# Board of Supervisors Minutes: January 12, 2021 - Meeting date: 2021-01-12 - Document type: minutes - Source format: PDF - Extracted pages: 17 - [Canonical HTML transcript](https://sfbos.info/documents/738/2021-01-12-minutes) - [Authoritative City source](https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=M&ID=831930&GUID=502BA815-3E99-4B51-A039-BD893515ECED) > This text was extracted for search and accessibility. The linked City source is the authoritative public record. ## Structured legislative records ### File 201188: Police Code - COVID-Related Employment Protections - Pages: 8-9 - Sponsors: Ronen; Walton, Preston, Safai, Haney and Melgar - Vote 1: first-reading - Action: 201188 [Police Code - COVID-Related Employment Protections] Sponsors: Ronen; Walton, Preston, Safai, Haney and Melgar Ordinance amending the Police Code to protect employees from adverse employment actions if they test positive for COVID-19, are isolating or quarantining, or have previously isolated or quarantined, due to COVID-19 symptoms or exposure, or are perceived to have COVID-19; to protect applicants from discrimination if they test positive for COVID-19, are isolating or quarantining, or have previously isolated or quarantined, due to COVID-19 symptoms or exposure; and to sunset an emergency ordinance creating similar protections. Supervisors Preston, Safai, Haney, and Melgar requested to be added as co-sponsors. PASSED ON FIRST READING by the following vote: - Ayes: Chan, Haney, Mandelman, Mar, Melgar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani, Walton ### File 201287: Emergency Ordinance - Temporary Right to Reemployment Following Layoff Due to COVID-19 Pandemic - Pages: 9 - Sponsors: Mar; Safai - Vote 1: final-passage, likely final - Action: 201287 [Emergency Ordinance - Temporary Right to Reemployment Following Layoff Due to COVID-19 Pandemic] Sponsors: Mar; Safai Reenactment of emergency ordinance (Ordinance No. 104-20, as reenacted by Ordinance Nos. 159-20 and 231-20) 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 as, or a position substantially similar to, the position previously held by the laid-off employee. (Pursuant to Charter, Section 2.107, this matter requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Board of Supervisors (8 votes) for passage.) Supervisor Safai requested to be added as a co-sponsor. Ordinance No. 009-21 FINALLY PASSED by the following vote: - Ayes: Chan, Haney, Mandelman, Mar, Melgar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Walton - Noes: Stefani ### File 201329: Emergency Ordinance - Grocery Store, Drug Store, Restaurant, and On-Demand Delivery Service Employee Protections - Pages: 9 - Sponsors: Haney; Walton, Preston and Safai - Vote 1: final-passage, likely final - Action: 201329 [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, as reenacted by Ordinance Nos. 110-20, 156-20, and 230-20) 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. 010-21 FINALLY PASSED by the following vote: - Ayes: Chan, Haney, Mandelman, Mar, Melgar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani, Walton ### File 201370: Interim Zoning Controls - Large Residential Projects in RC, RM and RTO Districts - Pages: 9-10 - Sponsors: Peskin - Vote 1: amendment - Action: in RC, RM and RTO Districts] Sponsor: Peskin Resolution imposing interim zoning controls for an 18-month period for parcels in Residential-Commercial Combined (RC), Residential - Mixed (RM) and Residential - Transit Oriented (RTO) districts, requiring Conditional Use Authorization for any residential development that does not maximize the number of units allowed by applicable density restrictions; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; and making findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section, 101.1. Supervisor Peskin, seconded by Supervisor Mandelman, moved that this Resolution be AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING SAME TITLE, on Page 4, Lines 4-6, by adding ‘WHEREAS, Unlike parcels in RC, RM, and RTO districts, parcels in RTO-M districts do not have any density limit but instead density is regulated by permitted height, bulk, and other standards; and’; and on Page 5, Lines 1-2, by adding ‘FURTHER RESOLVED, That for purposes of this resolution, RTO zoning districts shall not include parcels zoned RTO-M; and, be it’. The motion carried by the following vote: - Ayes: Chan, Haney, Mandelman, Mar, Melgar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani, Walton - Vote 2: adoption, likely final - Action: City and County of San Francisco Page 34 Printed at 5:00 pm on 2/19/21 Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes 1/12/2021 Resolution No. 010-21 ADOPTED AS AMENDED by the following vote: - Ayes: Chan, Haney, Mandelman, Mar, Melgar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani, Walton ## Extracted text ### [Page 9](https://sfbos.info/documents/738/2021-01-12-minutes#page-9) Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes 1/12/2021 201287 [Emergency Ordinance - Temporary Right to Reemployment Following Layoff Due to COVID-19 Pandemic] Sponsors: Mar; Safai Reenactment of emergency ordinance (Ordinance No. 104-20, as reenacted by Ordinance Nos. 159-20 and 231-20) 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 as, or a position substantially similar to, the position previously held by the laid-off employee. (Pursuant to Charter, Section 2.107, this matter requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Board of Supervisors (8 votes) for passage.) Supervisor Safai requested to be added as a co-sponsor. Ordinance No. 009-21 FINALLY PASSED by the following vote: Ayes: 10 - Chan, Haney, Mandelman, Mar, Melgar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Walton Noes: 1 - Stefani 201329 [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, as reenacted by Ordinance Nos. 110-20, 156-20, and 230-20) 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. 010-21 FINALLY PASSED by the following vote: Ayes: 11 - Chan, Haney, Mandelman, Mar, Melgar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani, Walton Recommendations of the Land Use and Transportation Committee 201370 [Interim Zoning Controls - Large Residential Projects in RC, RM and RTO Districts] Sponsor: Peskin Resolution imposing interim zoning controls for an 18-month period for parcels in Residential-Commercial Combined (RC), Residential - Mixed (RM) and Residential - Transit Oriented (RTO) districts, requiring Conditional Use Authorization for any residential development that does not maximize the number of units allowed by applicable density restrictions; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; and making findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section, 101.1. Supervisor Peskin, seconded by Supervisor Mandelman, moved that this Resolution be AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING SAME TITLE, on Page 4, Lines 4-6, by adding ‘WHEREAS, Unlike parcels in RC, RM, and RTO districts, parcels in RTO-M districts do not have any density limit but instead density is regulated by permitted height, bulk, and other standards; and’; and on Page 5, Lines 1-2, by adding ‘FURTHER RESOLVED, That for purposes of this resolution, RTO zoning districts shall not include parcels zoned RTO-M; and, be it’. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: 11 - Chan, Haney, Mandelman, Mar, Melgar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani, Walton City and County of San Francisco Page 34 Printed at 5:00 pm on 2/19/21