't like to come here, and i don't want to say for what reason, but another factor that you must bear in mind in, there are

overall 120 nations that do not want americans to visit them because we have had over 200,000 deaths. you have to look at this in a comprehensive manner and not look at it as if you're going to win some brownie points. it doesn't work like that. thank you very much. >> chair peskin: next speaker. >> hello. can you hear me? >> chair peskin: yes, we can. >> chair peskin: glen welsh, former chief of cal-osha. in general, i want to applaud the efforts of coming up with this reg, although i do want to point out something that i

learned during my many years at cal-osha. you get buy in when you have compliance, and you get most of what you're looking for when people believe in what's being required, and i think you're mostly there with this reg, but i think the room cleaning thing is a real mistake. i think most people don't believe it's necessary, and that tends to create a certain amount of cynicism with complying with the rules. it's good for there to be an incentive for hotel residents to not clean a room every day. i don't think you have a stitch of evidence to say it makes difference one way or another, although if it does, i suspect it's with the employees, so i would say you might want to rethink that one. and also, the surface is high

touch. if the surface is not high touch, we don't need something like a door opener. that's just waste, and it's potential over exposure. finally, i want to say that likening this room cleaning issue to whether you sit in a middle seat in an airline or not is really a hard pill to swallow. any way, appreciate the effort, and thanks for the opportunity to comment. >> chair peskin: thank you for that comment, mr. cal-osha director. i've never heard from you, but i just pray from the bottom of my heart that you're not being paid to make those comments. next speaker, please. >> yeah. i think two callers ago, that guy really hit it on the nose that this is -- it's -- it's a farce. it doesn't -- it's a show to get votes, and that really

bothered me. i don't think that it's actually going to do [inaudible] i work retail and spent a lot of time out in public in san francisco. a lot of people just don't get it. they just don't get coronavirus protection measures, prevention measures. they just don't get why you need to wear the mask, they don't get social distancing, they don't get surfaces that need to be cleans, so i think this tries to force it too much on people that most of them, again, they just don't care, they don't get it. if there's someone coming in, let's say, for a business trip to san francisco, they're not going to want their room to be cleaned every day because -- who knows -- they don't know who's coming in their room. there's no records of that, so,

you know, i think it just creates more risk, more panic, more stress, and more of a reason for people not to come to this city. again, the only reason i feel you're doing this is when it comes time to get reelected, you can point and say look, look at what i did. this is something that i did to stop coronavirus, and oh, you know, trump wouldn't like that. i think it's just a way to buy votes, really. if you want real solutions, get the -- get the health department to come up with a plan. let's not rewrite the ordinance. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> operator: that was the last speaker with their hand raised. >> chair peskin: all right. seeing no other members of the

public for this item number 2, public item is closed. colleagues, the amendments are before you. are there any questions or comments from members? >> supervisor safai: did you want to go over the amendments, chair? >> chair peskin: i am happy to do so. >> supervisor safai: at a global level? >> chair peskin: i'll do them at a microlevel. one moment, mr. vice chair. >> supervisor safai: i don't need them. i can take macro. >> chair peskin: so as mentioned earlier in my initial comments, some clarifications in the definitions, page 4, section 625.2, at line 14, insert in the city. on the same page, at line 20,

insert, and is further defined in section 625.3-c. on page 5, also in definitions, this is -- and we discussed this actually in the earlier iteration of this legislation that we already passed, and it was you, vice chair safai, that spoke to the employee dining and break room issue, a change in that definition on page 5 at line 3, which takes out or frequently used by employees to take such breaks and is replaced by authorized or approved by the operator. there's a new definition of frequently touched referenced by some of the public commenters today. on page 6, section 625 point 3, subb, insert at line 6, this requirement does not apply to

tourist hotel and authorize housekeeping employees to wash hands in guest rooms. subsection c, at line 10, removes the disinfectants used must be labeled to be effective against viral pathogens. cleaners must be approved for effective use. i believe that came from the industry. same page, line 23, at the end of subd, provided that sections e and f should not aemploy to covered establishments that are close to employees and/or guests. on page 7, sub e, sub 1, the newly defined frequently touched is inserted in sub 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, all on that page,

next page that is inserted again -- that definition capital, frequently capital touched in sub 8, sub 9. on page 9, at the request of the industry, sub 2 removed bed, linens, and towels shall be changed no less than daily unless the guess requests that they be -- guest requests that they be changed less frequently. on page 11, at line 8, insert employees are required to collect, clean, or dispose of medical waste such as syringes. i think i'm just about -- that takes care of it. >> supervisor safai: great. thank you. >> chair peskin: supervisor

preston? >> supervisor preston: yeah. i just want to thank you and supervisor safai for your work on this legislation. i think it's incredibly important. i was a sponsor back on the original legislation, and i think it's timely on the latest version. i'd love to be added as a cosponsor, and i think that you've summed up the ordinance. i will say as to the sentiment of some callers who would prefer that we not regulate the private sector, i think that -- you know, i don't think that we can rely on what makes sense to the owners of commercial buildings and hotels to decide what kind of protections they're going to extend to their staff and what kind of protections they're going to extend to the general public and to their patrons. so they have a role to this,

but our role is to make sure that we put safety precautions in this. i think it's important that we move forward to protect workers and patrons, and as you said, to fulfill the confidence in visitors to the city, so i'd like to thank you and be added to it. >> chair peskin: thank you. and i'd like to thank my staff, sunny angulo, who has been trying to bring all of the various voices together, so thank you, miss angulo, for that. vice chair safai? >> supervisor safai: let me talk for a moment. so we're making this -- versus temporary, this is permanent? thank you talk about -- does this outlast the pandemic and how that interplays, and just

for clarity, i understand, but i want you to talk about that on the record. >> chair peskin: thank you, vice chair safai. so nothing is permanent. all of these pieces of legislation are creations of governmental bodies that can amend them, rescind them, extend them from time to time. the difference is we did this as an emergency ordinance. this would be an ordinance that would stay on the books until rescinded or further amendmeed and i suspect, as the pandemic rolls on, as regulations are relaxed, as tourism returns, we will have opportunities in the future to amend this. and as the medical field learns more -- and i do want to say to the speakers that invoked the

the medical profession, all of us have been taking our queues from our chief health officer, and everything in this ordinance is consistent with the most recent guidance that was released by the chief health officer today, this very day, september 14 of 2020. >> supervisor safai: thank you. that's really what i was looking for you to say, and i think it's an important point that should not be lost, chair, and colleague preston. at the end of the day, we don't make these decisions in a vacuum. there's been constant conversation with our county health officer, constand conversations as to public health, guidelines that have come down from the state, guidelines that have come down from the c.d.c., and we have designed this in a way that

ensures the safety of the our guests and workers that are employed in these buildings. my other point is the other thing that you said, we are no longer making this an emergency ordinance but will be a standard for the industry, so we can come back and look at that. >> chair peskin: and thank you, vice chair safai and supervisor preston for your cosponsorship. with that, i would like to move the amendments on that aforementioned ordinance. roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair peskin: okay. next item, please. >> clerk: on the remaining

balance? >> chair peskin: oh, i'm sorry. on the remaining items as amended. >> clerk: to continue next week or to the call of the chair? >> chair peskin: no. these amendments are nonsubstanti nonsubstantive, madam deputy city attorney ann pearson, am i correct? >> you are correct. >> chair peskin: on the motion, roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion as stated -- [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair peskin: thank you. sorry about that, madam clerk. item 3, please. >> clerk: i'd 3 is an ordinance amending the planning code to allow certain limited

restaurants in the north beach special use district to convert to restaurants that may apply for liquor licenses. each speaker will be allowed public comments which to speak by calling 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 146-963-1010. again, that's 146-963-1010. press pound, and pound again. when connected, you will be in listening mode and muted. if you have not done so already, press star, three to be entered into the queue to speak. >> chair peskin: thank you. are there any speakers wishing to speak on this item today? first speaker, please. >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. james from d.t. is checking to see if we have any callers in queue. and you may unmute the first caller here.

>> operator: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. you may begin. you're unmuted. >> yeah, you know, just be careful with this ceqa, because david -- >> chair peskin: sir, this has nothing to do with seekceqa. i'm sorry. we're speaking about the conversion of limited restaurants to full restaurants. >> then why does it say it? >> chair peskin: because it has been determined to be exempt from ceqa. sorry. please proceed, sir. >> operator: i believe he has taken his hand down.

>> chair peskin: next speaker, please. >> operator: there are no other speakers. >> chair peskin: seeing no other speakers on this item that has been heard and amended, public comment is closed. colleagues, i would like to make a motion to send this to the full board as a committee report for hearing tomorrow, september 15. on that item, madam clerk, a roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion as stated -- [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair peskin: next item, please. >> clerk: item number 4 is an ordinance ordering the vacation of streets in the india basin project site located generally at innes avenue between griffith street and earl street

along the india basin shoreline, reserving temporary public utility and access rights in favor of the city and temporary easement rights for existing pg&e. each speaker will be allowed public comments which to speak by calling 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 146-963-1010. again, that's 146-963-1010. press pound, and pound again. when connected, you will be in listening mode and muted. if you have not done so, press star, three to be entered into the lineup. you only need to press star, three one to be entered into the queue. >> chair peskin: thank you, madam clerk. i cannot remember if supervisor preston was on the board when we worked on this agreement. we've got jonathan cherry. mr. cherry, if you would like to make a brief presentation.

>> thank you, chair peskin, members of the community. i'm a worker from oewd. so i can, let's see, figure out how to share my screen. >> chair peskin: this is pretty straightforward, so you can compress it. >> so we -- this is an implementing legislation, streetfication legislation to remain certain easements in the street study, and this coincides with certain conveying of streets to the project sponsor, and this would happen in parallel to an exchange of properties where

the city would actually receive more land than it conveys. we did talk about this previously in committee, and the legislation is being now identical to the legislation that's going back to the full board with a couple minor amendments at the previous meeting. so i'm happy to take questions. >> chair peskin: so basically, the city would quitclaim its interest in the right of way that's earl hudson and aurelius walker, and then authorize the city to transfer about an acre within aurelius walker drive and hudson and earl and galvez to the state for a public trust exchange. is that -- does that sum it up?

>> that about sums it up, sir, yes. and i have a presentation within -- [inaudible]. >> chair peskin: all right. let's run through it. >> all right. i wasn't able to share my screen previously, but now, i can. okay. you will be able to see this now. >> chair peskin: we see your icon but not your -- okay. there we go. >> okay. the board approved the project on october 23, 2018. there are two components to this project, both of which are to be delivered by the developer, build. first, there's a mixed-use development including almost 1600 newhousing units, in which 394 of those -- so 25%, would be affordable units, with publicly accessible open space, including the privately owned

india basin open space and an expanded portion of open space on the southeast waterfront network of parks. so just to -- to recap, the development agreement includes a number of other public benefits. i can briefly run through these -- >> chair peskin: yeah, i'm totally familiar -- supervisor preston, were you on the board at that time? do you need this? because i know that supervisor safai and i are very familiar with the public benefits set out in the d.a. >> supervisor preston: no. i've read through the materials, so i don't need -- >> chair peskin: okay. keep going, mr. cherry. >> happy to move forward. thank you. so the ordinance, as i mentioned, implements aspects of the development agreement previously approved. the development agreement contemplated this streetification and authorized

the advance of some of the right-of-way to the developer. part of it would be retained by the city as part of the india basin open space. it authorizes certain privately owned parcels to be granted to the city and approves a public land trust exchange agreement between the state and the developer in order to clarify the existence of the public trust status on the park area near the bay and remove the public trust status from the private parcels on the upper part of the site. >> chair peskin: mr. cherry, the state lands commission has approved that, is that correct? >> no, sir. the state lands commission is scheduled to hear this item hopefully in late october, so we've been working with state lands staff, but they will see the agreement that this board has already seen hopefully in october, and the idea would be when that trust exchange

occurs, this has already occurred. >> chair peskin: okay. that's why there's some hurry to this matter. >> yes. >> chair peskin: okay. proceed. >> in slide 5, you see the existing site, also referred to 700 innes. you can see innes along the bottom of the slide, and the site extended from there to the bay, between griffith street on the left of the slide to earl street on the right of the slide chesk that's whe slide. >> chair peskin: that's where shawn is. that's where shawn the sheep is. >> that's right. here on slide 6, this is the

existing ownership. in red are all of the portions of the slide that are currently privately owned. the solid green portions near the shoreline of a rec park india basin open space. in blue are the areas that would be vacated by the ordinance, and that consists of right-of-way under the jurisdiction of parks and -- >> chair peskin: and mr. cherry, these are all paper streets, with the exception of aurelius walker. >> yes. the rest are mostly grass and

dirt. [inaudible] >> -- at all times, even before the permanent access is built. >> chair peskin: so that would be a nonexclusive easement. >> it would be -- i would ask

deputy city attorney day if she could weigh-in on that. she might -- >> good afternoon. yes, that's my understanding. >> chair peskin: hi. >> hi. how are you, supervisor. good afternoon. yes, that is my understanding. >> chair peskin: perfect. excellent. >> and on the next slide, this is just here for your reference. this illustrates the 7.3 acres of privately owned land will become public as part of the public trust exchange, and the city's acceptance of new streets, so these are not part of the streetification ordinance, so that everyone can see the full picture. this consists of 2.3 acres in the lighter shade of green that will be added to the public

trust, along with 2.6 acres in turquoise that will be public park but outside the trust boundaries, and finally, 5.8 acres of city streets that will be improved by build and accepted by the city afterwards shown in dark green. here's just a final ownership area of the site. the areas in light green and turquoise will be owned by the city. the areas in dark green will be owned by the city in public streets, and the areas in light green will be owned by build. >> chair peskin: and mr. cherry, while it is not material to the items that we're discussing today, relative to sea level rise protections, can you speak to this? >> yes. so the project includes a -- well, there are a couple

components. so there is a raising of the elevations of the site, a significant rise of elevation of both the developed -- the area that will be the next use development as well as portions of the park. there are also, i would say passes, mitigation efforts that are going to be constructed wetlands, improved sort of shore protection along the northside here. y -- here, to sort of reinforce the dune areas, both seasonal and tidal. it's increasing the elevation of the site. >> chair peskin: and that's 900 innes, to my left? >> yes. to the left is the --

[inaudible] >> that's right. right here is the corner of what is currently griffith and in the future will be new hudson is the shipwright's cottage, and india basin and 900 innes and the park here are screened here, so all of this would be integrated with that. >> chair peskin: got. it anythi -- got it. anything else to add, mr. cherry? >> not really. this is where we are, and we hope that this would take us to an effective earliest streetification in early november as discussed. >> chair peskin: thank you. any questions? on behalf of the project sponsor, anything to add or subtract? >> i'm here. i was muted.

sorry. chair peskin, how are you? >> chair peskin: having of time of my life. >> my, too. supervisor safai and supervisor preston, nice to see you. no, we would like to move this as quickly as move. six years into it now, we're probably going to be eight years into it before we actually get going, but we would like to get this to fruition for the neighborhood and the city and, you know, for build. so that's -- that's about all i've got. >> chair peskin: i like it. nice and piffy. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this item? >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. operations -- >> chair peskin: do we have any speakers? >> clerk: go ahead. >> operator: i'm sorry. i'll go ahead and unmute. i have one caller. >> hi, supervisors.

thank you. my name is kristin houck. i'm a bayview resident and business owner, and i'd like to speak on behalf of this project. i'd like to see it moving forward for the community. i have previous experience working with build, and they're great in a partnership. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. are there any other speakers for this item? >> operator: that was the only raised hand. >> chair peskin: okay. public comment is closed, and colleagues, if there's knno objection, i would like to move this item to the full board with recommendation. on that motion, madam clerk, a roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion as stated -- [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes.

>> chair peskin: all right. the motion is passed. next item, please. >> clerk: item number 5 is an ordinance accepting certain public infrastructure improvements to for purposes of city maintenance and liability, including the streets and stormwater pump station in the mission bay. each speaker will be allowed public comments which to speak by calling 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 146-963-1010. again, that's 146-963-1010. press pound, and pound again. when connected, you will be in listening mode and muted. to enter the queue, press star, three. the system will indicate you have been muted, and please wait until you have been unmuted to provide public comment. >> chair peskin: from public works, we have [inaudible].

>> thank you. mark hennesey is going to start this off. >> chair peskin: all right. who knew? >> thank you [inaudible] my name is [inaudible] and i'm with the san francisco public works committee. i'm happy to say we are now at the back end of the mission bay development, so i do have a presentation here, which i hope to share with everyone. i will be brief and quick. everyone can see my slides? >> chair peskin: yep. >> okay. so just to orientate everyone as to the mission bay development, top of the page is third street on the northside. what you see highlighted is --

in the various areas is approximately nine blocks that we are requesting for it to be accepted into the city infrastructure. [please stand by]