the offices itself. and i see a problem with that and would say that about anybody that would be in our president breed's situation. so, then i looked at, well, who is in the room? since we amended they have to be in a room. that i would -- somewhat comfortable with as many of the issues that i'm going to address, which is how do we make sure there is a balance of power, or not balance of power, but a check and balance of this, and also, who is running and las who has been around enough and can be acting mayor? and also the issue i look at is who -- as most of my colleagues

now, as you know, one of the most important things that is going happen in the next few months is the whole budget process. the budget, we have to, regardless of our politics, be able to run our city with a good budget. ok, that's something that is number one for me and i've been fortunate to be able to follow the budget process for a few years now. and i think the person that i'm going to nominate have many of the factors that i'm considering, one that has been around for a while, one that is not running for any office. let alone the mayor's office. so this is really about focussing on the duty of the mayor at this point. and one that really does understand a budget process, and the person that i worked with, that seems to fit that bill, that has been the budget chair for several years and i was able

to work on that committee on a larger committee member, and watch that process unfold. and felt very good about his understanding of this. now, so the person i want to nominate to be the interim -- or the successor is supervisor mark farrell. >> supervisor tang: according to the amendment adopted, i would like to ask that the person nominated state on the record their acceptance or rejection of the nomination. >> supervisor farrell: i accept. >> supervisor tang: supervisor fewer. >> supervisor fewer: although i do agree with my colleague, hillary ronen, we should appoint a mayor that is not a candidate

for mayor this year, i think it is really important to recognize that there is another woman of color that is running for mayor and that is a supervisor, so i would like to nominate jane kim. >> supervisor tang: thank you, again per the previous amendment, i would like to ask the person on the record to accept or reject the nomination. >> supervisor kim: i want to thank my colleague, supervisor fewer, for that kind nomination. supervisor fewer and i have worked together for over 13 years and i have a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for you and how much you care about the city. i am going to decline the nomination. i think it is incredibly important that we in san francisco have an election that for the first time is an open race. we have not had an open race for the mayor's office in san francisco for 15 years and i think the voters deserve an

opportunity to choose the next mayor in as much of a level playing field as possible. i want to note, there is no such thing as a level playing field in politics in elections anymore. we talk about a fair and transparent election, the millions of dollars that get spent in these elections really do give a disproportionate voice to the wealthiest among us to determine who our representatives will be. that said, i want to honor what many members of the public have said. you know, and step back from the nomination, but i do want to thank supervisor fewer for that generous nomination. i also, chair, president tang, if i may, wanted to address one nominee that i heard from many members of the public and in fact she was my first choice and i would have really liked to have nominated her today and that is city administrator naomi

kelly. she is someone had has served at the helm of the city for decades and is a great public servant. and would have been a perfect fit for the interim mayor role. for very similar reasons as to why the board in 2010 had shr selected then city administrator ed lee. i know she is close to ed lee and would have carried his principles and policies forward. ed lee is the mayor that the voters have voted for and in many ways it makes sense to honor that by nominating naomi kelly, but i did not want to create a show by nominating her and asking her to come down here. i did ask her and she said she would not be able to accept this position and that the best way she can continue to serve the city is as city administrator. but i did think it was important for members of the public to understand why a formal nomination was not done, because

we received many e-mails on behalf of ms. kelly. and i want to thank ms. kelly for her service and it says a lot about your leadership that so many members of the public had asked on this board to nominate you for interim mayor. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor kim. colleagues, any other nominations that you would like to make? ok. seeing none, then thank you. madame clerk, would you please read the names of the formal nominees who have accepted in the order they were presented to us. >> clerk: supervisor cohen has nominated president breed. supervisor yee has nominated supervisor farrell. >> supervisor tang: so we have two nominees before us. so colleagues, before we proceed on voting, i wanted to share the procedure. so according to our process, the vote on the nominations will be in the order that the

nominations were received when the nominees name is called stay aye or no. the first nominee to receive a majority vote of all members will be selected by the committee of the whole and we'll forward it out to the full board of supervisors for appointment as successor mayor. again, just to kind of very have you and repeat. given we're voting on nominations in the order which they were received, a nominee higher on the list could receive a majority vote before we vote on names lower down the list. once a nominee receives six votes, voting on all other nominations will cease. and then we will reconvene to appoint the nominee as the mayor. with that said, colleagues, any questions? on the procedure? ok. seeing no questions, then madame clerk, please call the roll of the nominees in the order in which they were received. >> for round one, supervisor cohen's nominee.

>> i want to be clear -- >> supervisor peskin: this is not like a board president vote, we don't say a name, we vote aye or no. >> individually. for president breed, supervisor cohen's nomination for president breed. kim no. peskin no. ronen no. safai aye. sheehy aye. tang aye. yee no. cohen aye. fewer no. >> there are four ayes and five nos with supervisors kim, peskin, ronen, yee and fewer in the dissent. thank you, madame clerk. no nominee has received a majority of the votes. i wanted to ask if we could call a vote on a second round and

that would be the second candidate, supervisor farrell. yee nomination of supervisor farrell. kim aye. peskin aye. ronen aye. safai no. sheehy aye. tang aye. yee aye. cohen no. fewer aye. >> clerk: there are 7 ayes and two nos with safai and cohen in the consent. >> supervisor tang: the selection is for supervisor farrell. i would like to now ask is there -- please, if we could --

ok, colleagues, i would like to ask if there is a motion to amend item 42 to include the name of supervisor farrell. >> so moved. >> supervisor tang: moved by peskin, seconded by supervisor yee. colleagues, can we take that item and motion without objection or do we need a roll call? no roll call, ok, we'll do that without objection. item 42 amended to include the name of supervisor farrell. the committee of the whole is held and closed. colleagues will now reconvene as the board of supervisors. at this point, the committee of the whole has selected supervisor farrell to be the successor mayor. will be now ask for the members to return to chamber. madame clerk, i would ask that we recess the meeting.

the meeting is now recessed.

this meeting is back in session. colleagues, earlier we had reconvened as a full board of supervisors, but i would like to ask for motion to go back to the committee of the whole? supervisor cohen, second by supervisor peskin. we're reconvened as committee of the whole. with that, madame clerk, i would like to actually ask colleagues if we can rescind the vote on

supervisor farrell's nomination? >> second. a motion would be in order. >> i'll make a motion to rescind. >> supervisor tang: thank you. thank you can colleagues, i think i was caught off guard as many of us were, so i would like to recast my vote. with that, madame clerk. >> just to be clear, presiding officer, this is a vote on the motion made by supervisor yee and yay or nay motion. >> supervisor tang: correct. >> so a vote in the affirmative would be in favor of appointing mark farrell to be the interim mayor, that is correct? >> supervisor tang: yes, that is correct to my understanding unless madame clerk states

otherwise. >> that is the selection by the committee of the whole and recommended to the board. >> so we're still in the committee of the whole? >> we just took a motion to reconvene as committee of the whole? madame clerk, please call roll. yee's nomination of supervisor farrell, kim aye. peskin aye. ronen aye. safai no. sheehy aye. tang no. yee aye. cohen no. fewer aye. >> clerk: there is six ayes and three nos with supervisor safai, tang and cohen in the dissent. >> supervisor tang: thank you, madame clerk, the outcome has not changed.

supervisor farrell has still been nominated as the successor mayor. colleagues, actually madame clerk, ask if we have to go back to item 42 to amend supervisor farrell's name >> clerk: we should. >> supervisor tang: moved by peskin, seconded by yee. item 42 will include farrell's name as successor mayor. without objection, item -- roll, call please. on the motion to amend item 42 to add the name as successor mayor, supervisor mark farrell, supervisor kim? kim aye. peskin aye. ronen aye. safai aye. sheehy aye. tang no. yee aye.

cohen no. fewer aye. >> there are 7 ayes and two nos. >> supervisor tang: item 42 is amend and passed with supervisor farrell's name as successor mayor. now, colleagues i'd like to welcome back our president london breed. i'm sorry, i apologize, first i see if -- we will now reconvene as the full board of supervisors. welcome back, president breed. >> acting mayor breed: thank you. so we are -- we have a couple of more items to -- a couple more things to take care of. and so madame clerk? >> clerk: madame president, the committee of the whole has selected supervisor mark farrell to be the successor mayor and has amended item 42 to amend

supervisor farrell's name to the item. if you are rejoining the conversation, as we spoke of you would withdraw your nomination. >> but we were pulled out of the committee of the whole and i didn't vote on that item and we're no longer in the committee of the whole. >> no, that's correct, but for you to rejoin the conversation, you have to withdraw your nomination to participate in the process. >> the item is to approve item 42 as amended. >> acting mayor breed: it was my understanding that you all just did that. >> the committee of the whole amended item 42, recommended that to the board. >> acting mayor breed: ok got it. got it, thank you. so now we're going to approve item number 42. >> clerk: we will consider 42. >> acting mayor breed: at this time, i withdraw my name from consideration and i will be

voting no on item number 42. madame clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: item 42 as amended, kim aye. peskin aye. ronen aye. safai aye. sheehy aye. tang aye. yee aye. breed no. cohen no. fewer. there are eight ayes and two nos with breed and cohen in the consent. >> acting mayor breed: the motion is approved. please stand by.

>> madam clerk, please call the first -- i mean -- let's see, the mission rock -- >> we're going to continue them. why don't we call both items and then we'll take public comment for them both and then do the continuance. >> 35-37, sitting as a committee of the whole for a public hearing on the project area one mission rock and subproject areas 1-1 through 1-13. infrastructure district number two financing and items 36 and 37 the ordinance for the project area and 37 is the resolution to

approve the issuance of bonds and 38 and 39 is the board of supervisors for a public hearing to consider an ordinance approving amendments to the development plan to remove a parcel known as p-20 and item 39 is ordinance to approve amendments to the mission bay plan. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you as president breed mentioned, i'm asking the board to continue the items to tuesday february 13th to hear the items then. >> supervisor kim has made a motion to continue. is there a second? seconded by supervisor yee. any public comment specifically on the continuance? seeing none, public comment is closed. madam clerk on the continuous, please call the roll. >> on the continuance of items

35-39 supervisor kim. >> aye. >> supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor ronen. >> aye. >> supervisor safai. >> aye. >> supervisor tang. >> aye. supervisor breed. >> aye. >> supervisor farrell. >> aye. >> those items are continued to -- what date is that madam clerk? >> february 13th, 2018. without objection. all right. that brings us to the end of the agenda. can you please read the end? >> today's meeting will be adjourned in follow -- in honor of the following individuals, on behalf of supervisor aaron

peskin for the late mr. peter overmier. mr. tang qualm sang and from supervisor tang charles alexander and miss lease an m coleman. >> any other business for today? >> that concludes the business for today. thank you. ♪ >> we had adjourned. them on el vehicle charging. so even though sfe has joined on

bayren it has been able to maintain it's long-standing relationships with property owners. with sfe staff providing direct technical assistance. it brings in a steady stream of completed projects into the program. in years we have not been able to meet our goals or thought we weren't going to meet our goals due to fluctuations in the pipe line, sfe has come through on generates project to meet our goals. we really look forward to an ongoing collaboration and innovating programs with sfe. >> >> thank you. commission commissioner stephenson. >> i'm glad you came back. >> commissioner: i want to say how amazing everybody on the staff is. it makes me proud to sit on the commission and know we're in

some small way involved with the amazing stuff involved in the department. i think the speaker who came up and said what is and i spend a lot of time talking to engineers and it's broken down in a way that's understandable and i want to commend the work you're doing because it helps humans change their lives day to day. >> i just wanted to thank my team. there are folks here we have works on our zero emission vehicle team and staffers and

the energy team is made of about 20 individuals would work really hard and tonight you received a taste of what they work on and while following policy we're work to drive market innovation and bring industry and the demand side together to create the market transformation. you asked commissioner mcalicester about that. >> commissioner: thank you and a great hand to your team. could everybody stand up who works on the team? i see you guys way in the bag. [applause] >> commissioner: director raphael. >> i'm sorry. >> commissioner: commissioner, all yours. >> so really quick i want to echo what everybody else said

with the stellar work you're doing and the whole team is doing. i just had one clarification, jessie, is this for you, regarding sustainable trips and the definition. my understanding -- correct me if i'm wrong, doesn't it include sharing service. >> there's walking and cycling and there's a dialing whether we should include ride-sharing services and if ride sharing services should be included ib that definition, what that looks like. does it mean that car needs to have three or more people in it despite how it's powered. does it need to be a zero-emissions vehicle with two people in it. that hasn't been determined yet but that's a conversation starting this year. >> so my closing piece on that again echoing the great amazing work you're doing but i would love to hear maybe the policy

committee down the road, the state of play around that because i know a great deal of the congestion in the city and emissions is due to ride services like uber and lyft. i know it's not our purview, it's the puc but i'd love to circle back on that. >> there are 45,000 transportation network company drivers on city streets and the california public utilities commission has oversight and regulatory authority over them. difficult for san francisco to mandate certain actions but we also know they are interested in transforming their fleets to zero-emissions vehicles and have pilots that have begun in other cities. have you mavin the arm that leases vehicles to entrepreneurial drivers on the lyft and uber platform. so there's a whole fleet of

chevy volts and bolts on the roads now and they're also interested in partnering with cities to launch pilots around that. >> thank you so much, jessie. we're going to item 8. >> approval of 2018-01-coe urging the san francisco retirement board to divest from fossil fuel companies and filed for the fossil fuel divestment for discussion and action. >> commissioner: before i turn it over to the commissioners i want to welcome the commissioner from the environment board. it's great to see you. it's a long-time friend and i have such respect for him and his work. this is a very important item for the city and as we said it

is sponsored by a tuitioner sponsored item, commissioner ahn and hoyos and following the presentation we'd invite speaking by public comment and vote on the resolution. you may recall mayor lee had written an article in op-ed urging the retirement board to divest from fossil fuels and with that commissioner ahn. >> commissioner: thank you, president bermejo. i'll take a minute to set the broad context for this and then see the floor to my colleague, commissioner hoyos. the resolution calls for divestment full and expeditious. the background is this was original started by supervisor alolos in 2013 which urged the retirement board to divest. and then four years later, the

san francisco board of supervisors realized there was only a limited amount of engagement and the supervisors were critical in pushing forward a second resolution also passed unanimously and a day before he passed away mayor lee passed in favor of divestment and i'm hoping we'll be able to understand how fiduciary duty, which no one denies the retirement board has blends with our environmental responsibility. staff was invite to make a statement. i'm happy to see a representative from the retirement board and i'll see the floor to commissioner hoyos on her thoughts on the resolution so far. >> commissioner: thank you, commissioner. i'm glad to see commissioner

here as well an advocate who has been driving divestment work in exciting ways around the country. just briefly, as we know san francisco's a well established climate leader and we were one of the first among the 55 cities across the u.s. who have commit to 100% clean energy from atlanta to san diego. we know part of being a climate leader means ensuring our investments are aligned with our values and that clearly means abandoning fossil fuel investments an industry knowingly driving climate change and jeopardizing public health every day especially people of color, children, elderly and an industry that is colluding with the trump administration to claw back environment policies. that's why it's essential,

commissioner has emphasized and penned in the op-ed we saw published today, there's a strong fiduciary taste to be made in divest from fossil fuels as they'll become stranded assets. according to an analysis by the world's leading stock market company which runs global indices used by pension funds investors who dumped fossil fuel hold have outperformed those who have invested in clean energy and other investment in general. it's not a strategic proposition from a value perspective. what i want to do in wrapping up my comment is share public comment we got today from an actual retiree named jack lucero fleck he said he can't rely out in for his income and wants a livable planet for future

generation and there's no conflict in having a stable pension fund and divesting from fossil fuels. it's cost billions as the stock market has nearly doubled and foss foss fossil fuel stocks have stagnate and sent a graph. he's not here tonight but i was particularly moved as someone who works as part of a program focussed on parents and families he cares about future generations and that's what we do in san francisco. we care about the vulnerable and people most harmed by fossil fuel investments and need to align our values with our investment decisions. i want to thank you and the department, as always, for standing by us, and thank you commissioner ahn for your long-time leadership" -- on this issue and thankful we can bring this issue before our

commission. >> commissioner: hopefully. at this point with the permission their president, i'd like to recognize commissioner mapras and see another commissioner in the room and in that order perhaps we can start. >> good evening. commissioners, thank you for inviting me. i am here as a resident of san francisco not as my official capacity as a commissioner. i'm not usually apologizing for people but it's disappointing the invitation by the retirement board would not make themselves full lay available to you to answer questions to make the moved informed decision you could. selectively releasing material, not informing the public, keep tight wrap on material the wrong

way to do business. in my own capacity, i'm here to support what you're doing, to encourage what you're doing and i am an advocate for divesting and advocate predominantly because we're note good when it came to investing in this category. in the 10-year period we made 3.8% return when the s&p 500 is at 83%. the numbers speak for themselves. maybe it works for others but i'm speaking for our track record it's not the best track record. i believe we can do our fiduciary duties with investment. there's hundreds if not thousand of investments we can make and

we make decisions every day on which ones we'll make. we made a conscious decision not to be in the tobacco industry. and we are actually losing more money there. then we are in the fossil fuel world. we do not see our chief investment officers coming to us and saying let's change our mind on tobacco. it's make money. it's a loser. but yet they're still defiant fot fossil fuel. my personal believe is one reason they're denying walking over the magical line is their scorecard. they're very concerned about the investments they make and in the investment world all the investments you manage become your road map like your report card. and when you go out to the private sector and ask for a job, they look at how you invested your money, what your decisions were, how prudent you ran your course.

so when the time comes and you're asked to get rid of a loser, it's not just a decision of a loser, it also has a decision that books on the report card. i believe that fogs their think when it comes to this issue and other issues. as a city i want to share that we are better city when we all participate in multitudes of decisions. we're better if we engage with the environment board. we're better if we engage with the public utilities commission. we're better off if we engage with the police department. we're better off if we engage with the fire department because we are one city. we are united to make the best place for to us live and i'm confident that we will do right to all of our retirees as our current employees when it comes

to investing their money. and every one of my colleagues take their job very seriously in doing the absolute best job to making money. but i believe we can do it without an investment in fossil fuels. so i'm here to encourage your participation. i hope you come to tomorrow's meeting and present us with your resolution and i will be a strong advocate to pushing this forward tomorrow. thank you for your time. >> commissioner: thank you. [applause] >> good evening, commissioners. thank you for taking this up. commission president bermejo. i want to thank commissioners hoyos and ahn on your op-ed which i thought was beautifully written it made the moral and

fiduciary argument and the retirement board and it's an important argument that needs to be made at this time. it has been a long day. i'll be brief with my comments. just a few general observations. supervisor peskin picked up the torch from supervisor avalos and he picked up from environmental public health indigenous people's movement that has only grown from that time. and yet since 2013 and as you know, the commitment the board of supervisors made the policy made has not been followed through with in the least. to put a number on it, the fossil fuels portfolio of the retirement board right now sits at over $500 million, $500,000

million. since the commitment in 2013 the board of supervisors made to divest we divested $1 million, that's .2% of the fossil fuels portfolio. that's the action we've seen from the retirement system and board with respect to those who have fought hard for die investme investment -- divestment. we've not seen a fulfillment and the degree of inaction belies the moral and feudishry responsible of the board to dive divest we know big oil is under performing the s&p 500. we know there's been consistently negative turns over the past five years. over $100 million of the

retirement systems investments in fossil fuels have issued consistently negative returns over three years. we can get rid of those investments today and there's no argument that does not fulfill the retirement system's fiduciary obligation to its members. as sea levels rise and climate catastrophes occur with greater consistency there is no excuse for this support. i thank you for taking for take strong position on this and looking at the resolution. the only recommendation i would make on page 5 in the third resolve clause and line 12 where it says the commission on the retirement urge the retirement board of the san francisco employee's retirement system to divest from fossil fuel companies i'd add beginning with immediate divestment of assets that have issued negative

returns for five or more years and full divestment within x number of years. five years seems reasonable for a window of time for full divestment that allows the staff flexibility to strategically offer changes without signalling the market we're having a fire sale and we made that five-year commitment in 2013 and it's now 2018. that's giving this body an additional five years. the only reason the time element is important is because in five years if we're in the same position, hopefully not, but this resolution as-is would still read full and expeditious investment and would not be something we can use that says we made the commitment five years ago and look where we are now. so this will be a tool for us going forward. if it doesn't work tomorrow, i hope it will, but we'll have

this and we'll have your support and a genuinely appreciate all of that. thank you very much. [applause] >> commissioner: thank you. are there any other representatives from our city agency or department who would like to comment? okay. we'll start with curtis woo for public comment. >> i'm sorry, mr. woo. just a moment. clarification. request to the clerk, could you collect the language proposed? thank you. >> commissioner: i think that's what he's doing. >> thank you, commissioners. i look forward to your vote. i hope this is a unanimous vote. the urgency is now. it calls we do as much as we can

in our capability so save our plan et and it's a win-win. it's politically the right thing as well. i think history will look back at this moment and what a pivotal time. as much as i hate the trump administration, whenever there's a great crisis there's a great opportunity and we have an opportunity here as a city and this commission to take a stand and say we're not going to let the fossil fuel industry continue to poison our planet. and also the tax subsidies. we subsidize i think $5 trillion globally. the industry would be broke if it wasn't for our taxpayer money doing this. if i dumped a barrel of oil in the bay i'd get find and put in jail but if an oil company does it they get a bailout so that's

another factor. catholic institutions have vote to divest and banking is a conversation because of what happened at standing rock and this is a movement. let's add to it. i think you'll all vote yes because i think i'm preaching to the choir but divestment is the tactic. we should do the great work and we have to look at the big picture too and divestment is the tactic that's going to solve this. i appreciate it. thank you. >> our next speaker is joseph bryant. >> i want to thank the sponsors and the commissioners and joseph

bryant the vice president for san francisco region 10-1. we represent over 54,000 workers in california and over 16,000 in san francisco and many members at the department of the environment. we're here in support in strong support of the resolution our executive board has taken a stance to pass a similar resolution to urge different cities and counties to take this approach towards die investment of fossil fuels and it's really unfortunate a number of our members have had to spend so much time to fight this issue and we've ran around in circles literally. we've organized for every one of the votes we thought would happen and hope will happen tomorrow. we hope the resolution you

hopefully pass this evening unanimously will help put pressure on the board and we thank you, president macras for your support. it's been devastating the impacts we see for impacts of climate change and not only sit a terrible investment, we've seen the numbers. they come in far under many other options and many members live in communities with impacts from the environment. i myself, born and raised a short distance from the chevron power plant and have seen it on a regular basis.

my parents live in bay view with the issues that take place there. again, we look at it as playing chicken with our existence. the time for action is now. we'll be there tomorrow and we hope we can do so standing next to the commission and thank you very much. >> commissioner: thank you. >> i'm a community organizer with the sierra club and i'm here to ask for your support to urge the board to divest from fossil fuel companies and for us, i'm sure you know, for us,

for me the greenhouse gas emissions reduction target we must move away from fossil fuels and to clean energy and with so many environmental rollbacks happening i wanted to take the opportunity to jog your memory on what happens recently in our neighborhood communities. the north bay fires, we all saw firsthand the impact and i work with many frontline communities who have families near oil refineries. we're home to five refineries in the bay. and there's hazards from the transporting to refining to the burning of dirty fossil fuels that pollute our air.

not divesting is basically equivalent to supporting the ongoing pollution from the oil refineries in our neighboring communities. i'm here to urge you for support to align with the mission of the department of the environment which enhances the life of all san franciscans. thank you. >> trillin asset management. >> good evening, commissioners. good evening for having the discussion tonight. i wanted to address the fiduciary duty and the implications of fossil fuel divestment. i'm a charter financial analyst, charter holder and partner at trillin assess management. we have offices in san francisco

and manage $2.5 billion. in my day to day job i'm acutely aware of the challenges of portfolios that meet the fiduciary standard. at the heart is the question of investment returns. to be more precise, can a reasonable person expect a divested portfolio to perform similar or better than a non-divested portfolio if the answer is question the feud you'rery standard is fiduciary standard is met. we can analyze the historical record and second thing is model on a forward-looking basis at the market behavior going forward. i'll touch on both angles. looking backwards there's been performance that's been poor but e