>> good afternoon. welcome to the the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, april fools' day, april 1st, 2019. i'm the chair of the committee, joined by the vice chair, and momentarily by committee member matt haney. our clerk is erica major. you would do you any

announcements? >> make sure to silence also phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cars and copies of any documents to be included as part of the file should be cooked submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the board of supervisors agenda on april 16 th. >> thank you. could you please call the first item. >> item one is an ordinance to streamline small business permitting, and amending the health code, planning code and police code and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you. this is a piece of legislation sponsored by the mayor and cosponsored by supervisor brown. i believe that ben van helton on behalf of the mayor from the department of economic and workforce development is here to present. >> yes, thank you. good afternoon. i'm here on behalf of the office of economic and workforce

development. we are requesting a one-week continuance on this item so we can continue to fine-tune amendments with your office. >> okay. is there any public comment on this item? seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. what i would suggest, colleagues that insofar as the week is short and we haven't seen amendments there have been a number of e-mails from meta- and haight-ashbury and others over the last couple of days that why not we continue this to the call of the chair? if we have amendments and we are all good to go, we can schedule it, and if not, we will schedule it appropriately. i move we continued this to the call of the chair. if there is no objection, that will be the order. next item, please. >> item two is an ordinance amending the environment code to

require owners of certain buildings to annually measure and disclose energy performance and to require the department of the environment to make public his but -- statistics and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you. this ordinance is sponsored by supervisor brown and cosponsored by myself and supervisor mar, and is obviously a change to the environment code. here on behalf of the department of the environment is director raphael. >> thank you, chair peskin. thank you committee members for hearing this today. i want to thank supervisor brown and her leadership as a sponsor and cosponsor, supervisor peskin and mar. before you today is a very straightforward adjustment to current law, and what i want to do is give a little bit of context as to why we need to do it now, and what the benefit of this law has been, and end with where we have to go from here.

>> i'm going to nitpick a few definitions which i can do as a cosponsor because the way building is defined in residential and nonresidential is defined and has -- and is a little confusing, and specifically, and i was reading this last night, there is -- why don't you make the presentation and i will tell you where. i can see our city attorney just left, but he will be back. okay. >> wonderful. any improvements for clarity purposes, as well as policy are always welcome. i have with me today mr. reagan who is involved with ample mentation and crafting of this ordinance. if there any reasons for that, this definition is that he can shed light on, we can talk about that as well. so yes, existing buildings energy performance ordinance, catchy that it is, appoints a

really challenging place in the greenhouse gas reduction for us and other cities. today, 44% of the city's emissions come from existing buildings. we have wonderful ways of looking at new construction, upping the energy code, the requirements under construction, the challenge has always been for us and other cities, how do we tackle the existing building stock? how do we bring down the energy use and the omissions that are coming down from those buildings so as people say, what gets measured gets managed, and the challenge they have in the past as we didn't have a way of enforcing or requiring building owners to take a look at their energy use, and then giving that energy information to us. so in 2011, the city and san francisco became the first city in san francisco and one of the first and the nations to require commercial buildings over 50,000 square feet, actually over 10,000 square feet, we went to

very small buildings, to measure their energy consumption, and then report it to the department of the environments. this became important for two reasons. number 1, you gave a signal to the building owner whether energy use was other buildings, equally as important, he gave the department of environment that information, we could focus our limited resources and energy efficiency on buildings that really needed it. this was a very forward looking idea back in 2011, and we are focusing just on commercial buildings at that point in time. so how does it matter it turns out, this is a graph that is rough in terms of the nuance of it, but what's important here is the trends, what you can see looking at the blue line is employment in san francisco, and the ratline is the energy use, at a buildings effect very closely and benchmarking.

the trend is exactly how you want it. as employment goes up, the energy of buildings is going down. this is attributed to many factors, that we would have no idea that this was the case. we did not have the energy benchmarking ordinance in place. so what starts in san francisco shouldn't stay in san francisco, and it certainly didn't, so now this model is going throughout the country. you are seeing cities across the country take this on. the reason california is solid is because the entire state of california decided if it's good for san francisco, we should be doing this beyond our borders. and so in 2015, the state of california passed a law, it benchmarking law. it is some very important things from our perspective. the first one was in 2017, it required utilities to actually give us this information. before this law was put in place , between 2011 and 2017, it

was an incredible pain for the department of the environment to get this information from building owners because we had to go tenant by tenant and ask for permission. now that pg and e. is required to give whole building data to us, we can give -- get this information so much more easily and it is more reliable. in 2017, state law required utilities share the information. in 2018, they rolled out to the commercial sector, 50,000 square feet or greater, and this year they're rolling out to the residential sector, 50,000 square feet or greater. that is about 40 unit buildings for san francisco. so now we have a disconnect between our ordinance i was only for commercial, and a statewide ordinance that is for commercial and residential. and the challenge of that has to do with confusion and reporting. if we don't update our ordinance the way it will work right now, is that commercial buildings will report to the department of the environment and we will report to the state, residential buildings have to report to the

state, and that's just -- there's so many bad policy reasons for that so that is why we are coming today to amend ordinance. so what will happen is that we will take this current situation , which is commercial coming to us, residential coming to the state, and we will amend the ordinance so that the residential look him to the department of the environment as well and we have authority to hand it off. the benefit to the sector are multiple. number 1, they've got us. we have been doing advanced notification to building owners to help them streamline the process. we have free technical assistance. we are already working with them on the apartment association and the chamber to let people know that this is coming down the pipe so that starting july 1st , we will get this data out rather than june 1st, then having to bring it to the state, and then we will take that information, inform our own work

, and also give the state its information as well. in summary, what we need, this being april 1st, we know climate change is no joke. we know that the city has a real opportunity to lead by example. we also know our existing building stock is toughest. it is important alignment to do today to pass this, and then it gives us an opportunity with that data to figure out what is next. so thank you. >> thank you. let me make sure that i understand what the scope of owners who need to report is. so i think what you intend is that residential buildings of 50,000 square feet or greater report. >> correct. >> and nonresidential buildings of 10,000 square feet or more report. >> correct. >> okay. so i think where we are having

the problem is in the beginning of the ordinance under definitions, section 2001, building, b. b., means a facility composed of any occupancy types and it sets them forth a be, m., which is industrial, are one, are two, are three, are four, which i residential, and then later on you define on page 5 in a nonresidential building with 10,000 square feet or more, at a residential building a 50,000 square feet or more, but then in section 203, subsection a, you say the owner of every building in the city shall annually file, and i don't thank you mean building, i thank you mean

nonresidential as defined and residential as defined because the term building would encompass every single structure under 10,000 and under 50,000, so i thank you want to change building in section 2003, on line seven to nine, two nonresidential, residential, and noncapital. i think that's what you intend to. >> you've got it. >> the way it's written, we don't want every building to have that requirement. i could see where we thought where we were clear, and a can see where we weren't. >> deputy city attorney, do you agree? >> i agree with what you said. i also have the experience of finding what we think are errors on the floor, amending, and getting to the full board and realizing that it is actually

more complicated. what i would recommend to the committee is if you intend to send it out today, send it out today, and we can make the amendment to the definition of section 203 on tuesday. >> happy to have you guys fix it , however you see fit, as long as it actually does what we are all in agreement that we are attempting to do. is there any public comment on item number 2? don't all rush up. seen none, public comment is closed. supervisor safai? >> i have some questions through the chair. >> go for it. >> first, i just want to go to supervisor peskin's point. on page 4 you define what a building is. and isn't that what they referencing going point -- going forward? so they defined building, so once they defined it, once they rereference at, that is what

they're referencing. >> yes, because it is a b., it is a defined term. >> they listed out what they want here. see worse and what they have listed out is not... i think it might be helpful to clarify. >> what they're trying to capture relative to compliance and reporting is the universe of nonresidential about 10,000 square feet, and residential about 50,000 square feet, but building as defined in the ordinance is every single building, including single-family homes and two unit buildings that are under 50,000 square feet, and pfeffer unit buildings under 50,000 square feet, and i don't think they intend for those two reports. the way it is written,. >> you might just want to clarify. >> okay. >> my other question is, so you separate out to nonresidential buildings on square footage, director raphael, and i see that there's different types of audits for each one. can you talk a little bit about

that, one gets a walk-through auditing get one gets a copy hands of audit, and i want to understand why you are differentiating and what the necessity for that is. >> in terms of the audits, you bring up an interesting point here. the requirement for an audit is only -- was existing, pre-existing, and it has on the commercial. when we added added line, we did not require residential do an audit, and so that audit language that was in there in 2011 is understanding that buildings of different sizes -- because the ordinance goes down to 10,000 square feet, which is a very small commercial building as opposed to the state looking at 50,000 square feet and above, we thought that the kind of audit can get a very expensive if you've got certain levels of audits -- they surgeon levels of audits cost more. we wanted to acknowledge that smaller buildings do not have the same burden of an audit is larger buildings. that will not apply to the residential sector because we

not requiring an audit on the residential sector. >> i did not see any audits for the residential. so it is about the size and the scale and the impact that it has >> correct. >> but the information will be similar. that goes to my second question because i did not see it spelled out, but the actual building owner pays for the audit themselves? >> that is correct. >> does it talk and here -- it says what the qualification of the auditor is. you have a list of qualified energy efficiency auditors? that you will work with and provide to the building owners if they don't have them. >> yes. all of our auditor qualifications and list of auditors are on our website and listed. >> do you ask them as part of the process to ensure -- i see the qualifications, but do you then look and see that the person -- do you ask them who performs their audit? >> yes, through our audit template were recollect all of our information. they list their credentials and

i.d. and we verify that online. >> okay. what is the difference between a comprehensive audit, the cost, versus a walk-through audit? >> the cost varies, it also depends on the size of the building. for smaller buildings, or a level one audit, it is usually and arrange -- it also ranges per company, but it is in the low thousands, and stan 1,000 to about 5,000, and a more comprehensive audit, level two can be more than that. >> i will say that when this first past, the building that my personal office in north beach is in, the landlord went through an audit and was proudly reported to me a couple years later that he is saving a lot of money every year because it was a great investment, and he was actually quite pleased.

>> that is a great story. >> because of the audit? >> yes. a building that was built by his grandfather, it is ground floor commercial and office on the second story. >> so that -- >> he ended up changing the way the building is heated and he has saved money every year since >> it every year he keeps saving >> right. >> how often is the audit required? >> every five years. >> so where is that spelled out? >> do you want to find the page? he is looking for the page. >> okay. , that is five years, and that was the last point. good point, supervisor peskin. once the audit is performed, you make the adjustments, and you have ongoing savings. i guess while you are looking that up, can we ask them when they are doing the audit, can we ask them to report or disclose

the type of energy? i mean we have the information now for who is using clean power s.f., who is not, was opting out , who is opting in, can capture that information too when the audits are performed? that will also inform us on the type of energy that is being used for the building, not just the performance of the building but the source of the energy. >> we are not asking at this point. >> can be immense that into the legislation, potentially, since we are gathering information in audit form. >> i don't know if there is a law around that but i think it is an interesting idea. >> presumably, the public utilities commission has that data. >> correct. >> it would be an interesting thing for you all to know, but the data might actually be accessible between department -- departments subject to the confidentiality provisions that are set forth. so my point is, if you are having this and you're are collecting this data, either the auditor or you all should be

able to determine so we can determine who's not just being efficient, but who is also being conscious of the source of energy in terms of the environment. >> yeah,. i think to supervisor peskin's point, i know that data does exist because clean power s.f. does know who is their customer and two is not and the size of the buildings that those accounts are, so it is a question of how do we weave that together and for what ends. is it because we want to require something different, or to give them accolades? >> i think we are doing -- i guess part of what i understand this amendment to be is you want people to disclose their energy performance. >> correct. >> but as part of the energy performance, you want them to be more efficient. >> yes. to use less energy. >> so then the next step would be not only just being less

energy, but what type of energy are they using, because that then becomes, i guess i go back to the hall that a lot of the buildings put platinum and energy efficient, and as a -- all this other stuff, but it is all still coal-based and all still environmentally -- >> the department of the environment and p.u.c. have been in a lot of conversations in the last three or four weeks about how to step up super green enrolment, and how we can, as a department of the environment with our great communications team help them get the word out for increasing that enrolment, and these data sets will help us targets the recipients of that information as well, and they also, as i said, help us target where we are doing our energy efficiency work, especially in the residential sector where that savings can go right to the tenants in terms of decreased utility cost. this kind of information will be super helpful for us in our energy efficiency work. >> it seems like something we

could add into as part of the data collection that would be simple. >> the word simple, i don't know , but we can look into it. >> i would ask the city attorney if we can potentially make that amendment, if it is a friendly amendment, and i would like to be added as a cosponsor. >> great. >> it will be part of my amendment to the legislation. i don't have any other questions , but great work. >> anything else? >> if you and the p.u.c. can get with council and see if we can craft anything in the next 24 hours, if it turns out to be too complicated, or should be another vehicle, we will look at that tomorrow, next week -- not tomorrow, next week. >> thank you so much. >> we asked for public comment and there was no public comment so we will send this to the full board with a recommendation to be amended next week. without objection. magic clerk, next item, please.

>> item three is an ordinance amending the landmark designation for landmark number 2049 '06 broadway under article ten of the planning code. confirmed exterior of -- exterior features should be preserved or replaced and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you. colleagues, by way of background , 906 broadway is our lady of guadalupe church in the hearts of the northeast corner of san francisco, district three , which i represent. it has an interesting -- many interesting stories. one of which is that it was landmarked in 1993 before, and a former mayor brown is lessening, before then speaker brown passed assembly bill i think it was 133 at the behest of the archdiocese

of the state of california, which prevented local governments from lands marking religious structures, and interestingly enough, the city and county of san francisco, on the theory that it was a violation of church and state, took that case all the way up to the united states supreme court and ultimately did not prevail, but this was landmarked prior to the passage of that preentry piece of legislation. it hails from a date in time when there was a large latino community in the northeast corner of san francisco. for those that do not know, there is a plaque on columbus avenue regaling the history of little chile, believe it or not, and every year on december 12th

, for many, many years, the latino community from the mission would come on the day of our lady of guadalupe a and marriott she bands would wind through chinatown and north beach. it was a sight to behold. in 1996, i believe it was, or maybe it was 94, i think it was 94, the san francisco archdiocese closed number of parish churches, including our lady of guadalupe a, and for a number of years, would reopen it one day a year on december 12th , to allow that community to come and celebrate. subsequently, it was sold off, interestingly enough, when i was reelected in 2015, for a brief moment, it was the potential site for a navigation centre,

but subsequently was sold to the current owners, who have agreed to lands marking. the case reported believe was prepared by paige turnbull, and they received a certificate of appropriateness for some internal changes, and i want to thank the project sponsor for accommodating the communicating staircase in an appropriate location, and think staff for bringing the interior lands marking of some character defining features pursuant to article ten of the planning code , and with that, miss smith, the floor is yours. >> thank you. >> i will say one thing, i was first elected in a runoff on december 12th, of the year 2,000, and i started that morning in a rainy morning on a runoff election in the senate kristi of that church. i am a jewish guy, but when this

little shaft of light lit up that incredible stained-glass window and some old latina woman said to me, you are going to win , i knew i was going to have a good day that day, so i have very special association with that church. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm from the planning department staff and i'm here today to present the proposed amendment to the landmark designation for 906 broadway, historically known as our lady of guadalupe eight located in north beach. 906 broadway was designated as landmark number 204 in 1993. at the time a designation, only the exterior features of the building were designated. following the sale of the property with the archdiocese in 2016, they added to their landmark designation work program. on december 19th, 2019, the

historic preservation commission recommended the land might designation be amended to include the building's interior, including the sanctuary, murals, another significant interior features. to briefly summarize, the property a significant force association with the development of the san francisco latino and spanish-speaking communities from the late 19th to the mid- 20th century, as well as the geographical and spiritual heart of the latino and spanish-speaking enclave that existed in north beach until the 1950s. it is also architecturally significant of the work of master architects at chez and locke west and an exceptional example of an early 20th century mission revival church with a highly ornate interior displaying renaissance and baroque ornamentation, including its interior murals painted by a master artist. the department has received two letters in support of the

designation amendment and has shared a draft of the designation report with the property owner who has testified in support of the designation amendment and is also present today. there is no known public or neighborhood opposition to the amendment. the department believes the building's interior meets the established eligibility requirements and that amendment for the landmark designation is warranted. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you miss smith and thank you to staff of the planning department and historic preservation commission. is there any public comment on this item? seeing then, public comment is closed. madame clerk, i would like to add my name is a sponsor, and if there is no objection, we will forward this to the full board with recommendation. that will be the order, and we are adjourned.

[gavel] >> meet willing come to order. good morning everyone. welcome to the april 1, 2019 meeting of the rules committee. i'm supervisor hillary ronen chair of the committee. seated to my right is vice chair supervisor shamann walton and to my left is supervisor gordon mar. our clerk is victor young. like to thank jim smith from

s.f. gov to looking the meeting. >> items will appear on the april 9th board of supervisors agenda. >> supervisor ronen: please read item number one. [agenda item read] >> supervisor ronen: wonderful. there is an appointment by our nomination by supervisor valley brown for allegra fortunati. hi. welcome. thanks for being here. >> good morning. i'm allegra fortunati. i resided in district 5 for 25 years. thank you for hearing my application for reappointment to the aging advisory council. i have served on the council

since october 2016 fulfilling the term of office of a prior district 5 representative followed by a three-year term of my own. i served about about years. i serve as secretary to the counsel. i was installed senior senator from san francisco to the california senior legislature. i retired from the university of california. i continue to work part time for the san francisco long-term care omnibus program. i cover several assisted living facilities and residential facilities for elderly. primarily i work with the adult residential facilities. haven't for adults with disabilities and those with mental health issues. i worked with city and county departments that address issues regarding older adults and adults with disabilities.

most recently participating in the assisted living work group representing the omnibus program. also with sever c.b.o.s. i believe the work i do offers a unique perspective. on an fragmented system where too many fall through the cracks particularly those with low income. i'm also a member of several organizations including san francisco village which focuses on keeping older adults in their homes as long as possible and hopefully avoiding institutionalization. within that organization, i co-lead a solo age circle. older adults without family who must bill their own support and advocacy system. for a couple of terms i served on the san francisco civil grand jury and enjoyed the opportunity to be engaged and continue my efforts and ideas to improving

san francisco government and services. i wanted to don't that experience by serving on the council. i'm hoping you will renew my application to the aging advisory council so that it may become a better advocate for our diverse population of older adults and adults with disabilities. i believe having an active participant from district 5 on this council is vital. district 5 is on the the lowest income seniors and adults can disabilities in the city. it has a second largest percentage adults with disabilities. i'm interested visiting and hearing from all programs that serve this community and from hearing from the community about the quality of services and care they receive in order to find areas of improvement and fill in the gaps. i hope you will support my application. thank you. >> supervisor ronen: wonderful, thank you so much. hell of qualification.

is there any questions? thank you so much. really appreciate it. i will now open this item for public comment. anyone wants to speak. now is your chance. seeing none. public comment is closed. i want to thank you so much for being willing to serve in this capacity especially given your incredible history and knowledge and work. really appreciate that. i'll be reaching out to you on your expertise especially around aging adults and mental health. thank you so much for coming before this committee. is there a motion? >> supervisor walton: i move to forward ms. allegra fortunati for on commission aging advisory council to the full board with recommendation. >> supervisor ronen: that motion

passes. thank you so much. please read item number two. [agenda item read] >> supervisor ronen: it's so exciting that we have such a qualified pool of applicants for this commission. i would love to call you in order and which you're listed on the agenda and they believ ask p your remarks around three or four minutes if at all possible. i did have one overarching question that you like to address in your remarks would be greatly appreciated. i'll read that now. the veteran affairs council is charged advising board of

supervisors and mayor on issues concerning the veteran community. i wanted to know how you see the role of san francisco legislators? what should we be paying attention to and working on in regard to economic development, healthcare and social service programs as they relate to veterans. within that framework, what do see as the most urgent issues that you would want to tackle and work with us on and what your ideas are for doing that? kind of a broad question. i love to hear your thoughts on that. i don't know if there's any other overaveragin overarching t my colleagues like to address. no, that's great. if we can first hear from douglas bullard.

>> he is unable to attend the meeting. he's still interested. he did have a family emergency. >> supervisor ronen: great, thank you so much. is hanley chan here? >> i was born and raised in san francisco. i was in chinatown north beach and moved down to sunset. that's where i went to elementary school, high school in san francisco. got my associated degree in state college at san francisco. i got my b.a. in new college of california where i'm mentor my student advisor very well-known. legendary harry britt. if you watching man, love you.

i served in the united states navy as aviation in 1999. i served in the california national guard as a army tanker in 2004. i currently appointed to the u.s. selected service board as district appeals board member appointed by president obama. volunteerism is in my blood. i like giving back to the community. i want to serve this commission to solve the homeless crises and veterans and i want to understand how to navigate. i understand how to navigate city services because i was once homeless myself. i understand the need and wants of veterans out there,

especially government system where the bureaucracy is very big. i want to combat mental health issue. i'm working with the executive director of the penal tool health project. basically i'm working with them now. those are two biggest concerns for veterans, homelessness and housing for veterans and mental health issues. that's it. you have any questions? >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much. next is david chasteen. >> thank you for all your service on this commission. >> thank you supervisor ronen.

as you know, i was recently elected to be the president of the commission. although my term has expired. we'll see. i wanted to say in my short time so far as vice president and serving as member on the commission, i think you probably seen this other commissions, we have a lot of responsibility in terms of mandate. we have lot of people responsible for. not a lot of power with which to do that. which is not necessarily a problem. one of the things that you asked, we can do to address those issues, i think one of the things i learned in nonprofit space is, the very largest nonprofit, couldn't fund v.a. operations for a week. a slight change in government policy has a much bigger impact than any small group of nonprofit folks. what you like about the commission that you see there,

us at our best, we are a policy group who can pull from our lived experience and many cases professional experience. we have lot of people who are professional who worked in the space far long time. there are lot of resources to address issues around homelessness and economic opportunity for folks who are transitioning and economic disparity and housing and mental health. i think the best thing the commission can do is focus on that job of advising the board of supervisors and mayor on policy. i think best done that means returning annual report which countrwasn't completed into a rl document that provides goals for the commission which is good and not hard to do and reach goals.

that's what i like the commission going forward. in means bringing in people who can do that work of policy. last thing i wanted to do here, the executive committee had a look at our -- we focused lot on recruiting and inclusive recruiting. we got some good results. of these excellent candidates in addition to myself and commissioner olivieri, we wanted to highlight george chewning, 17 martin-pinto as stand outs on the application today. >> supervisor ronen: i'm wondering since you served already one term on the commission, what are the avenues? i've been here for a while. i had a ton of opportunity to

work directly with the veteran commission. when you have policy suggestions, how have you worked with members of the board of supervisors or the mayor's office to enact those policies? >> it's interesting. i done some lobbying around veteran issues d.c. before i came to san francisco. one of the things i like about the commission, you all k are lr corporations and people who stand to make money. there are very rarely lobbyist for good policy. when you find those people they are kind of great. usually nonprofits. what i found is where we've been most effective is those and the commissioners who have personal relationship with supervisors and their staff and mayoral staff and you can say hey, here the thing we see. it might not be that hard to fix

would it take legislation to work better? it's talking to people and making connections. i love living in big city like san francisco. it's lot easier to make the connections. >> supervisor ronen: have you worked with any supervisor or anyone from the mayor's office to do that? >> yes. we've done some of that. supervisor safai recommended we do a report annually. we trying to figure out how to best comply with sunshine request pipelike m.

-- are we doing the best we can. what are the outcomes? one the things i want to do is subcommittees where i can take teams of three and do that work and come back. they can talk to each other and coordinate and do good work and come back and report to the commission so we can get it on the record and still comply with the law in terms of transparency. supervisor safai recommended biannual report is a great idea. our veteran population is centred downtown in the hospitals way out in west side of town. sometimes folks, especially if

they're dealing with mental health issues have difficult getting on the bus and getting out there. those are couple of examples of kind of easier kinds of things that we've been talking to supervisors about getting through. >> supervisor ronen: supervisor walton has a question. >> supervisor walton: since you brought up, yos recommended four individual who are also nominees. can you touch on why you chose those four? >> i would of those four, in particular we're looking for folks who either have experience on public policy or have experience in navigating larger systems that affect outcomes for veterans. most of these folks either work at companies in the bay area that have impact on outcomes and communications or have experience working in local

government, state government and federal government on policy issues. i want to turn my commissioners into if it's hearings and it's reporting out, that means you got to be someone who can dig and someone who can write and actually do that lobbying work. the folks i highlighted are people who have that experience. >> supervisor ronen: next if we can hear from george chewning. >> good morning. i'm george chewning. thank you for taking the time to consider my application for the v.a. commission. i'm u.s. army veteran. i received my commission federal west point and served officer for five years. after leaving the service i joined a veteran nonprofit in washington d.c. as a legislative director.

i lobbied for passage of bill allowing for construction of the national monument for the post 9/11 conflicts. i moved to san francisco to be closer to family and friends. i wish to continue my service to my community and veterans. i'm pursuing my master in leadership from the university of san francisco to develop the skills i need for my second service. i want to be a commissioner to advise the board of supervisors and mayor on veteran issues and advocate for legislation that will benefit veterans, their families and their community. thank you for your time. >> supervisor ronen: what do you think we should be working on board of supervisors to help address issue of underemployment? are there types of training programs that we should be investing in and sort of advertising to the veteran

community? >> i think one of the avenues is helpful developing public private partnerships. there are companies in the community that offer different boot camps and different workshops for veterans to address unemployment. having that public support behind those and helping get out the word using the v.a. commission to spread that and communicate that, i think it's a great avenue. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. next is christy collins. is taurean diaz-coleman present? raymond gobberg present? hello, good morning. >> good morning. thank you so much for allowing

me an opportunity to introduce myself. air force veteran four years, active duty service currently reservist serving defense down in mountain view. when i moved to san francisco about five years ago from chicago i immediately saw opportunity to engage in the veteran community. it was all on my own drawn by my service and david chasteen network and bringing in people. my activities included v.a., vets in tech and then i started coming to the commission meetings as a participant. that's when i interest came to join as a full time commissioner if i had the opportunity. really why do i think i can provide value? previous speaker mentioned

something that's really a common theme in my background which is partnerships. building partnerships understanding how to bring diverse group of people together who have different backgrounds. on active duty i was public affairs officer, served in new mexico. building relationships between local civic governments. new york city, i did the same thing. out here in my professional life, i'm a tech sector. as i mentioned, defense innovation unit is a term to know about. it's actually an organization meant to find innovative companies and connect them with department of defense leaders to make sure technology is making it in the hands of d.o.d. to enhance national security. ultimately at the end of the day, the strength of any community relies on its

diversity. my thought would be how can we build more diverse partnerships whether it's internal, externality or -- external or public or private. to answer your question up front, what's the most pressing issue i would address, it comes down to those connections and those partnerships. whenever you build a network and that network grows and it's diverse the right outcomes comes from it. that's where i would invest my time. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much. next is james hayden present? >> i did receival contact. he's unable to attend but still interested. >> supervisor ronen: wonderful. thank you so much. is stephen martin-pinto present?

hello. >> good morning supervisors. my name is stephen martin-pinto. thanks for quivering m give -- e this opportunity. i'm captain in united states marine corps. i been in reserves for 16 years. i began as a private and worked my way as a sergeant and now i'm captain. hopefully be major here next year and a half. i have a deployment to iraq in 2007 and 2008. deployment to afghanistan in 2012 and deployed to georgia the country in 2013-2014 as a foreign military advisor trainer. i'm currently a firefighter at engineering truck 2 in chinatown chinatown. bilingual english, spark. i learned russia when i was in

jordan. the reason i'm here is, i've been very fortunate because my job has been very good to me and supporting me when i have to go to drills or deployments whatever it is. i worked for employer who hasn't been kind. it was a very bad experience. kind of swore to myself if i ever gotten position where i can make a difference, i want to make sure that never happen to anybody to have the experience i had. i like to also promote the hiring event. vets make a great highly-quality employee. they are disciplined and motivated. they can work in any condition pipelike to see mor -- i like te more of that. you like to see us promote veterans as a whole.

i think that not lot of people from familiar what it means to serve in the military and i think we're a very diverse group. we're your neighbors, firefighters, polic police officeringpolice officers,many . we're around. i like see us promote that more. as far as what i like to see us accomplish and focus our efforts on, i think we need to do more to promote the hiring of veterans. i know in my job, they have veteran points. i don't know if that's true in every department in the city. best thing we can do is help hire more, promote and hiring more veterans if th. they make great employees and they are dedicated. i like to see us protect their

rights. that's all i have. thank you for your time. >> supervisor ronen: i'm curious the negative experience you had in the workplace, if you're willing to ewill belaborate on e or is there something as policymakers to prevent that from happening? >> when i came back from iraq in 2008, i worked for in southern california, i've been gone for 13 months. my skills were not a sharp as when i left. i had a very difficult time getting back into relearning all my skills. i think as a city, we need to

give those veteran who have deployed for a long period of time, time to retrain, to get their life back to together again. they are gone for a long time. you doing lot of high-speed things and then you come back to your normal life again. like almost immediately. it's kind of a very jarring experience. sometimes it's hard to adjust. i think we need really focus on maybe programs counseling programs, retraining programs and help veterans reintegrate back in the workforce. as far as details, i can't think off the top of my head.

>> supervisor ronen: i wasn't aware until now we had extra points in our fire department to recruit and hire veterans. that seems excellent to me. do we have a lot of veterans working in our san francisco fire department? >> absolutely. i'm part of the s.f. fire veterans association. i say about 5 to 8 percent of our workforce that's including the e.m.t.s, paramedics, firefighters and veterans. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much. is christopher todd mcdonald present? >> good morning. how is everybody doing?

it is a great honor to stand before this board in hopes representing all veterans of the san francisco communities. i come from a long family line of military combat veterans. my name is christopher mcdonald. i'mal 20-year retired disabled military veteran. you'll know that my dd214, i was equal opportunity representative trained settlemen six years in y and affirmative action. my background goes into