# Board of Supervisors Minutes: August 25, 2020 - Meeting date: 2020-08-25 - Document type: minutes - Source format: PDF - Extracted pages: 23 - [Canonical HTML transcript](https://sfbos.info/documents/705/2020-08-25-minutes) - [Authoritative City source](https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=M&ID=802660&GUID=EA9ED1B0-67AB-42FE-8ED7-57C73873D43D) > This text was extracted for search and accessibility. The linked City source is the authoritative public record. ## Structured legislative records ### File 200753: Preparation of Findings Related to Conditional Use Authorization Appeal - 1846 Grove Street - Pages: 9-10 - Vote 1: continuance - Action: 200753 [Preparation of Findings Related to Conditional Use Authorization Appeal - 1846 Grove Street] Motion directing the Clerk of the Board to prepare findings in support of the Board of Supervisors' disapproval of the proposed Conditional Use Authorization, identified as Planning Case No. 2018-011441CUA, for a proposed project at 1846 Grove Street. (Clerk of the Board) Supervisor Preston, seconded by Supervisor Mandelman, moved that this Motion be CONTINUED to the Board of Supervisors meeting of September 29, 2020. The motion carried by the following vote: - Ayes: Fewer, Haney, Mandelman, Mar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani, Walton, Yee ### File 200816: Emergency Ordinance - Temporary Right to Reemployment Following Layoff Due to COVID-19 Pandemic - Pages: 10 - Sponsors: Mar - Vote 1: final-passage, likely final - Action: 200816 [Emergency Ordinance - Temporary Right to Reemployment Following Layoff Due to COVID-19 Pandemic] Sponsor: Mar Reenactment of emergency ordinance (Ordinance No. 104-20) temporarily creating a right to reemployment for certain employees laid off due to the COVID-19 pandemic if their employer seeks to fill the same position previously held by a laid-off worker, or a substantially similar position, as defined. (Pursuant to Charter, Section 2.107, this matter requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Board of Supervisors (8 votes) for passage.) Ordinance No. 159-20 FINALLY PASSED by the following vote: - Ayes: Fewer, Haney, Mandelman, Mar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Walton, Yee - Noes: Stefani ### File 200854: Settlement of Lawsuit - Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility - City to Receive $2,161,773 - Pages: 10 - Vote 1: first-reading - Action: 200854 [Settlement of Lawsuit - Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility - City to Receive $2,161,773] Ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed on behalf of the State of California, the City and County of San Francisco, and 189 other California governmental entities against Verizon Wireless for $839,356 and against AT&T Mobility National Accounts LLC for $1,322,417 for a total settlement of $2,161,773; the lawsuit was filed on July 5, 2012, in Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2012-00127517; entitled State of California et al., ex rel. OnTheGo Wireless , LLC v. Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility National Accounts LLC; the lawsuit involves alleged violations of the California False Claims Act. (City Attorney) PASSED ON FIRST READING by the following vote: - Ayes: Fewer, Haney, Mandelman, Mar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani, Walton, Yee ### File 200912: Emergency Ordinance - Grocery Store, Drug Store, Restaurant, and On-Demand Delivery Service Employee Protections - Pages: 10-11 - Sponsors: Haney; Walton, Preston and Safai - Vote 1: final-passage, likely final - Action: 200912 [Emergency Ordinance - Grocery Store, Drug Store, Restaurant, and On-Demand Delivery Service Employee Protections] Sponsors: Haney; Walton, Preston and Safai Reenactment of emergency ordinance (Ordinance No. 74-20, reenacted by Ordinance No. 110-20) to temporarily require grocery store, drug store, restaurant, and on-demand delivery service employers to provide health and scheduling protections to employees during the public health emergency related to COVID-19. (Pursuant to Charter, Section 2.107, this matter requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Board of Supervisors (8 votes) for passage.) Supervisors Preston and Safai requested to be added as co-sponsors. Ordinance No. 156-20 FINALLY PASSED by the following vote: - Ayes: Fewer, Haney, Mandelman, Mar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani, Walton, Yee ## Extracted text ### [Page 10](https://sfbos.info/documents/705/2020-08-25-minutes#page-10) Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes 8/25/2020 COMMITTEE REPORTS Recommendations of the Government Audit and Oversight Committee 200816 [Emergency Ordinance - Temporary Right to Reemployment Following Layoff Due to COVID-19 Pandemic] Sponsor: Mar Reenactment of emergency ordinance (Ordinance No. 104-20) temporarily creating a right to reemployment for certain employees laid off due to the COVID-19 pandemic if their employer seeks to fill the same position previously held by a laid-off worker, or a substantially similar position, as defined. (Pursuant to Charter, Section 2.107, this matter requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Board of Supervisors (8 votes) for passage.) Ordinance No. 159-20 FINALLY PASSED by the following vote: Ayes: 10 - Fewer, Haney, Mandelman, Mar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Walton, Yee Noes: 1 - Stefani 200854 [Settlement of Lawsuit - Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility - City to Receive $2,161,773] Ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed on behalf of the State of California, the City and County of San Francisco, and 189 other California governmental entities against Verizon Wireless for $839,356 and against AT&T Mobility National Accounts LLC for $1,322,417 for a total settlement of $2,161,773; the lawsuit was filed on July 5, 2012, in Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2012-00127517; entitled State of California et al., ex rel. OnTheGo Wireless , LLC v. Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility National Accounts LLC; the lawsuit involves alleged violations of the California False Claims Act. (City Attorney) PASSED ON FIRST READING by the following vote: Ayes: 11 - Fewer, Haney, Mandelman, Mar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani, Walton, Yee 200912 [Emergency Ordinance - Grocery Store, Drug Store, Restaurant, and On-Demand Delivery Service Employee Protections] Sponsors: Haney; Walton, Preston and Safai Reenactment of emergency ordinance (Ordinance No. 74-20, reenacted by Ordinance No. 110-20) to temporarily require grocery store, drug store, restaurant, and on-demand delivery service employers to provide health and scheduling protections to employees during the public health emergency related to COVID-19. (Pursuant to Charter, Section 2.107, this matter requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Board of Supervisors (8 votes) for passage.) Supervisors Preston and Safai requested to be added as co-sponsors. Ordinance No. 156-20 FINALLY PASSED by the following vote: Ayes: 11 - Fewer, Haney, Mandelman, Mar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani, Walton, Yee City and County of San Francisco Page 755 Printed at 6:56 pm on 9/24/20