see more like this. i think a lot of people don't realize that san francisco public utilities commission's power enterprise generates an enormous potential to provide power for use in san francisco. as you mention, it is clean power and it is generated by our municipal utility, the agency has served whether it's muni or city hall or airport for many, many, many years. and i am interested in ways for the puc to do more of this. i was supportive of cca and i'm so disappointed that that did not move forward. and i guess two questions. i know that some projects that move forward -- i think hunters point is going to be using puc power provider >> that's right. >> under the pjta [speaker not understood]. i'm just wondering, we approved a lot of development agreements

whether it's cpmc or park merced. i know we're going to have piers 30 and 32 coming forward. i would like it to always be part of the conversation whether the puc should be the power provider because if we are particularly where public land is involved or other public benefits, it would seem to me we should always be considering that. so, could you comment on that? >> sure, sure. as you say, we have been providing electricity to essential city services for decades. we've been kind of the quiet utility here in town. with our, with our growing interest from residents, businesses, the supervisors, policy makers and having a stronger presence and providing more benefit to residences and benefits here in san francisco, we are looking at more opportunities. and, in fact, the administrative code requires redevelopment projects to be studied for the feasibility for receiving service from the public utilities commission.

as tjpa is under this agreement. you mentioned hunters point. yes, phase 1, we went through a feasibility study effort there. we have i think four draft feasibility studies that we are conducting right now and other redevelopment areas within the city. historically and for those projects that are currently under evaluation, we have a city presence involved in the projects. so, that's been our historic focus. we are with this budget cycle in conversation with our commission about looking at other ways to increase our revenues to bring the benefits of the hetchy system to more san franciscans. so, i think you'll be hearing more about us and our efforts on that. >> and i also think it's important to look at the -- it is interesting to see are you getting your power from cpmc or pg&e. we can have a philosophical debate about which is better,

but in terms of the tangible benefits for san francisco of increasing the customer base for the puc's power enterprise, by increasing that you would generate more revenue, for example, i know that there are huge unfunded capital needs and we've read about that in the paper in the last few days in terms of the tunnel, that needs a lot of work. but also one item that i have been very focused on is our street light system. and we know that the puc operates -- we have a hearing a few months ago in this committee, and we note that puc has maintained about 20 or 22,000 street lights and spends a whopping $250,000 a year in that effort. and we have very significant deferred capital needs on these street lights. if we were -- if the power enterprise were to have more customers generate more revenue

from tjpa or other projects, would that potentially create revenue for things like street lights and capital needs? >> yes, and part of what we do when we evaluate customer opportunities is we look at what the cost is to provide the service and whether there is any contribution from that customer to our overall costs. whether there is any additional funds available after we pay for the cost of providing service to them for other of our needs. and while the initial engagement with the customer involves us investing more in order to provide them with service over the life of the service, we definitely project additional revenues in excess of the cost to provide the service. so, yes, we anticipate there will be more revenue available for these needs you've mentioned. >> i appreciate that. i just want to be clear that in making these statements, it's not about attacking pg&e or

taking pot shots at pg&e. pg&e, you know, whatever issues we sometimes have when we turn -- when i turn lights on at home, they go on and my bill is reasonable. so, it's not attacking pg&e. i think to me it's really about making sure that the puc's power enterprise which really is an under valued and under utilized system that we sure it up, make sure it has an adequate customer base and make sure that we are generating the revenues that we can use for some really critical municipal infrastructure needs around our power system and our street lights that we are responsible for funding. >> right. >> i want to make sure we're giving the puc and the power enterprise the tools to do that. so, i will be looking at this issue as projects come to the board because i think it's important. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, ms. hale. colleagues, any questions or comments? okay, seeing none, we will then move to public comment. ~ on item number 5. is there any public comment on item number 5?

seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i just want to acknowledge and thank tjpa guy hollins and sarah [speaker not understood] for being here today as well as barbara hale and really excite today move this forward. so, i'm make a motion to approve with recommendation. >> okay, the motion is to move to the board with recommendation. and can we take that without objection? that will be the order. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you please call item number 6? >> item number 6 is an ordinance amending the police code to require employers and housing providers to limit the use of criminal history information, and follow certain procedures and restrictions when inquiring about and using conviction history information to make decisions about employment and tenancy in san francisco; and amending the administrative code to require city contractors and subcontractors to adhere to the same limits, procedures, and restrictions when making decisions regarding employment of persons for work on city contracts and subcontracts. ~ decisions. >> okay. and supervisor kim -- i will note that there is an overflow room in room 250 which is the main board of supervisors chambers. so, if you can't get into this room, you should go to room 250 and we will bring in folks for public comment from that room.

so, supervisor kim is i think along with supervisor cohen, is the lead coauthor of item number 6. >> thank you, chair wiener. and i do want to thank everyone for coming out for this hearing today. it's really exciting to finally be here. we actually began the conversation a little over a year ago in january 2013. i don't think any of us anticipated how long it would take for us to get to an actual hearing for a vote to go before the full board, but i actually appreciate the amount of time that went in. because this is actually potentially and could have been very controversial legislation, but because of the time that was put into it, it's great to have legislation that's being supported by all sides. i know that there are a lot of people here. i see maybe two empty chairs. if folks can squeeze in because i know a lot of people want to be here for this hearing. please, if you can do that. so, the legislation before us today is one that we actually

approved several years ago just for the city and county of san francisco for employees of city and county of san francisco. and what was behind it was removing the barriers resulting from the stigma associated with the conviction history, means more opportunity for work and [speaker not understood] for the 700,000 citizens who are released here every year and one in four adults every year who have conviction and histories. [speaker not understood], it may not be you personally, but you probably have a family member who has a conviction history given the high rates we have here in the united states. it doesn't make sense for individuals like donald fuller who was fired from his janitorial job for failing to remember to tell his employer about a 1974 arrest fortress passing, just this past year, to be punished decades later for a mistake that he had made long ago. or denise who didn't bother to apply for a jock for a cook because she had a conviction

from shop lifting while in high school. or recent member of our district [speaker not understood] to live at nema on market and 10th and was then disqualified for nonviolent offense, a failure to pay health support because she was not able to. she did not have the income to. but she had committed over a dozen years ago. and it's not to say that committing these offenses are okay or that one had maybe not done some -- one had not done something that was wrong. it's not rewarding this behavior, but if you are someone who is trying to reintegrate back into society and needs the basic necessities, a home and a job to do that, that this legislation will afford you that opportunity to do so. ultimately, i believe that our entire community is safer when people have the opportunity to stabilize their lives with what is called ban the box reform. we can reduce the outcomes of racial disparities in the criminal justice system, improve all of our safety by

reducing the rate of [speaker not understood], and reduce the cost of the criminal justice system saving taxpayer dollars. the policies embodied by fair chance helped open the door of opportunity for all of us which make all of us safer, healthier and stronger. so, i want to go over the basic aspects of this legislation and i had mentioned that 25% of adults in the u.s. have an arrest or conviction history. and that studies as many of you know show stable opportunity to housing and employment reduces recidivism thus increasing public safety and public dollars. there are racial [speaker not understood] resulting in devastating impacts in our communities of color and criminal records reduce the likelihood of job call backs and offer up to 50% just by checking that box on that first application before you even have an opportunity to prove that you are qualified for the job or come in for an interview and showcase your story. more than 90% of companies report using a criminal background check in their hiring. the reduced output of goods and

services of people with felonies and prison records are between 57 and $60 billion in losses. past incarcerations have reduced men's yearly earnings by 40%. and legislation that we are introducing is a recommended best practice, already used by the eeoc for employers. these policies have already been implemented by the second-largest retailer in the u.s., target, and we want to thank target for supporting this legislation, but also modeling it before we even implemented this legislation throughout the country. over 10 states and over 51 municipalities have passed different forms of ban the box to date. this legislation, the fair chance act, would place limits on an established procedures for the use of arrest and conviction history ~ information by employers, housing providers and city contractors and subcontractors. it removes the box from all initial applications for employment and affordable housing. and it doesn't mean you cannot

do a background check. it's just the inquiry of that arrest conviction history after the individual has had either a live interview or a conditional offer of employment or housing ~. there is some discretion that we [speaker not understood] and housing on the timing here. it also makes some information off limits for any inquiry, even when the inquiry is permitted. arrests not leading to convictions, expunged convictions and convictionses more than 7 years old. and the seven-year is something that we have modeled based off other local legislation here in san francisco. as i mentioned, this emphasizes a best practices recommended by the federal equal employment opportunities commission ~ and it mandates that notice be given to the applicant of the specific convictions that is of concern to the employer or housing provider. notice that she has the right to provide additional information whether they are inaccuracies in the background check. as we know, many of our background checks have inaccuracies, whether you have a conviction or not, some of you may have seen that when you pull up a credit report for

yourself. or if there are inclusion of expunged convictions, et cetera, mitigating circumstances and evidence of rehabilitation. so, make sure that decision-makers can still obtain all relevant information they need to make decisions about employment and housing while at the same time ensuring that individuals with conviction histories who are seeking stable housing and employment know that they have a real chance to put their qualifications first, which is all we are asking for in this legislation. you know, we had tried to time this legislation with our annual celebration of the civil rights leader that means so much to many of us, martin luther king, jr., and he is often talked about the three types of brotherhood or -- i'm sorry, the three types of love that exists within his philosophy. he talks about the romantic love which i think many of us are familiar with. he talks about love between family and close friends. and he talks a lot about the love that he he calls

brotherhood, agape and he talks about this a lot in his speeches really around why folks should pursue nonviolent means to enact social change even in the face of hateful opposition. i think central to what he had talked about was really about how this is love that is beyond liking someone, but it is love that is really about social justice and inclusion for us all. and i think this legislation truly embodies that philosophy. it's about going beyond -- it's going beyond to compassionate and understanding love that is really about what is best for citing community as a whole and not what you as a decision maker sees. what's great about moving forward this legislation also with the time that we spent is that we have a broad array of support and it starts with groups that started from the very beginning that brought this legislation to our office and to supervisor cohen's office. all of us or nonnunn, legal services for prisoners with children, lawyers committed for civil rights, national

employment law project, community housing partnership ~. so many of our affordable housing nonprofits which will be under this legislation, chinatown community development center, tenderloin housing clinic, tenderloin neighborhood development corporation, and the treasure island homeless development association. i also want to thank our san francisco small business commissioner william ortiz cardenega. this is going through the [speaker not understood] and through the business commission as we speak. san francisco chamber of commerce in particular jim lazarus and dee-dee workman who worked so closely with our, with our advocacy to come to legislation that we could all agree on. i also want to recognize dhr, olfc and office of contract administration as well as the mayor's office of housing. what we have presented before us is legislation everyone can agree on, but more than that what it means is that as policy makesers we can some time pass

policy because we have the votes but it doesn't mean it will get implemented the right way. having stakeholders such a large businesses and employers on board means they will be advocating amongst their membership to do the right thing because they truly believe in the final outcome of this legislation as well which is to give people opportunity that want to work a chance to work. so, i know that was a really long introduction. we don't actually have a presentation of this today so i was hoping that folks would give me the time to explain the history and the background of all of this. and, so, if there are no further questions from committee members, i'm happy to open up for public comment. >> thank you, supervisor kim. and i also just want to alert folks that i in a few minutes will have to step out to go to the small business commission to speak on a piece of legislation that i'm authoring. supervisor kim will chair the meeting while i'm gone and i will be back. i do support the legislation. so, i do thank supervisor kim and her coauthors 23rd bringing it forward. with that we'll open it up for

public comment ~ and we have a number of cards. and i will hand it to supervisor kim. >> thank you, chair wiener. okay, seeing no further comments or questions, we we are going to open up at this time for public comment. i am going to call up 10 cards at a time. please line up on the -- on that side of the room. i guess your right-hand side, my left-hand side. and just come up to the mic. you will each have two minutes which i know is not a lot of time on a legislation that is doing so much, but perhaps if someone has already made your point, you can chat on a different point. if you are in the overflow room and i call your name please come into the room. i have james tracy. ooh. why don't we take a moment to figure out what is going on with the lighting. [pause] [laughter]

>> it's okay, we're fine. >> go ahead. >> so, james tracy. dwayne sears. orlan real. michael hanson. anexel rama. stephen tennis. natalie lions. vivian imperial. elihu hernandez. and matthew [speaker not understood]. hi, [speaker not understood]. i would like to make a dramatic entrance. normally doesn't get that dramatic with lights going out and things like that. my name is james tracy. i'm representing community housing partnership. it's been such an honor to work with you, supervisor kim, the

ivy league, all of us or none, national employment law project, [speaker not understood] legal services, and also the lawyers committee for civil rights. our organization got involved with this fight because we provide really, really good job training opportunities. but we find that as an organization that hires about 60% of our staff coming from homeless backgrounds at one point in their life, that when people are ready to transition or find better paying jobs elsewhere, the doors are being shut. so, that's why we joined this campaign and we're overjoyed to see it finally come up to vote here. can i have the community housing partnership crew stand up? (applause) these folks largely under the -- under the initiative catalyst of mr. gandy over

there collected about 1700 -- 1700 signatures in support of this fine legislation in every single last corner of this city there in the western addition. they went to the bayview, they even went to the sunset, the richmond, the [speaker not understood]. so, this is really a real grassroots initiative that we were very happy to be part of. thank you. >> thank you. thank you, mr. tracy. i'm orlan real. i want to speak in favor of the fair chance ordinance. and thank everyone for their hard work that they've done on this. i feel that if we don't give people fair access to employment, housing, if we don't provide people with legal ways of making it in this society, then how can we expect people to succeed? imagine a mistake you made in the past. now imagine that every time you applied for housing, every time you applied for a job, every time you tried to get help or better yourself that mistake was brought up and used against

you. how much more difficult, how much more impossible would your life be? and we work two years, five years, 10 years ago. it's not who we are today. every person deserves a right to be judged on who they are in this moment and not who they were in the past. and i feel the fair chance ordinance is a great first step to getting there. thank you. >> thank you, mr. real. i'm dwayne sears. i'm here to support this legislation. and i think everybody should get a fair chance. and i also believe that it we'd have less convictions if everybody had more jobs. thank you. >> thank you, mr. sears. good afternoon, supervisor kim and supervisor tang. my name is michael hampton and ayectionv here to support the legislation and encourage you to bring it to the full board. i worked on this legislation with the community members,

community housing partnership and outreach throughout the city and by and large most people are for it. and i am particularly excited about it because i would like to see our young people get to work. and i also talked to myriad of age groups. and almost to a person, someone had something in their background and the impediment is there. so, i would like to see san francisco take the lead and offer this. and able bode i had people who want to work i think it will be an excellent opportunity for them to do that and also to get housing ~. and i appreciate your support today. thank you. >> thank you, mr. hamm ton. ~ hampton. good afternoon, my name is stephen [speaker not understood], and this is really a no-brainer. i mean there is nothing i can say or anyone else can say that would make any difference. i mean, this is so obviously something that needs to be passed. i just wanted to say that i'm

for it and it's one of the best pieces of legislation i've heard in a long, long time. i support it. thank you. >> thank you, mr. taness. hello, my name is [speaker not understood] ramo and i'm in support of the fair chance act. if you don't have opportunity, you don't have hope. you don't have hope you can't move forward in life. we want to give people an opportunity. thank you. >> thank you. hi, my name is natalie lions. i'm a san francisco resident and attorney with equal rights advocates. we are a women's rights organization based here in san francisco and i'm here to speak especially for the women that we serve in san francisco. these women are blocked from employment solely based on their conviction on their application. and the great majority of these women are mothers. and often sole care givers for dependent children. so, this bill is really important to give them the

opportunity to support their family and provide their children with an example of what it means to be a productive adult. so, we are in great support of this. we believe that this is a humane and common sense way of equalizing the playing field. and, of course, it doesn't diminish the opportunity for employers and housing providers to make ultimate decisions. so, i am in support of it [speaker not understood], and we are in support of it as a group. thank you. >> thank you, ms. lions. good afternoon. my name is vivian imperialy. according to forbes magazine, we have 7 seconds to make a first impression. and, of course, there's no second chance. with our current system the written application becomes the blockade. the checked box becomes a red flag so large that everything else on the page is obliterated. there is no advancement to a face to face interview.

there is no precious 7 seconds that can change someone's life for the better with a job or housing. the system is so prejudicial that it's denying applicants those critical 7 seconds to engage the interviewer. in my career in vocational rehabilitation, of both hired staff and trained clients preparing to enter the job market. looking back, i can identify a commonality among my very favorite clients. those who stood out as charming and earnest in their quest for success. what was that commonality? the clients with the greatest potential had all been incarcerated. the box must go. people must not be prejudged. they must all be allowed that second 7 seconds and beyond for

interviewers to see what i saw. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is matthew [speaker not understood]. i'm a proud member of all of us or none. you know, exactly 20 years ago today i accepted responsibility for my involvement in the marijuana conspiracy in the northern district of florida and received a three-year federal prison sentence which i served. in addition to my crime i had been a resident of san francisco since 1957. as being a resident in district 2 for the last many years, it is incumbent upon me as an organizer and all of us to answer to alert our constituents about this law and not just my own anecdotal experience. so, i bring to you because in the best tradition of san francisco, we're doing the

right thing here and something that is long overdue. but, for instance, paul and chris caplan of city yachts have been tenants of san francisco and employers since 1967. they also have two yards, one in sauce lead owe, one in richmond. [speaker not understood]. matt [speaker not understood] has been a jeweler on chess nat street for longer than i can remember. we're the same age. he's a third generation san franciscan. he's done his duty and has encouraged supervisor yee to support this ordinance as well because that's where he live. but he does his business in district 2. tim brown has been a san franciscan [speaker not understood]. as past president of the board of realtors. i can go on. there's peter fenton from benchmark capital. he might receive some note right because he's a twitter investor early on. so, i have no idea how many

employees he represents ~. but when i go through dick lou mathers sustainable engineering since 1956 here in san francisco, down to bruce's automotive, bruce, a good friend of mine for the last 30-year. currently he's self-employed. my point is -- i'm finished now. i brought to you over 250 years of san francisco residents all in support of this ordinance, every single one is a small business owner. some of them larger, but we're all in this basically not only to give a fair chance, but to -- as a matter of public safety, an opportunity for our city. thank you. >> thank you. thank you. my name is [speaker not understood] and i am in support of the fair chance hearing. because ever since this country was founded in 1*7 76, people have broken the law. that's a fact. but unfortunately it took 200 years for this government to realize that locking someone up, out of sight out of mind is

not a solution to the problem. a brand-new [speaker not understood] rehabilitation. nowadays there is a concept, do crime, serve the time. those who have actually broken the law from drugs to sexual assaults to murder to shop lifting, anything that may be considered a federal offense to the eyes of the law, these individuals served their time. granted they may have gotten a guilty conviction, but they actually rehabilitated, done their time in prison. what do they try and do when they get out? live their life a proper way. this has been a hindrance to the people of san francisco as well as the rest of the country. young mothers, young father's, young adults, they're trying to get their life back on track and because of one certain box on a housing application or job application is denying them a future, a positive future for their lives, for their children's lives. if anybody actually wants to vote no on this, then you are

publicly saying rehabilitation program doesn't work. so, i'm urging this to go to the full board and pass unanimously since eight supervisors actually supporting this, i believe it's 8 or 7, supervisors supporting this. so, i please urge everyone to vote yes on this. thank you. >> thank you, mr. hernandez. and i apologize i didn't call the next 10 speakers, but i believe we have one of our commissioners here, board of appeals director arsenio hurtado, [speaker not understood]. julian harper. jerry elsters. marlene sanchez. karen druckers. pete wilson. manuel la fontaine. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is tess davis representing hospitality h.