next one or just -- >> is it a similar -- >> but not for the same reason. >> okay, you can go ahead, then. >> the other one on leavenworth street on the corner of jefferson street was negotiated with the store owners who had created a very large entrance to the building and which made the space that was existing too close to the entryway. and, so, we had agreed on a trial basis to move the space so that it's 8 feet from the entryway. the law says it should be feet, however, you the supervisors have the power to exempt the law if there is not a problem there. and -- but by moving the space it also brought that space one foot closer to the next street artist space. so, the law says that a street artist space has to be five feet away from another street artist space. in this case it would be four feet away.

so, when you had created your resolution approving that space on leavenworth street for six months, it was with the exemption of those two regulations. and it was a six months designation. we're asking now that you make it another six months just to see how it goes. >> okay, thank you very much. colleagues, any initial questions or comments? okay, seeing none, i thank you, mr. la czar. we are opening up for public comment. is there any -- i don't have any public comment cards for items 1 or 2. is there any public comment on item 1 and/or item 2? seeing none, we'll close public comment. [gavel] >> and, colleagues, could i get a motion to forward items 1 and 2 to the board of supervisors with positive recommendation? by supervisor kim, and we'll take that without objection. [gavel] >> madam clerk, will you please call item number 3?

>> item number 3 is an ordinance amending the planning code to establish the 1500 page street affordable housing special use district for the property located at 1500 page street (assessor's block no. 1223, lot no. 004) and repeal the provisionses establishing the 1500 page street residential care sud; amending the zoning map to add the 1500 page street affordable housing sud, deleting the 1500 page street residential care sud, and modify the height and bulk limit for the lot; and making environmental findings, and findings consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. ~ special use district. >> supervisor breed is the sponsor of item number 3 and [speaker not understood] from her office is here. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors, connor johnston legislative aide to supervisor breed. this is a great project at page and masonic right in the heart of district 5. directly next door to saint agnes church. our office has been working on it for the better part of the year from [speaker not understood] and mayor's office of housing. it will provide much needed housing for developmentally disabled adults and reinvigorate a building that's been sitting fallow for decades now. i want to thank the sponsors and the staff who have been working on this, kim dunn from mercy housing, sarah valve from planning and ruby harris from the mayor's office of housing. two of them you'll hear from after me. they have done outstanding outreach to the community. the project is supported by the

haight ashbury improvement association, the haight ashbury neighborhood council, the haight ashbury neighborhood [speaker not understood] didn't take a vote but they're supportive. as well as urban high school which is right down the street from the project. of course supervisor breed supports it and asks for your vote today. thank you. >> thank you, mr. johnson. i believe we have the planning department here. ms. velve. >> good afternoon, chair wiener and honorable members of land use committee. my name is sarah valve of planning department staff. [speaker not understood]. this sud will enable the adaptive reuse of the historic resource at page and masonic street. it is to create 16 affordable eunice and one manager's unit. it is a joint effort between mercy housing and mayor's office of housing. [speaker not understood] planning code requirements related to density, open space, exposure, setbacks and parking. the majority of these

modifications cannot be met due to existing site constraints. the sud was initiated at the full board by supervisor breed on november 5th, 2013. on december 19th, 2013 the planning commission unanimously adopted [speaker not understood] to support the sud and authorization to implement the sud. thank you. this concludes presentation. i'm here for questions. >> thank you. next we have tim dunn from mercy housing. >> yes, thank you. tim dunn from mercy housing. i'll be brief and won't repeat what was said before me. i'd like to say mercy is -- really like to thank supervisor breed and her office for supporting this measure. we're really excited to renovate this property. there is a huge demand for this housing for the developmentally disabled and very little of it in san francisco. i'm here. if you have any questions. also, the [speaker not understood] of san francisco is

going to be providing the services for the developmentally disabled at the property. [speaker not understood] from the arc is here. if you have any questions regarding those programs. and [speaker not understood] from taggert architects is here as well. thank you very much. appreciate it. >> thank you very much. colleagues, are there any questions or comments? seeing none, we will open it up for public comment. is there any public comment on item number 3? i don't have any public comment cards. seeing none, we'll close public comment. [gavel] >> i want to thank everyone for working on this. we are in dramatic need of this kind of housing. like to thank supervisor breed and planning department and mercy for really moving this forward. supervisor kim? >> yes, thank you. i just wanted to concur with chair wiener about the need for this type of housing. but in particular, for this

subset of our community. it's true there is not a lot of housing dedicated to individuals with developmental disabilities. it's also good to see a vacant s-r-o building come back online. i know we have a number in our district [speaker not understood] as well, and it's a constant exercise to think about how we can a mass the resources to bring existing housing back into line and back into code and, so, it's great to see a model of this move forward in the western addition area. so, thank you for your work on this. >> thank you very much, supervisor kim. so, with that, could i get a motion to forward item 3 to the full board with positive recommendation? >> so moved. >> motion by supervisor kim, and we'll take that without objection. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you please call item number 4? >> item number 4 is a resolution granting revocable permission to the municipal transportation agency to occupy portions of the public right-of-way to install and maintain two new operator convenience facilities at the terminus of various muni bus routes, and making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. ~ facilities.

>> okay. and this has been forwarded to us from the mta. teas cavanagh from mta will be presenting today. [speaker not understood], will you be presenting? go ahead, as this is a i believe a major encouragement. >> yes, good afternoon, supervisors. nickel strong with the department of public works [speaker not understood] [speaker not understood] and mappinging. we've been working on this project with tess cavanagh who is present sitting behind me from mta. this is a major encroachment for a total of several dozen mta rest rooms and kind of bringing them out one step at a time. this is phase ii. the board of supervisors recently approved the first two locations via an ordinance from last year -- i mean via resolution from last year, i apologize. and this is phase ii, which will include two additional rest rooms, one with an existing traffic island at third and mckeefe and one on the south side walk up hudson

avenue easterly of third street. this will be in conformity with the general plan. we held a public hearing on all the locations back in 2012 and we didn't receive any input from anybody. and there's been an encroachment agreement signed between mta and dpw directors agreeing to maintenance. we have reviewed it for path of travel and respectfully request your approval. >> thank you very much. ms. cavanagh? l >> good afternoon, chairman wiener, supervisor kim, supervisor tang. i am tess cavanagh, sfmta project manager for the

[speaker not understood] project. the project is to install prefab rest rooms throughout the city for use by transit operators and other sfmta field staff. we are here today to request the committee's recommendation for the installation of two units along the third street corridor, one at third and hudson and the other at third and fitzgerald. sfmta has 76 transit lines with 146 terminals all over the city. mound is served by over 2000 operator who work in challenging conditions to deliver service. one of those challenges is finding clean and safe rest rooms at terminal locations. facilities [speaker not understood] as well as health and safety of our sfmta operators. [speaker not understood] sfmta uses licenses with businesses, leases, use permits and free public rest rooms to provide operators with facilities. there are often circumstances that prevent our ability to use

these options. they include the proximity of the business to the terminal site. our bus drivers have limited time available to them to access facilities. the facility has to be close by the terminals. other limitations are type of business. the operation of the business -- hours of operation of the business go from 6 in the morning to midnight and often businesses are not open during those hours. other issues that come up are the accessibility of the rest rooms and whether or not they're easily available when the operators need them. the current project includes six sites in total. for the valley and lincoln and the gary and 32nd, we currently have use permits in place with the [speaker not understood] district and presidio trust. for 30th and ortega is the 25th and [speaker not understood]. like mentioned, these are

previously approved via board of supervisors resolution last year. the two sites under consideration again are third and hudson and third and fitzgerald. all right. this is -- the fifth site is third and hudson, which serves the 54 line. our initial site of investigation, we approached [speaker not understood] which are nearby. unfortunately their hours did not align with the line operation. also we contacted a local bar at hudson. but again, that type of business is not really conducive to productivity of our operators. we have performed outreach on numerous occasions, most recently this past october 30th at the bayview library. we sent out almost over 10,000 fliers to the local community. we had 8 to 10 residents attend. overall community members were

supportive and understood the need for the rest rooms. the second site is at third and fitzgerald. this is roughly industrial neighborhood and, again, local businesses he had their operating hours did not align with our transit line schedule. also, a few businesses that we did contact were not interested in working with us. the third on market which is nearby as well, their rest room is not large enough or accessible. i also wanted to clarify a few things that were mentioned in this morning's article in the examiner. the location of the [speaker not understood] is on a traffic island, not in the median. and our current goal is to locate 30 sites around the city, not 70 as reported. and also these are not makeshift structures. it has taken us a two-year process to complete the design

and approval process. the sites are carefully considered and investigated, and the design of the structure is durable and has high value. anyway, that's a summary of the project and let me know if you have any questions. >> thank you, ms. cavanagh. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i just had some quick questions. i appreciate you going through the process of looking at alternatives before we looked at installing our own bathrooms. actually it's less of a land use issue for me, right-of-way. which i know the cost issue is the appropriate place for that is budget committee. so, you had mentioned on third and hudson. what were the operating hours of the taco bell and kfc that made it inappropriate? ~ the service line hours? >> they're open from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and the line runs from 6:45 to 12:15 a.m. >> okay. so, there was nothing that was starting that -- open that early? >> early enough or late enough.

[speaker not understood]. >> and the same on -- i'm sorry, third and fitzgerald? >> let's see. the line runs from 6:30 to 1:00 a.m. and the businesses that we contacted were essentially 9:00 to 5:00. >> i see he, okay. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor kim ~. i will also just add i have been involved in this issue for quite sometime. when the mta first came forward with the idea of these rest room facilities on the public right-of-way, i initially -- i expressed concern, as did supervisor david chiu. we are all very protective of our public sidewalks and these are large facilities. so, i did have concerns. as i worked more with the mta and also with transit -- with the bus drivers, i learned a lot more about how incredibly

difficult it is for these drivers to actually find a rest room -- not only find a rest room that's available, but one that is clean and sanitary and private and accessible for the folks who have mobility challenges. and even if you do have them at a taco bell or kfc where there is availability, you have no idea what that rest room is like, whether it's accessible, whether it's going to be clean and really humane place to have our employees use rest rooms during their shift, and hours always change. so, the mta, i also want to thank the [speaker not understood] agency for its work instead of trying to get all of them throughout the stay approved, taking this very much step-by-step doing one or two at a time, working with the community, finding appropriate locations, so, i commend the agency for that work. so, with that, why don't we --

i'm sorry, supervisor tang. >> just to add on top of that as representing a district where many, many muni lines actually terminate and there are very -- almost limited options, i just want to appreciate you brging this forth. i know that one of the ortega sites was in our district from the last round of approvals. we appreciate that. and really, we had heard so many stories from neighbors the creative ways drivers were trying to address their basic needs. i'm very supportive of this item and look forward to helping with the on time performance and this moves transit. so, thank you. >> thank you, supervisor tang. with that, we will open item number 4 up to public comment. i have no public comment cards for item number 4. is there any member of the public who would like to comment on item number 4? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, could i have a

motion to -- from supervisor tang to forward item 4 to the board with positive recommendation. and we will take that without objection. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you please call item number 5? >> item 5 is a resolution authorizing the public utilities commission's general manager to enter into an electric service agreement with the transbay joint powers authority for the public utilities commission to be the primary provider of electric service to the transbay project beginning january 2014 and ending january 2017; and making findings pursuant to the california environmental quality act. ~ authority. >> supervisor kim is the author of item number 5. >> thank you. and i see ms. [speaker not understood], the pc who will talk about the details of this agreement. but i did just want to state that this did go to the transit board powers authority at the november board meeting and was approved. and i'm really excited, actually, that this public terminal which is going to provide a lot of our public transit hubs in downtown san francisco will be getting power from our local city-owned public utilities commission. it is very excite thattion we're able to work through a deal that is both more

affordable and one that is incredibly reliable for this public service site. and i want to ask ms. hail to come up and speak about the details of the project. >> thank you, barbara hale, assistant general manager for power. supervisor kim has hit the highlights. we are very happy to have ~ begun work back in 2008 with the transbay joint powers authority staff on whether we could be a power provider for the facility. in november, the tjpa board did approve their executive director entering into the agreement in december. our commission at the puc approved our general manager moving forward as well. as you know, we operate san francisco's municipal power utility. we're the power provider for this building and many others that the city owns to powering essential city services, powering ten analyst facilities. we provide affordable reliable clean greenhouse gas free power

~ and we're to mta, to the port, to the port, we're really excited about the opportunity to add this transit center to our portfolio of customers. we're looking forward to providing the benefits of our low-cost hetchy power to these municipal -- this municipal service. we have a lot of strengths in our local decision making and public accountability. we're very proud of that, and we have a comprehensive approach to providing electric service to the tjpa. we are going to be providing the project with savings by way of lower up front capital costs and operating cost savings because we provide service at a lower rate than pg&e otherwise would, 10% below where pg&e is offering. under the agreement we're committing to that, we're committing to offering the facility energy efficiency rebates up to $2 million. we are providing them with the opportunity which is rather unique to collaborate on local build on-site and off-site

renewable generation. we expect to have a full-time staff providing the facility with reliable service. we're anticipating the facility beginning to provide service to transit needs in october of 2017. it will be about 4.3 megawatts as it opens. it's expected to grow to about 8 megawatts over time. and with that i'm happy to take any questions you may have. we also have representatives from tjpa here if you have specific questions for them. thank you. >> thank you, ms. hale. actually, i have a few questions. i'll start with i'm very supportive of this and i want to thank the agency for working through tjpa as well, and also supervisor kim for sponsoring this. >> thank you. >> so, my question isn't so much about this particular project, but i would like to 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 [speak