for the opportunity to speak today. i'm also a resident of ligand binding is margarita >> speak into the microphone, please >> i'm sorry >> i'm also a resident of blue and i strongly oppose the approval of the development of 633 fulsome in its current form. i'm any concerns with regards to the condition of given limited time only going to address three of them. bulk air quality and sunlight and i've spent an e-mail to the planning commission with my concerns. personally i believe that all assumption exception is unwanted. the close edition [inaudible] of the existing building already billed to the property line. if billed as proposed it would be a shiny presence on the street [inaudible] we don't need another [inaudible] please, require the developers to build

[inaudible] i'm second on concern about the air quality in the. fulsome is a very busy street. there's a lot of traffic and it got worse in the last few years. in regard to properties cannot make it into the air pollutant exposure zone map was buildings that surround us as well as [inaudible] i must've been very measuring high 2.5 numbers in october and should approve the development of those likely to request that you require exhaust measures be put in place during the project construction the safety of future i also require, please, that the project sponsoring ventilation please request project sponsor installing a green roof in scott weiner's legislation. last but not least, the neighbor on concern about the proposed addition would produce in many cases limited access to the direct sunlight for many units in my building. two thirds of value

west directly into 633 fold with you most of light in the afternoon. this edition of 5176 feet from current 91 woodlock was about light. privacy is also a huge concern as many as only [inaudible] 30 feet separate about. the downtown plan encourages residential development. as such of their responsibility to provide [inaudible] for those of us that have downtown homes. that includes access to air, like maintaining our privacy as well as protection from uncomfortable wins. please require additional setbacks between two buildings as well as required [inaudible] 10-20. i strongly urge you to deny the request perceptions and to required the addition [inaudible] downtown area plan. thank you very much. >> hi. i so live at 631. should

sorry i don't know the procedures. i said to all an e-mail. i'm the person keeps calculating those angles of elevation. i would not be here today if this plan was already going to fit. wolves are rules. our building designers would love to make a building 400 feet tall or whatever. i assume they were denied because that's what zoning and rules are for. i have no problem with them proposing will develop you i'm sorry about their foundation prompted zero building, i guess. but we are here because were going to go from year-round light, whining, both on the sixth floor was a person prohibited because the timing on the 10th floor. then from year-round to 6-8 months out of your no direct sunlight. we are surrounded and are people who designed the building in 2007

were awake whenever they get it they had a fully built out at maximum far plan for this building. if there is no reason to have rules why would we not be taking this into account? similarly, it seems that the strange trade. this can add 90,000 ft.2 of office space when were awash in office space could is millions of square feet in the backlog and twitter just put one 80,000 back on the market out of that matters to you guys but to trade for me personally, of course the vice president of the building is very much that we don't necessarily need 90,000 ft.2 of extra office space and it's not extra. so, personally, the trade of walking home to a nice light filled apartment, it's a nice thing. but, i don't see why this demands exceptional circumstances. it is just a

pile is two blocks on top of each other. i respect that you got more costly. i don't want them to have to do that, but rules are rules. thank you. >>sue has severe this case is absolutely not ready to move today. this is a downtown plan case. ultimately. because downtown plan [inaudible] came out of it. there's all kinds of manipulations being done to make it not a new project because they get cheaper fees as well. can they get more money from the entire we build. the last-minute documents are the environmental exception the topic study, the shadow study just updated today and the plans you have very little

solid information that people have time to absorb. what i note when i read the traffic surveys was the only traffic analysis done from four-6 pm. anyone who thinks that 4-6 is a rush-hour and second and. needs to have her head examined were in the planning department. that is a bad time span for understanding what goes on on the bainbridge on the everyday monday through friday. secondarily, the residential development was an impetus out of the downtown plan. they're trying to makes office space and housing and these people who i never met before today really have issues

. the planning department doesn't know how to do the analysis. when you do all the documents at the last minute, you don't have a good thought process. the public can have a good thought process. the fact that you're asking for guidance and are not available from you have not had them in your packets should be [inaudible] to the planning commissioners. when i went through-not only went through the downtown plan, but the eastern plan and western plan. there was a unanimity from the committee sat. that said there has to be a two-way bus down fulsome street. we are is that in the reality spewing that was in 2006-2007 when we are at the height of the eastern neighborhoods. there is no impetus to construct the muni line down there because the developers don't [inaudible] there's not a pressure group from this developer suite

company which is pretty powerful, or anyone else. so, we don't have a good transit system. we don't have real information on and-on help shadow effect of residents which [inaudible] and you have manipulation of the office of development allocation. no office development should go on a document that is being updated at the hearing. which is your policy on exemptions. thank you. >>any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore >> this is an interesting discussion. i think it's really great to see a building trying to use adaptive reuse techniques to upgrade. relative to 19 65 billion the question is how do you do it. i think

that is where we immediately start to raise questions that those rules which determine how we build buildings and intensified court should really happen the first guided by those rules which are in place rather than trying to make the best use of assets of the existing building by asking for exceptions. that in itself is a serious contradiction particularly when developers like hines went on the street is 75 hawthorne, in the event of an entire tall building for queen performance with people being in the building and not asking for any exceptions or redo in order to make more money. in order to maintain the building is a class e were a+ performance for this kind of a no-brainer but i do not believe i can concur at the expense of the other issues which have intensified since 1965. i look

on this particular case is what should drive our thinking is the policy of protecting housing and the ability of adjoining housing those people who are in the 90s built the building by which many residents spoke because they were at the frontier. so all of a sudden you come up and would protect assets were increase acids for you that you are asking for exceptions on those rules which i believe are absolutely important to observe when were talking about intensified within instrument and livability for those who aren't so close to you. for me, i believe that the request for additional information within critical for more objectively what it is you are trying to do and there is indeed a large amount of information missing together with a set [inaudible] which gives a slightly more comrades of description of your project. i have many drawings here that are missing in my package together with

information about the shadow study, a landscape plan, the purpose of your penthouse and a number of other things not last and least the shadow start. i'm at this moment, and not inclined to look at this project in its current configuration and ask that there be more disclosure and further consideration for the rules recommend this project. >> commissioner richards >> i will open this in the kind. in light of today's vision for the neighborhood replicating the state made in 1968, this year does not make any sense. i think that's what this project is. i agree with commissioner moore. people live in this neighborhood we talked about what wasn't so hot and now

experiencing a bait and switch in your creating situation that's not liberal for the residents honestly i believe. i did in tokyo. i been in office those extra residential builds that's not pretty. you can look and see people are doing. being that far away from people that jones is just completely not appropriate. would love to of seen in the packet again and we got the standard was actually had to ask for it as you're on the screen was trying to follow and put it. the just so much this project takes so much and gives so little. so this project as his is absolutely unsupportable by me that he needs to come back in a vastly we configured scope. >> commissioner johnson >> thank you very much. i actually is a perfect person who lives in arresting the building across a small street from a office building i understood where the residents are coming from. i think commissioner richards made that point. i just focus on a couple questions i have. in the staff report it says-let me go back

to her my note is. that's granting the exception to the limit would not result in a building with a greater those floor area than what has been permitted if the book limits were met. so, how is that possible? >> because this is not a 200 district so the building could be constructed of two 200 feet in height. with a smaller-so it's basically their trading off floor area. that would have been higher elevation >> that schedule, we heard the project sponsor made communicated it again, it's hearsay so i can't say that for sure that's exactly what they said but they did not want to build taller because of the cost. let me ask the project sponsor that question. the question for the company were

>> thanks. john kaplan on behalf of the project sponsor. or talk about this now because this is a decision made about two years ago the beginning of this process. when really putting the building configuration into its general shape we have today and as we tinker with it as it goes through the design development prospect was really kind of a to part question. one, in which we got an existing building with a large court and trying to fit a vertical addition within the scope limits without court makes for very poor floor plates so very small with a big huge chunk in the middle of it. so it was a combination of that alongside the fact that we knew we were adjacent to two residential buildings and at that height considering the fact we got the best 345 and 75 feet on one side and 75 feet on the other we thought of the

more sensitive not to go higher with the height but rather meeting with the existing setback is were included in the case of blue. it was there's a number of considerations that went into the original passing of this building and the decision to go wider rather than talk. >> got it. thank you. so, just a couple of things. that makes sense to me. i think that attitudes have not to say they shifted but they change over time on hype versus lock will when they talk about projects i did not surprise on the discussion you mention here. i think it sounds like there is some energy here to look at the building block design and sort of look at it a little bit more closely could just focus on my remaining concerned, which is this project is taking 20% of large-cap remaining large cap allocation is that correct?

>> yes. 20% this about 500,000 ft.2 right now. we got a 35 and october >> 20% of what is there now and october it will react with another eight 75,000 >> that's right. the project has been in the office for a couple years we know it's in the queue >> right we have that table a couple months ago that i thought. i question is this more the staff-where are we with that are upcoming discussion on the table and with our process around proposition m. but i think it was in may or june i saw the table with the large-cap and small-cap office space project. it was my father was going to be some sort of follow-up in the fall to continue consider talking about like what policy we may or may not want to have about how to consider space

>> i think we were figured we would bring that to you when the two things happened. one is when the new allocation comes in and when essential soma plant comes forward which obviously would authorize a lot of new office visit we want to have that conversation in the context of that and given the projects there. so yes we were to bring that to you rate this file were early next year. >> okay. >> i would just say this but the project it's a relatively small amount of space given the cap. that's why we felt this was a 4-5000 square-foot project and the movie and discussion. because the actual allocation here is 90,000 ft.2. >> i see. okay. so, when i went into this i thought that's the coming out of the large-cap allocation was more than that 80-90,000 ft.2. what i was going with this is i thought that special was happening involves essential soma definitely parties able to hearing about it in and proposition m i thought we would have a hearing about

that. where i was going to know about is not in the essential soma plan areas by why should not be part of the same discussion of or talk about 20% of becoming allocation? >> is only can the i guess because of the size of the project and because we have 500,000 ft.2. we went back big a concern about this particular allocation just in terms of that issue of the allocation. >> okay. i would like to hear from other commission should i could be supportive of a continuance on this but i will say that personally, i'm not hearing the direction that we be giving the project sponsor just yet in a little bit lost on it as well could only other commissioners have some better ideas will try to come up with some myself >> commissioner hillis six could i ask the architect of couple questions if you would come up to the microphone? i think we have some handout i believe from the representative of the homeowners association these are not yours?

>> correct >> but did you have a slide that shows what you can build without the bulk, because i think for me, getting more information on the bulk exception is come i think critical. i think with the issue i'm hearing is you are going to be with the bulk exception you are building is good to be closer to the folks in the adjacent buildings and set of higher. it's going to be closer but not as high. and trying to understand that, i think would be helpful in where this would go. >> sure. i have that up on the screen. see you can see them on the left side is the compliant massing that is the 160 foot building length and needs is a little less of 190 foot diagonal. it's less than the allowable square footage for florida as well. pardon me. you

can see that to get the roughly 90,000 ft.2 of additional building area we are seeking difficult to sick stories to meet that. so the impact is roughly 30 feet higher in the compliant massing to the neighboring buildings and as john had mentioned, when we look at this analysis initially on the project we got be more sensitive to the neighborhood we stayed low with the building. so, we got a four stories in the proposed massing and that generates to get to the 90,000 ft.2 it generates a sort of request for the exception exception for building mass. >> right. on this, non-bulk exception version, at the closest point to the neighboring buildings on fulsome, how far are you away? under your proposal,- >> the still maintains a 15 set for that. the distance between the fulsome street condominium is the same. the

tween both the proposed massing and the compliant massing at the differences there's a setback on fulsome st., hawthorne street of 12 feet and that so the floor plate is centered around the core but we don't want to have happened is an offset of that floor plan run the core that's existing. because then you've got speed wingspans that are unusable of 1215 feet. so we've center that up and by doing so were making interesting separation but going higher. >> how far off are you on hawthorne, for instance? i get -let's discuss this without the limitations of the court because i think that's driving some of this but if you didn't get in center that and put it closer to hawthorne and fulsome, how much additional space do you get on the as a blue side dispute >> that's a 48 foot that that were sewing this dimension to

give you a sense of scale. so from the existing current edge of existing building to the compliant massing it have an additional 40 feet. is that- >> yes. it sounds like were going to-this is going to be continued but i think that would be helpful. the proponents of attorneys provided some diagrams and kind of a compromise position with the massing could be under code compliance. you know in showing some additional separation between your proposed addition and sf blue. as well as 77 hawthorne place that i think it would be good to understand more and what it could compliant project gets you and how much additional separation that gets so we can better evaluate the trade-off between

height and building separation yet because, i think some people at as a blue may be happy if you end up going farther away but higher but it may bring a couple of additional neighbors worn-out upon upper floors who are going to have spear [inaudible] albeit fatherly decision also, it would be hopeful for me to know it seems like the 77 doubt pl. windows are somewhat secondary. they are on kind of a façade of the building but clearly is not the primary façade but i have some understanding of what is well is kind of the closest portion of the sf blue yukon of get that same concrete structure in the smaller windows there. so having some understanding of what is behind. i'm sure there's floor plans at as a blue and 77 doubt pl. that we can understand. but even there,

his position kind of alluded to that because they push more of the massing toward 77 doubt than as simply because i think those are secondary windows. >> can i make a suggestion zero this point in the conversation? we honestly understand were hearing out of the about project approval, continuance right now. i met with a design that works. were in a little bit of a difficult position because we can come back here the taller building next time but a shrunk building because were basically restarting environmentally. i was a restarted with a three-run number of the studies scope them have been reviewed by staff. we've heard before that it's an awkward point in the process for the commission to hear the first time because were at the finish line having done all the studies over two years. and now you're seeing it for the first time and i recognize the awkward position that puts you in. they put us in an awkward position, to

because we've done all the background on a. i fear just continuing this and coming back without being able to come back with something that he would even be allowed to support because we don't have environmental review covered. i just want to put out there, i know we just got through this process. on another project over the summer where we took more intensive look at this. i think the project sponsor may be a bit hesitant to go to all of the environment overview necessary for another design we don't know that we actually have buy-in from the community were from the commission. so i would just ask the commission consider that and think through what might be useful process hereto get us to the finish line so that were not running in circles in. >> doesn't necessarily have to be additional. i think the folks neighboring condo owners put forth a proposal that was somewhat in between. we are taking some additional setbacks

in exchange but still seemingly beyond words allowed. he was so made an exception for that. so i don't know. i do want to tail wagging the that. we should come up with a project that works and that the approval process fall where it goes. but, i just think we need that understand can i get the concept. you're asking for about exception greenock a girl out farther. were just trying to understand what that impact is to neighbors in the trade-off. it's hard to do that with the information we have in front of us. >> it would be useful to you from commissioners if simply, more setback building would be something that would be supportable? >> i would consider that >> the actual layout and how we make it with the court >> is that something you should explore. the diagrams we

got albeit not from the architect but from the representative, showed a massing that could work that could compliant that's 10 feet away from the current massing on the sf blue side. which starts to get you 54 feet from sf blue in the smallest plan that goes up as you get toward fulsome street. so, yes, i am open to any of those options. >> commissioner moore >> i am actually interested in the train of thought that commissioner hillis just developed. the question that lingers with me is that i sense would get a feeling that the increase of 90+ thousand square feet is the right you assume we have to grant. there is, indeed adaptive reuse. there is indeed building performance within the existing building. if i understood the neighbors

correctly, by your increasing floor to floor height you're losing the ability to gain additional square footage that is what i'm interested in. i can fully understand that you are trying to find, to optimize the asset as a shell within you can use to certain kinds of things are starting to have problems is that you are, by increasing, starting to great problems, which fall into the particular mr. cabin is very sensitive to that the policies about protecting and maintaining with ability of residential in that densified city. so, my question to you is, how can we both were creatively on floor to floor height, gave a certain amount of square footage in i'm not stuck were support that we point length support your 92,000 square feet but the opportunity to create creatively address staying

within the required setback apartments and staying within the envelope gets finding a way to maximize the square footage. those would be the objectives and i believe that commissioner hillis teed off the question by asking for additional creativity within the constraints that i think this commission feels quite unanimously and strongly about. that would be my interpretation of what he just said. >> commissioner richards >> commissioner moore what would that look like? what you just said? >> is a re-examination the existing building with the provision that it be reimagined for an effective use of a redesigned court were adjusted core with not necessarily increasing the ceiling heights but maximizing available office space within the volume could

>> oh come back with some analysis on this could be given to various limitations. >> and discuss >> with the commission and the neighbors to understand what it's going to how we would impact them. what would tempe do? what with 45 feet do you in the one picture was very telling as he looked out his window. i imagine what that must look like these big buildings looking right at him. >> we did that creatively on 91st st. and while there were minor changes [inaudible] make a more neighborly friendly building. that's what we are looking for >> this to donna, giovanni comments on where were going with sp1? this? >> [inaudible] >> can you talk into the microphone, please

>> the overhead, if you might, please. i believe commissioner hillis as the architect for some information on what it might look like if there was no exception, which, by the weight was plantings, ppa's response comments. they do not want that. that sort of went right over. this document, which are believe we've given you a copy of, provides you with a schematic showing what it would look like if there was no exception. you can see that there is a considerable setback and this particular box here would be the additional floor that would be treated, of course, a smaller square footage. commissioner moore put her finger right on it. which was the fundamental question why do need 20 foot ceilings

on the fourth floor additions. why do you need a 16 foot slab to slab separation, which doesn't really do anything for you. in other words, if you brought it up to standard 10 foot slab to slab, you get yourself another floor. i've never heard of a developer who voluntarily waives the right to make money with an extra floor just because he wanted larger ceilings. so that is one item that we can address through this process in order to reduce the height. >> figure director rahaim >> on clarify one hearing. first, i don't believe the

ceiling height of 20 feet. could somebody clarify with us tonight are by latency is not as much lower than any other office. office buildings are typically 12-14 feet in ceiling height with you clear fight with the suicides are spewing bedecked with 16 foot floor to floor will sit still easy between 10-11 feet because will you speak louder? fix was to ignite 10-11 feet >> so your ceiling height- >> this is for floor to floor deck to deck you were including structural slab steel structure, ducks and the lighting in the drop ceiling. roughly 5-6 foot assembly you will end up with 10-11 feet for too soon. >> with the current building? b dick's >> sorry i don't have that on the top of my head here. >> that's fine. >> we believe it is 12 feet. >> silly of ceiling height in the range of normal front office to get him into, just clarify, there was an issue raised by the mechanical word about the penthouse. is the mechanical penthouse? >> is a mechanical pen us. it's fully built to house the

stairs of later and mechanical equipment >> then, what was my last question? i think the staff as we could be doing a pca letter we sent with the code requirements are and then there's a lot more detail could i mean, i think what it hear from the commissioners and just another point i want to make was simply that the existing building does not-is not built to the maximum floor area and height permitted in the code. i mean we all know that i just want to confirm that for the record. neither the commissioners say is fundamentally setback father from the two residential buildings. so the question that i would just put to the commissioners, that of your able to answer us today, would you consider additional height in order to allow for that? because the building does not meet the current height limits. >> if we could see that trade. >> sure. >> sure what i'm hearing is a trainer. as mr. kleven said what does that mean in terms of

the environment to review and will have to have that discussion. none of us can answer that question sitting that here today. >> okay. >> i want to be clear about that. because the higher it might reopen some of the environmental studies. we just have to figure that out >> of move to continue the item indefinitely waiting for this to come out >> it really does mean a different environment to review >> how much time do you think stephanie's? >> staff needs >> >> no. jonas helvey audit. maybe the calendar will answer the question force >> the earliest they would be september 29. >> september 29 >> i don't think we can be ready by then, guys sorry. >> october 20, jonas? >> are full through november but if you like to squeeze in on the 20th week certainly could. >> that's mr. weingartner to

make comments >> i'm principle with gansler and oversee this project. i guess, i just want to make the comment is been a lot of description made about the project. there's been some sketchers are. i think the validity of the sketches it's hard to determine the right get we spent two years looking at all the complexities associate with putting in addition to putting the project altogether including four, seismic mechanical. it's not just a matter of the footprint of the addition. i think we all respect the wisdom and judgment of those present there's more to it than that. so, and i really appreciate commissioner johnson's request to be a little bit more definitive as you send this back to come with further refinement. given our study, and believe me, we went into this one to be sensitive as we possibly could. especially to the housing next door. again we thought that

going with a lower project would be better than building a taller project could be more sensitive to the building that exists now in the community. so, if we were to look at things like reducing some of the floor to floor height, maybe incrementally adding some additional setback but to a degree that is informed by our study of the project, would that be acceptable as refinement as opposed to going in with an entirely new project? >> i like to see alternatives. not just a floor to ceiling height but different setbacks and what else can be done >> i'm just trying to narrow the scope >> i think the commissioners are saying my sense is they say more setback from the adjacent residential building are needed. whether it needs to have no boat exception i don't think they're necessarily saying that but i think they want to look at what the

trade-offs are. >> my sense and i can speak for the environmental review 70 we could avoid going higher you can probably avoid the opening departmental review. but that means fundamentally less square footage. >> the classic was 75 howard when they came up to us and said with a master exception. here's what we are allowed to do initial 4-5 various different options was really really really clear to us even though we were renting them exceptions this was the better part. that's not what i'm seeing here. but stuff up on the screen. i squinted to try to see with the project wasn't. that's all i have to go on. if you want to pick up in my opinion just by one opinion 75 howard look what they submitted and see we helped us. that's improving about one of the work on the design because we knew what we were trade-offs were even though the design was complete. >> i understand. thank you. >> so i moved to continue to

the 20th >> jonas, what are you thinking your? >> there was a suggestion for october 20. >> let's set it for the 20th. >> october 20. motion to continue to october 20. >> moved and seconded. >> commissioner moore >> this building would occur on a vacant site. there be a different set of rules is that correct? >> no not the current of rules. i mean the addition >> of the downtown whirls rules woul start at the bottom of the top aye which govern downtown office buildings. in the absence of that, i can only see us take a modulated position on the building being designed to be completely compliant or explore alternatives by which it supposed to be added berries as it goes up. that might result in fewer square footage but i

do not want to start this exercise would basically saying that 92,244 ft.2 has to be delivered to this commission. i want to see better building and what the consequences of that are are not numerical but in the quality of [inaudible]. >> commissioner hillis >> i mean it may not be very as he goes up. in maybe berries as it goes back. i think we want to respond to the adjacent property owners. you got a generous 75 foot setback in the front of the building but as sf blue steps towards that service alley you get closer. that may be okay in places what's in

there as well as it doesn't seem like the impact is as much on gal on the dell place building because they seem like secondary but i think that's what we want to just understand more. >> if there's nothing further and commissioners there's a motion that's been seconded to continue this matter october 20 with the direction from the commission on a motion commissioner hillis aye jan johnson aye moore aye richards got follansbee i so moved that motion passes unanimously 5-0. commissioners that places us on items 17 per case number 2015-00904c >>[reading ordinance] conditional use authorization. >>pres. fung members of the commission, and staff, todd kennedy the san francisco

planning department staff here to discuss this item in the item before you is a request for conditional water use authorization to correct a violation and legally establish a 3788 ft.2 real estate office located on the ground floor of the existing building. the use has been operating at the site since 2014 without the issuance of a conditional use authorization. under the zoning code a conditional use authorization is required this used to operate at this location. a zoning violation case was opened in the project sponsor applied in response. the subject site is also under review for a building permit and variance to demolish and reconstruct the site into a new residential building. but that is separate from this case. to date the department has received six letters of support for this project, four of those letters received by staff after the staff report was turned in. that may provide you a copy of those.the department records

disapproval of this request and believes the project is unnecessary and/or undesirable for the following reasons. but it has been operating without a conditional use authorization since 2014 and brought to staff's attention by zoning violation. the use is not recognized as a neighborhood serving use in a form of the detail was proposed at this location 2011 per case number 2011 point 1.0 4c but this approved by commission. the subject site is under review for the demolition reconstruction of a new project. that concludes my presentation it on here happy to answer questions you may have today. >> project sponsor, please

>> good afternoon the president fung on commission did alexis pelosi plessy on behalf of the property owner. as paul kennedy mentioned were seeking a conditional use authorization to utilize the existing busy service on the property that the is only temporary as the property owner donald [inaudible], san francisco resident and vietnam veteran is completing for 14 unit building bottom of that entitlement is been in the works of two years. originally hoped the new developments would be processed quickly by the unfortunate that is not been the case has now been two years since applications were first filed. project has been heard by zoning administrator building permits have been submitted and were now anticipating final approval by the end of the year and so construction starts early next year. because of how long it's taken for the project to move forward don decided to rent the existing building activism significant vacancy graffiti

and windows among the site. because the pending development and short-term nature of the lease were fugitives interested. as a result done budgeted to guitar real estate local firm and masons sublease space to five other small local businesses including two nonprofits. the time don entered tivoli seems unaware that tenant requires a conditional use authorization. once was notified one was required he entered the process and we immediately began work with planning department staff to hear it. initially with the entitlement for the new building would be granted immediately or imminently taking the violation moved but obviously that has not happened. now unfortunately when this clear position of being. the violation to her about the entitlement to be completed and the issue of how we do that and the impact it has to the building at the tenets of the neighborhood. is what is the forget planning is recommended denial of the spell of the client on to evict all five tenants including two

nonprofits. we are recommending long without castro persons associated capital upper market cbd to see you be approved throughout the existing uses to continue until construction starts on the new project. construction is likely to start in early 2017 and all the local small businesses on site including the nonprofits know this and date with her occupancy and planning the relocation efforts around it. if visio is not granted existing users need to vacate the space will sit empty for the next 5-6 month. there's no way to get another tenant in the for construction of the new building stock. the term leases too short and you cannot attack we took tenant two years ago there's certainly no way he'll attract one that it was were done with income sensibly waiting permit issuance and resolution of dr five. the jars scheduled to be heard before this body on november 10. the building is vacant very concerned out vandalism graffiti like crying vacancy, etc. those issues putting vacant storefronts up and down marketing an exact reason why don entered into the lease with

conservatives do we understand the need for active use aftermarket entity the existing businesses do cater to local residents they do generate some traffic and provide activity on site what these long-term use is been on the division of the upper market entity on a temporary basis such as what we are proposing they work. in closing we join the thank todd kennedy auto clinic is staffed all their hard work on this project. we been trying to resolve this issue with the violation for quite some time and we appreciate the time to work with them to try to get the other project approved so we do not have to come before you today see you but at this point we are in a position where we cannot have the variance issued under the violation is cured as were doing this dance try to figure out the bath past path. grading the cu you help ensure the existing tenants which are local small businesses and nonprofits they in the building and the three corner is active in so to reduce crime and vagrancy and graffiti if you have any questions these let me know >> thank you. open up to public comment. >> good afternoon. my name is

lori the stack in i-m business owner of guitar out real estate. i'm here today to express to you trying to say in the state stay in the state composer they can clarify this up. in the community if i could just go over some notes of what we witnessed in the past. i originally purchased approach don in regards to occupying the space because i've seen the space empty for several years and the dilapidation and graffiti was all over the place. but as a small business owner i thought it might be a great opportunity for our company to start. she allowed us to occupy the plate space clean it up provide a service to the community. we provide not only seminars and educational seminars, but festivals and involve the community in regards to really

providing a service to those that occupy the neighborhood and surrounding areas. anyway, the daily task of being at 2201 market st., there's a tremendous amount of homeless individuals that occupy almost a daily. we are constantly working with the police department and with surrounding merchants to keep them away from the premises with drug infested and graffiti going on constantly. we feel it's the pros outweigh the negatives in regards to handling these types of situations and by having this business that's going that's ongoing in the community, and being there when certain things arrives prevents more detriment to the neighborhood.

so, i hope you'll consider this and if you have any questions or be happy to answer them. >> thank you any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. open up to commission could i do a one question for staff. that is, is there such a thing as a temporary see you or see you that is this type of use forever as it might change. >> commissioner president fong through you let me take a shot at that since i've been that with the city i've not heard of this, however, a temporary use authorization but i think with this - my colleague should answer that question. >> divine if so commission feels compelled to have a condition of such have a return for reevaluation. >> okay. is that amenable to the project sponsors

okay. >> city attorney. >> she's not sitting there. >> you'll have to city hall revoke the conditional use authorization so that will be - essential be another - you contact for reauthorization of review and revoke - >> in a year times or 9 months. >> whatever dates the attorneys. >> clarity thank you. >> were you able to hear that walked question. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. sorry in the back of hearing room repeat. >> a authorizing temporary conditional use permitted or one that sunsets on a particular date and general we're advised not - you'll need to say have another process to revoke the issue

but you certainly could issue the continental with the condition it be reviewed and - >> in a year or 2 years, 3 years maybe the project that is currently proposed not move forward. >> a year would be good. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i understand the project sponsor there's a pickle you guys are in but ask a different question in terms of - i'm not a little bit concerned about having the fees that are issued with the intent they'll be reviewed by a future commission intending the future commissioner commission low take another action to revoke or retract the fee in place for some amount of time i'm not sure i'm comfortable with that with the - so my question is is that possible to revise

the cu but delay the action for 6 months (laughter) i know it needs a variance i understand but i feel like that is easier than tying the hands of a future commission to go back and take - >> commissioner that be would challenging because it is a conquest in the enforcement so for your first point you could certainly - make a vblt that basically sends a message to the further commission if we approve this this is in place for a sincerity period of time and you can send that message to a future commission. >> let me tell you what will happen 2 years from now, 1 year from now well, it is actually until there is a poimentd it will come back to us and then have someone in the public for whatever reason telling me us the

discussion we had a year ago i've sxernd hearings the intent that a future commission will follow-up in the fortune and it didn't happen but if so it the easiest that's why i asked the question for january 2017 a scombhoer. >> it is ultimately the last name it issue there is a pending proposal for the sites by the project use for the current building and the current utilization of the site could, basically be superseded by a new application that is for housing that the ground floor use will not be able to be used as a states office this is counter to the ideas of upper market ncd and having said that, there is a possibility to basically

support the cu based on the current utilization of the site but not have the use basically automatically of the repeatable new building. >> new more tennis building. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. that approval will completely super he'd what is on the sites my understanding the proposed project preps that may come before you in the future may depiction. >> that's if i'm correct the use is to the side even if the site infinitives the ground floor use will be - >> not with the new building. >> divine clarify the project commissioners, on that motion before the commission. >> the project is not a conditional use it is actually a straight building permit it is the discretionary review file

and variance will have to come before the commission. >> i'm not even certain there is enough ground level commercial on the building there maybe residential i'm sorry i don't have that information but this use is essentially once this building is demolished and the new building. >> can we get clarity. >> project sponsor any clarity. >> yes. to clarify empowering retail and we've think working with the d t n a 0 specifically breaking it up with one large space or a number of smaller spaces and it is a variance this is required for backyard or rear yard that's not been issued because of the enforcement action so the building permit at 312 went out and that's what is coming back before you. >> so does not come to the

commission as a conditional use but we'll see it because of the dr. >> i'm unclear about our ability to not have a reality office in the state that shows describing as intended to be dividendable and the real estate office location will be highly inappropriate >> and it is retail use so if there were on those it needs an entirely new building. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. that's correct whatever entitlements for the prior construction okay. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i move to approve unfortunately commissioner vice president richards motion in front of you is for denial. >> the motion and a continuance to september 29th maybe not need

that long. >> we could put this on the consent calendar so maybe september 22nd the 22 would be - au >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you so i appreciate the clarification it is my understanding they're going to a building permit a cu saying office buildinguse is available and look at that and okay. you can put office use in the project and you'll never see that. >> right if we approve the cu and they vote for the project and - >> now projects. >> okay. >> so doesn't run with the land it runs with the building. >> that's what i'm hearing in the in the building. >> but a below market rate building a fresh start reset. >> on the same land okay.

>> can we community-based from the 15. >> do you have - >> i was suggesting the 22. >> of september. >> september okay. >> that way the packets the staff has a week to prepare. >> that would be great. >> that's my motion. >> agreeable to the seconder. >> none seconded it. >> on that motion - >> hi oh, (laughter) okay. i saw another name on that motion toto the motion of intent and continue to september 22nd consent calendar commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and commissioners item 18 was a variance

zoning administrator was going to consider separately during recess, however, a noticing problem the parties have been notified commissioners that places you in our discretionary review calendar for grand avenue and if there is anyone that is interested in items 20 ab those matters are being continued this is the last item today. >> good evening planning commission divine southwest team leader the the subject property is on brand view avenue the proposal is inclusive vertically to an existing residents that includes a basement level two roof decks on the top level without

alterations with one thousand plus square feet to an existing 2000 plus square feet the subject property is located on the east side of grand avenue between marina in the rh2 zoning district and two family story building occupies the property that slopes from the front to the rear with the rakers is abutting property facing into the street discretionary review is filed by a neighbor two residents north of the the subject property the residents rtd reviewed it and determined the proposal meets the standards of residential guidelines this proposal is appropriately scaled and the third floor addition is one story taller than the context and setback 15 feet and not

alternatively the two scales consistent with the expansion at the rear is pulled feet from the side property line and the property is on a disregard sloping lot and the massing is shaped to respond to the size project it didn't contain or create anything that be exceptional or extraordinary and the planning department shouldn't take the discretionary review p i want to bring one issue to the commission attention demolition concerns were raised by another resident not the dr filer but they wish they could take discretionary review and to gaud against the possibility of demolition with the commission they feel this is an better option they can choose to do that and craft

the department crafts it one to provide regular updates with the planning department via e-mail for the broken state to the subject planner and any revisions to the application covering the calculations should be recorded to the planner and this is over-the-counter that concludes my presentation. >> dr requester you have a 5-minute presentation. >> hello my name is cynthia weaver i submitted the discretionary review application but it was on behalf of the neighborhood not just myself i live on grand view avenue live and own there and want to say before i get into the details i want to thank the

commissioners for staying awake this paushgs. >> this is not late it is early. >> that's what i've heard i thought it - i was told it could go later thank you to the commissioner and the staff for their you assistance and coaching me and letting e let me know how to maneuver a lot of the neighborhoods go lined up behind me and pdsaid figure it out thank to everyone the problem as statistics the scale of the proposed development an grandview avenue i'm going to go through 3

it is out of scale with proportion to everything that is in the neighborhood. implications of this is that because it is so significantly larger than other single-family homes that a couple of things happen. one is that the hillside had the mazed approached as opposed to a stairstep approach. the top floor has a visual design of the art deco style homes so this would be like a the last of the painted ladies in a row with the stories higher than

the painted ladies. >>[timer dings] >>ma'am, ma'am your time is up but you do have a two-minute rebuttal and the commissioners will ask you questions.you have five minutes. >> is anyone here in support of the dr. not you, but the general public? >>no, they >>no, theyare working. >> let me start off with the mapping of the building. we feel this was appropriate with the staff report. this building, the front of it is existentially no different than the other buildings on the street including at the mapping

of the front of the building. if you look at the photograph, it is no different than any of the other buildings. it has a step down. so it has a vertical plane when you are looking up at it. you have two adjacent neighbors as well as a neighbor in the back. they do not approach the project including the [inaudible]. are other request was to make this a historical restore. this is

the most commonly designed home in the city. there is nothing in particular that is historic about this building except for the design and the structure[inaudible] and this was attached to the case report and she agreed with the board's decision which i feel is correct. the size of the building is referred to as this building being very big and the existing building being lovable. i'm aware the fact that the mission is concerned with the fact that this is in fact a minority to

district. when design was introduced to the neighborhood it was a multiunit building. but, the neighborhood once a unit buildingin the home. if the commission wants to make this into a double unit building that is fine but currently it is a single family home at their request. and, i just asked the chew it in support of us. >>thank you miss berkeley. any supportfor the project sponsor?

>>good afternoon commissioners, in the interest of time it doesn't seem like there is a whole lot to talk about here. in the interest of time, the second unit would be a two bedroom one bath unit if the commission desired we could also set the front deck back 5 feet for additional privacy for people in the front if that was a concern. i have some interesting photos if you feel that view is an issue. i don't think that view is an issue but if you read the application, you could be an issue. we verify that our roofline is still below everybody's top floor from their top floor the views will be pure. thank you. >>thank you. any additional support one part of the project

sponsor? okay, you have a two-minute rebuttal. two minutes. >>thank you. >>speak into the microphone please. >>sorry, it is taller than i am. in the implication section of this the decision that you are making in this area does set a precedence and it will allow the second story to be available for the homes in the area if people choose to do that. and, it would be more difficult for people to deny that going forward because they would already have an additional floor. other considerations, just because the code says that you can build to a certain height does not mean you get approved for that certain height. we also want to consider the historic implications for the neighborhoods. if we make this change from an affordable neighborhood to a

non-affordable neighborhood that will have lasting implications in that neighborhood's minds. one final statement is that your decision has major impact on the community and do not approve this just because you can approve this. thank you very much and i will be open for any questions also. >>thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes for a rebuttal. >> i just want to show than this photograph is also in the commissions and you will see that this is a prettydojo style

home and this would be at the request now as her house. >>thank you, this portion of the hearing is closed. commissioner more. >>i appreciate the --of people thinking about this project and i the think that the change in any building has particular implications in this particular case,i believe this project has done what it was designed to do. in an rh2 encouraged to increase units with an addition that is an extensive as this one. with the plan we would like to see a unit that is equitable to the project. not just a basementunit. that is not acceptable we are not willing to entertain that. i

think the idea is that while bringing up is the positive comment that i embrace that you said the front tier on the back floor and the front streets do not have tiers at the street side and taking into the architecture is a smart mode. i am in favor in support of the project and i would like to see what you are suggesting in types of units, and the style units and where it is. >>so you're suggesting dr? >>correct. that would be the proper direction of the commissionright now. >>this is essentially what was

presented originally to what the neighborhood. >>can you pull the mic down really quick? there is a lot of feedback. >>this was what was presented to the commission initially and the commission wanted two units most certainly and the type of units that it lodges and what is presented we can most certainly instruct staff to come up with two units that what you would call a more equal and that is to say that we could have the ground floor be part of the second floor and then have two top floors. similarly, the design of the step which the building is already set back and that is

the kind of design we normally have any way. >>can you go into detail what kind of units you will be using for the second units? just a rough idea. >>basically, if you look at the proportions, one of the bedrooms in the rear could be incorporated into[inaudible] so we can incorporate that into it. >>can you give us like 1000 ft.2 what we're trying to avoid

900 ft.2 and 1600 ft.2. >> what we are presenting is 850 ft.2. >>850 ft.2? >>850 ft.2, yeah. i am just trying to give you a comparison of what it is which is a very standard two-bedroom size. if we are talking about-- it would be more affordable than larger units. but if we are talking about and the commission would like to see than most certainly we can incorporate at least another-- >>let me comment that 800 ft.2 is basically so minimal that i am not really comfortablewith sitting here without a drawing to look at the qualities of what we are getting. >>this is the reason that i

was saying that we would be incorporating portions of the ground floor into it so become more like 1100 ft.2 or 1200 ft.2. >>so you are telling me that the new second unit would be larger than 900 ft.2. >>that is correct. >>okay. i hear you but i am a visual person. i like to see things. >>and, it will be in two floors. >>i am curiouswhat other commissioners have to say because i don't like to talk architecture and building plans withoutactually seeing them. >>commissioner? >>i am in agreement i like the second unit. it does not trouble me in this case that the second unit is smaller than the first unit in the home. my

mother has one and that's how we have her unit. this lays out and steps down to a hill which lays out something in the lower unit. a piece in the upper unit i think would be awkward here. i think you still have a fairly modest 850 ft.2 above and 1200 ft.2 home below. kind of as far as diverse housing types go and if they work, i think this one works. >>commissioner, one of these units would be providing a four-bedroom unit which is very hard to find in the city. >>i don't think that taking a unit from the first floor and

adding it to the basement unit is not necessary. i am comfortable with what you have presented in a smaller-- you are right. i mean granted we have seen smaller single-family homes. we could move to take dr with the modification shown with a unit on the ground floor and stepping back that top deck in the front. >>yeah, on the top. >>by 5 feet was it? >>yeah. >>commissioner? >>that was my motion >>second >>i'm good. >>commissioner?

>>thank you that is something that the commissioner asked for in previous projects. i want to make things easy so i am in support of the motion but i would like to say that i would be in support of suspending the basement unit into the second floor. it looks like f you go above the proposed basement floor plan there is space in the proposed first floor plan and an extra room or bedroom or something. but, if we are okay with the unit as is, i will be okay with it as well. the only thing that i will ask is that oh nevermind, the back deck is only 700 ft.2. nevermind, i am good. >>if nothing further commissioners, there has been a motion and a second to approve this matter with this modification of adding an additional 5 feet and that second unit. with that we can

take the roll. >>[roll call vote] >>so moved commissioners the motion passes 5:0. commissioners that leaves us with general public comment and i have the general public comment speaker cards. >>anyone for general public comment? ? not seeing any so the meeting is adjourned p . >>[gavel]

you. >> good afternoon, everyone please rise put our raise your hand over your heart and pledge

and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> good afternoon. welcome want to apologize we are starting 10 minutes late this is wednesday, september 14th the regular schedule retirement board meeting i'll malia cohen he chair this board meeting to my left is mr. stansbury and mr. clerk how are you today. >> just fine. >> good do roll call. >> commissioner cohen commissioner bridges i believe commissioner bridges is excused commissioner driscoll commissioner makras commissioner meiberger commissioner paskin-jordan she's here. >> mr. stansbury we have quorum you. >> i refreshment that could you call item 3 occlusion.

>> all right. ladies and gentlemen, we'll go into closed session we'll resume at the 2:30 may i take public comment what we mr. wen beggar and good afternoon, everyone thank you. we'll come out of closed session. >> everyone can take your seats thank you very much may i have a motion from one the members of the board not to due process with was covered in closed session a motion that he snielg e commissioner driscoll and seconded by commissioner paskin-jordan without objection this motion passes thank you. >> mr. clerk could you call

the next item. >> on the agendas. >> item 4 general public comment. >> thank you all right. ladies and gentlemen, now is the time general public comment you'll have to men's to talk about anything that is on the agenda please come forward if you're interested in speaking there are no speaker cards. >> i'm opening up the platform at this point thank you good to see you. >> i'm john a 42 year member and pension fund - last meeting professor commissioner meiberger he was in management why i think he said can you give me 3 reasons to invest in the hedge funds the first reason he grateful was all pension funds you get the seam answer protection in a down market my comment is it is a fallacy you

get protection in a down market for hedge funds what is important calpers is in hedge funds for 15 years been in up and down market and flat markets and after 15 years of out of hedge funds why? because you get a 4.8 percent average over 15 years and for that 4.8 only paid hundreds and probable $500 million in management and performance fees that's my comments on that i'd like to brought to your attention a bluberger report of 11 large pension funds with hedge funds investment and religious are basically said in brief on this hedge funds generates market retains after the management. >> pause the mind is that your

phone. >> i don't know. >> that's my hedge fund manager. >> anyway. >> 30 seconds. >> i should have long-range because not that many people only a small number of hedge funds generate the market - secondly, hedge funds that were studied and the best of prime and similar assets in the p,z&e, finance governance also showed very little or no defer indication in investing in the same thing the exclusion of the report on a few. >> time. >> hedge funds generated by harper and the transfer of wealth none of the hedge funds studied beat the market this is a bluberger report and the other respect report. >> i wrest me access and anyone that wants to speak in

general public comment at this time please come up. >> commissioners mike welfare for the piano piano pee pee he tell you our members are pleased in the he come shawn thank you for the compensation for the year and a half spent getting that together and for approving it working quite well, thank you. >> good to have positive feedback anyone else? >> all right. public comment is closed. at this time thank you, thank you mr. clerk call the next item. >> and item 5 amble action approval of the minutes retirement board meeting. >> a motion on this item. >> all right. let's take

public comment on that. >> line item on item 5. >> all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. may i have an action item may i have a motion to accept the minutes. >> thank you. is there a second. >> second seconded by without objection this motion's mason passes thank you mr. clerk, please calm u call item 6 consent calendar. >> public comment on the consent calendar seeing none, public comment is closed. the motion to accept the consent calendar >> moved. >> motion by mr. stansbury and seconded by commissioner makras without objection passes unanimously next item. >> item 7 review and approval the investment for firearm and manufacturers and retailers. >> thank you a presentation? just a brief presentation this is a report we present

originally to the retirement board at the july meeting and it was requested we bring it back to the september we've updated the information regarding our holding as well as addressing an issue by commissioner paskin-jordan we included the action that was taken by the new york pension plan in addition to devesting from the arms and ammunition manufacturing companies they voted recently to deresist from the retailers that sell firearms that was presented to the board in a form of a board of supervisors resolution if supervisor farrell and this is under the social investment policy of the board and staff has no recommendation on this because it is a policy

call of the board i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> you might have about the information we've provided overall in fact, if the action was taken to divest from either or firearms mustards and/or retailers we've indicated that the retailers were roughly $829,000 worth of holding and in the arms and manufacturing we have $741,000 in holdings. >> thank you, very much. director for that representation colleagues any questions. >> no questions? any questions >> please. the definition of firearms. >> i remember him raising that. >> i didn't see it in here. >> we've provided a breakdown

continue the military sales and civilian sales here's. >> so these are with one exemption that is a-2 a page 2 of the memorandum all the other firemen's are small ones the a-2 k manufactures the small arms but less or military so large caliber and other weapon systems. >> thank you. >> anyone else let's go ahead and take public comment and back to a motion ladies and gentlemen, public comment on item no. 7? all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion ready for discussion on this item >> i'll move the item. >> okay. >> little memo i want to call

out the board resolution and or for the record dianne feinstein referenced the passage package didn't have her letter it in it. >> thank you very much a motion made by commissioner makras and seconded by. >> i'll second the motion. >> seconded by commissioner meiberger let's do a roll call vote. >> all right. commissioner driscoll >> yes. i'm going to make sure i understand the definition of firearms i'll say i. >> yes. >> all right. >> i. >> all right. thank you very

much call the next item. >> oh, excuse me - call 8 and 9 together any apologizes. >> today reporting on the managers review. >> thank you. >> over to bob and allen the top news the fiscal year ended we return one .3 percent that is actually a loft i didn't return squared to our piers our piers lost points we've outperformed the medium by one .8 percent are relative returns around 16th percentile and top 10th percentile under the 3 years our returns run 4 to

57th percentile and in fixed income in the 10th percentile in private equity so mixed news the markets were innovate generous tough but we are having good out flee with that i'm going to turn it over to bob and allen and allen has terrific math for supporting information for the board. >> board members was we recorded later quarter trifgsz the performance books to n ot c this is the first time we'll appreciate any commissioner kim's from the board regarding additional information what we it finds useful and like us to do in in addition to any feedback is greatly precedent on

the book with that comment i'm going to turn it over to allen a walk you through the macro daylight with the fun level performance information. >> hi to bobs point all of it to the custodian we're working on the breakdown of previous quickest and real estate to give you more information we talk about it you'll hear the asset classes bill has given you the report we were going to give me you. >> (laughter). >> i do want to point out a few things you have before you a report that covers ending 6, wri78 and the quickest market value are autopsy its opinion up and down and bill will report he did this

to me he'll report later your performance through august is up about 3 percent so in the months since this report you've generated more in the entire fiscal year we're covering as you can see this is a difficult periods for most public to find benefit plans with a medium return for the fiscal year of negative points the average to define the public plan lost 50 base reports of return net of fees last year that's the second year in a row and the third year in the last 5 years where public plans have dramatically underperformed and unfortunately your outcome going forward is more of the same we're operating ouch a low

interest rate new invested 60, 40 appendix in local stocks and bones over the next 5 years you'll earn 5 and a half percent 2 percent over our assumed rate as that's 60 percent. >> 60 global equity and 40 percent be quibble bones we think you can do better than 60, 40 and add diversifying classes and gain that's a discussion for early next year i want everybody to know there is a very challenging environment. >> can i ask a question. >> yes. >> i didn't get the numbers what's the next 5 years. >> next 5, 7 toro asking, 40

global condos 5 percent and tim collin will give you a more depressing number. >> what's the number. >> i'll tell you for 5.7 percent for the last year okay that's the sort of the headline we'll telling you talk about what worked and didn't work and the attraction to the martin luther king the economic environment this is highlighted on page 4 is as we expected and very consistent with what we've seen so for the last 8 years the united states has been a in a slow recovery so 72 hours

lost one of the weakest in the second quarter g b d growth up 2 percent retail sales looked better in july and employment's we've come down and employment numbers look better but in a long slow recovery and unemployment in the united states has dropped to precrisis levels percentage the labor force employed to lower than hefk by jobs radio doing well but not as many people have jobs inflation remarkable low we continue to see low inflation and as you can see the hedge funds rate was unchanged from 50 points the 10 year treasurer yelled at the end of june was 1.6 percent a deputy director

from criminally low levels why prices caused forgotten buyers to buy the treasurers that brought up the prices so what it didn't have a huge impact on u.s. returns it did have an impact think foreign buyers of u.s. bones and it products i products an ongoing lower interest rate the outcome globally is not as attractive in the u.s. 24r50 europe has some signs they've load the interest rate belonging blow zero for profits they look better in some sense europe is doing better and which we think has a terrifically being effect on the merging market we feel that the dropping of chinese growth down into the 5 percent is stabilizing they dealt with the biggest parts of economy that

were in scissor so the baengz the building area and they seem to have stabilized and weathered the stateroom converting from a largely internally to a domestic economy that that's the general news that's translating into markets i'm going 0 going to go over the details but highlight some things with the one year period union street eligibility returned 4 percent that's versus the 12.5 percent over the last 5 years we think this 4 percent is for consistent with what you'll see going forward if you look at the negatives on to page very much market equity significant negatives this is the courtesy effect if you look at bonds you'll see surprise the barking

let me see index up 6 percent that again was driven by interest rates going lower and producing attractive bonds we don't think this is sustainable it is close to the current yield to maturity that is a one .6 or 7 the biggest surprise is non-dollars meaning bones of forgotten country's up 11 percent is your advice years ago the worse performing class i would have said non-dollars bonds yields lower than the u.s. bonds and engaging in the- what happened in europe holders did very well and not sustainable the other couple of items calling your attention real

estate did well and hvsdz for the year doesn't do well although you look at the 3, 5 and 10 year results closer to the light plus the numbers but hedge funds in general this year didn't do particularly well that's it the market environment i wasn't going to spent a lot of time but the year we've seen looks more like we expect to see in the 5 years we've been through. >> if we go to the punch lining line for san francisco on page 20 as bill has already told you the top line it is r is the net even if fee return and the ranking in a public universe of plans grandchildren a billion dollars so if you go along the top line experts have ranked highly if you look at the 6 percent 3 years top 3 percent and, etc. only in the 5 year

period have you matched 9 summoned rate if you look at the reflex adjustment in the table your volatility is medium when you look at our sharp ratio that is the return you earned must the risk per rate you'll call that zero divided that is the sharp ratio and our return for united of risk on the metric i do skwiets well top 5 percent and 13 for 3 years we also report this ratio when is which is is a down side similar results on to a reflex adjustment your plan even though you're right at volatility did well, if you go to the policy index what you would have earned if we rebalanced the policy

target and have all our manages match the benchmark to the difference continue what you earned and what policy would have gotten you the effects of manager out or under performance or tactical position of portfolio we'll look at where the effects came from with you compare the returns to the policy you'll see over the periods certainly for the one year and the 5 year period unifying your policy index did better than the actual returns the manager contribution met was below which you hoped and the effects of tax tactics you see a bunch of recent under performance the under perform is

structurally as opposed to the others so those are the results and see the numbers for purposes the medium public fund blow it. >> if we go to the next page and look at the positioning of our portfolio versus the boards approval policy prior to the february last year taushts you'll see that your current percentages are very close in general to the policy prgsz the defenses are small with the description of private equality and the offset numbers have to add up to one hundred over somewhere this is the eligibility so the money you've not be able to employ in private quilt that is structural because you can't get to the target right away creates an allocation

felt negatives the private quickest was done well and you've been under our target in private equity one the ranges you approved except for cash at the end of june your outside of cash range it is waiting deployments we don't expected to to continue your above our cash at the end of june. >> any questions about that. >> i'm not going into the next page. >> director sorry. >> thanks on our page 20. >> when your ranking us walk me through what our pier amount is. >> won their public funds, two grandchildren a billion dollars, their 55 in this universe you

use a net universe your ranking in trust universe is similar we've talked about you're a large plan in that universe so we could indeed switch you to public plan grandchildren $10 billion i'll tell you the results are different and the problem with a bigger universe your logging membership and the universe is less robust and those are the numbers. >> sure. sure. >> that would be great. >> on page 21 versus target you've recorded a prior policy why would we use and other policy. >> the policy that was approved includes the 5 percent allocation to hedge funds as of this point has not been funded so the more relevant mexico to look at it the prior policy once

hedge funds are in the december 31st form and quiescent that be more accurate with hedge funds to zero it out so we know where the asset allocation came from and then understand maybe more money in into something else. >> the outlet issue the majority of period of time measured the one year was covered under the prior allocation we made that decision in february we haven't started with implementing at least some of the changes we've made some movement but certainly can do it measuring it against the current new february 2015 forward. >> because you know at the end of the day you want to be able to accept the reports and if you look at this not consistent with

what our business is in allocation for instance, you are policy for i's kwikts is 23.3 is that what it is. >> agriculture the documents are dated for june ending 2016. >> is that our policy you i don't believe it is. >> actually little policy reads 25 the outlined policy not 25 it is 20 now. >> so maybe i should ask would you mind talk about the real allocations. >> the instruction has been the last policy we've adapted and implemented so again, we're in different to do that. >> and been inconsistent with what we're doing i might as well rollback the money and see - >> not uncommon with plans implements new allocations as you have to waited fill that allocation is actually filled

before you start the measurement you don't have to do that that way for example, because we're increasing private quickest from 16 to 18 and 12 to 7 those are long dated investments you made to the capital it is not called for a couple of years, etc. a common practice that plans do they report their existing policy their previous policy and then they amortize the commissioner tang to the new policy as investors that's a very common practice that's what has been done. >> well when this is called yes, but not when the policy is made because i can't make the investments right now investments when - >> you make the candidates and

the capital is called. >> this is called or not. >> 245ir9s not asset value so that's - (multiple voices). >> in addition other 2 housing unit $7 billion in uncalled commitments. >> after we started 2 - that's the problem with committed capital not out there aribnb money o money