we started by evaluating on the order of i think it was 136 different strategies, but we drastically determined that only 36 of them qualified for what we were looking for. and again, we were specifically looking for managers that were very different than the current managers that were concentrated, high tracking error managers. and so we focused on those 36. we came to you with a list of 30 semi finalists that we then had phone conversations with and trips and in-place meetings, both san francisco staff as well as nepc. >> and those five are still the lists. >> of the 30 semi finalists, these are the ones we're bringing forward. >> it looks like b.f.a.

>> b.f.a. didn't qualify for the very concentrated, very high tracking error. >> we're trying to complement -- >> yeah. there's several others of those 30 semi finalists that staff are continuing to talk to, but these are the one that we bring forward. >> none of our existing managers qualified. one qualified but not with the product that we use. that r.f.p. eliminated our international, global and he merging managers -- emerging managers because we were looking for something different. >> you know, for me, the gist of it is, try to say it simply in an account, and i went around it. i understand the volatility to the comparison, the index. i understand everything that you're saying, but if the argument is they're great with how they fit with us, then why don't we just show that? >> i think we have. >> i think we have. >> where's our performance in

emerging markets in this time frame? >> some of these have it. >> show me where. >> well, some of these pages have it, some of these rolling charts have it. >> where do you want to start at? page 12. >> if you look at 21, that shows the active share, but it shows a higher performance. >> they show the performance relative to others in our active portfolio. >> are we looking at 12 or 21? >> 12. >> 12. >> and here, i acknowledge that there's a lot of data here. so what i drew your attention to was simply risk adjusted returns on the right. then we talk about their correlation relative to the others and relative to the index. that's on the subsequent pages. we talked about their tracking error. so all of this is against or compared to our existing e.m. managers. >> president stansbury: i don't think you're going to have a good risk return analysis if you did it over five years. you have to go back to 2011,

2012 to show that it's doing better. >> not over five years, but if you did it over three years or six years, you would. >> that's the endpoint bias that we tried to -- they're doing rolling returns. >> any time you select a date, there's a bias. you know, the point is, i like your idea of rolling periods. i think that's very smart. i'm just struggling to see -- i see these two time periods from 2011 and 2009. i think the last five years, it may be a little bit different story. >> technically, this is what it boils down to is how much of this decision is going to be influenced by recent performance? and we talk about it -- we even included a slide in here. if we all stated past performance is not indicative of future returns, and we all know that cambridge has produced data that the top

performing managers often end up being the worst, and the worst, the best. here's a manager that is a a compelling processes -- that's a compelling process, meets the attributes that we're seeking, and that hassled them to struggle a -- that has led them to struggle a little bit. >> what's happened in the last four months and how have they recovered since -- or the first four months of 2018? >> they're down 5, 5.2. >> so while you're looking at the numbers, i'd just point out because this is a concentrated manager, two thirds of their portfolio is ten stocks. >> mm-hmm. you expect them -- >> so the answer's going to be what happened to those stocks. and i've been -- when you first asked that question, i've

been -- the answer isn't in the first three. i've been working my way down through them, trying to figure out where that is. it's because they're concentrated manager. you're going to have periods of high tracking error. >> do you have them as of 6-31, 6-30. >> i have that data. so for the first quarter, they were down 6.3%. their e.m. benchmark was up 1.5. >> but what about 6-30. >> at 6-30, they were down 8%, and their benchmark was down 8% as well. so for the year, they're down 14, but their benchmark is down 8. >> i know -- to me, i don't have a problem with the short-term performance, that it's that you've got to look at over the long-terms, their recovery, and what do you expect out of the stock

selection that they have, and does that deliver long-term? so if they're going to be in chief sectors that you think long-term that'll recover, then that's a good place to be. they can't time that. >> emphasize enough their attributes from the way that they're structures, the way they invest, the nature of the portfolio, it's a great fit for us. >> so let me -- how much are they down as of 6-30? >> 14. >> and the bench is down how much? >> 7. >> and that's due to the location and the stock selection? >> that's correct. specifically because of some of the stock names in the philippines and india. >> we believe in this team's ability in security selection and country selection. we think their experience is

pretty amazing. we do distinguish between owning productive assets, speculative, and unproductive assets. speculative would be things like venture capital, and you can say some biotech investments. unproductive assets would be to me things like commodities, i would probably add cryptocurrency and things like that. what i'm saying is you can't see the present value of future cash flows, okay? a third type of asset is productive assets. we look for managers in this portfolio that earn productive assets, that is that they're generating cash flows, okay? and that they pay a good price, a low price for those cash

flows, okay? now, differentiating between owning productive assets and what the market price is, when the market price did he have yats from the price -- deviates from the price of productive assets, we're not too concerned about that. as a matter of fact if productive assets are continuing to produce, and prices are going down, we look at that as a buying opportunity, okay? we believe that this manager has a good -- a very good skill set at selecting productive assets of underfollowed country -- companies in less-followed countries. most of what we have in our portfolio is very benchmark-like exposures, okay? >> and essentially what they're doing, what they often are doing is they're finding small

companies, dominated, run by families, that own a large share of the company that have a dominance in a small niche area. so it's something that's profitable and has reason to continue to be profitable in the future, then, they provide advice either to how to potentially improve their business or how to better communicate the virtues of this company to better investors. >> dan brings up a great point. >> did you check that thoroughly of how much value they add in that? >> well, that's what they do. that's what they do. and dan brings up a great point about this strategy, because oligopolies and monarchies in these types of country are allowed to thrive. they can be great business managers, but they're lousy in terms of investor relations,

you know, things like that. [inaudible] >> yeah. >> what investors need. and that's why a manager -- that's why we at u.c. were early investors in this strategy. we saw this as a potential to add value to a really well run business that is very market unfriendly to make it more market friendly to adopt more modern western approaches to investor relations, and when that happens, the wall street recognizes there's good value in this company, and the stock is repriced higher. the business didn't improve all that much, you know, but the stock gets repriced higher. >> it reminds me a little bit of g.m.o.'s emerging debt team that they can go out safer for a longer period of time.

they're taking an activist role, and it may take them a long time to make that happen. but over a long period of time they've actually greatly outperformed all of our other manager. >> at g.m.o., teresa is the one that created the index against what she's compared, and she knows exactly what its flaws are over the short-term. >> i like this strategy. i understand that nothing -- i mean it's just such a tough area to find a really great team and really unusual. they're adding this component to it, i don't even know another team emerging that does this this way. so i understand there are risks to it, but it's a great time to be an emerging, and i kind of take an opposite view. when they're down like this, a great time to buy in. if you believe in the process and how it adds value to the portfolio. >> i think the risk of this strategy is meaningfully less than our emerging market status

as a whole in the idea because the index -- in the index because the index doesn't own a lot of junk companies. >> d.f.a. is on the index tilt. now, it's value, but it's index tilt. so with our managers, i don't know how it fits with mondrian. you'd have to fill me in better on that, but i'm -- i'm willing to make the motion. i don't know if everybody's comfortable with it. >> has he finished his presentation? he stopped to let us ask questions. >> i think we can just let the board ask their questions. >> i finished, so please ask. >> you're finished? >> i am. >> let's go to page 21, the

lower graph my search was it winds up with one recommendation. that's the way it goes. i believe our search was to replace the existing managers. that was the purpose of doing all of this. my first question is, cartica, have they ever managed money -- correction, bill, did you or hahn know cartica before they bid? >> yes. >> ah, because looking at this lower chart, i'm looking for whether or not any managers who are in those blue bubbles on the line where cartica would be, drawing a horizontal line

from their dot back over to the excess rate of return, did any of those managers bid? we do not know who those bubbles are. my question is in the universe, the announcement, and where is the 30 semi finalists out of the 120 bids, i'm just curious, in the universe of managers in this area, were there any that could have bid, didn't want to bid, didn't bid, close, i'm just trying to find out in the universe, whatever, or are we just lucky that cartica was one of the ones that decided to bid? >> just some background and all credit to aloe for putting some of these things together. after the april board meeting, we sat around and talked about how we could display some of cartica's better virtues. here what we've done is shown cartica and the list of emerging managers from a

database. we've plotted them just to show cartica's role or place within the emerging markets universe and showed that just how distinctive they are in terms of their concentration as well as their active share, and then, we highlighted those with whom we already have exposure. but i don't know which of these managers who kind of circle around cartica, which of them, if any, responded to our r.f.p. my guess is none of them. >> understandable. other charts we look at sometimes is the floating bar chart of the universe managers, and we can tell where they are, first, second, third, fourth, quartile, with the idea. did we get -- remember, these people, there's an indication that they were better performers than cartica. >> and that's always the case. there's always a manager -- we can always reach for the best performing manager, historically, for sure.

there's always going to be one of those. >> that's what i'm trying to find out, if the bidding process, is getting some of these managers to bid on your work. some of these people don't like this work. some of them only want to do the r.f.i. process. since this has been underway for over a year, and the results -- and you guys would be able to calculate several hundred people hours? >> certainly. >> and resulting with one $300 million recommendation. this is more -- my comments or question is more about the process than opposed to cartica, which is the item on the agenda, but i'm driving at something, how to improve the process. >> so in other words, joe, do you mean do they have reached out to some of these managers and brought them in? skbl i believe we could. some people think we can't do that. >> can we? >> absolutely. >> but we didn't, did we? >> well, there was an r.f.p.

structure, there was a wide net. we asked for three respondents, for three strategies. once we initiated the r.f.p., we had to maintain the rules, which were there were time frames, there were questions and answers, there were deadlines, and then, those were the only people that we could consider in the r.f.p. short of cancelling the r.f.p. >> right. >> the question is whether or not we change the process to get them to bid. they will get a fair shot. does this show that the managers recommended were very thoroughly and fairly analyzed or not? >> my recollection, bob shaw, i believe, was here at the time, we determined we wanted -- we wanted to do because it had been so long since we issued an

r.f.p. in this area, we wanted to do a very broad, wide sweep. so we weren't focused on a region or a niche, which is normally when we employ the r.f.i. we determined at that point in time since it was going to be broad, and we had not done an r.f.p., we just did the r.f.p. to see what was out there. and i agree, we were premising that we wanted to select some of our managers. you can close down an r.f.p. there's a process, but -- >> our goal was to replace 'cause we thought we could and should replacing, adding more value -- it wasn't just we want today do a search for the heck of doing a search. >> no, i think we were concerned that we did not know necessarily, you know, whether the strategies were out there. i mean, not that we didn't know

them, but we wanted to see how many people would be interested to bid. i don't know that it is necessarily to replace our existing managers. we wanted to look at them relative to our existing managers. i need to look at the premise in the first three pages of the r.f.p., which is, you know, the purpose of issuing that, but i don't have that in front of me. >> but i think we have to be careful of turning this into a full-fledged discussion about processing, as opposed to- >> can i chime in? >> there was a reason for doing this, to improve the rate of return. not only could the process have been better to get people to bid on the work, let alone -- all the issues -- [inaudible] >> -- on a $5 billion piece of the total fund and winding up with a 300 million recommendation. >> we don't have any way of controlling the process related to an r.f.p. 'cause those rults are set.

so if we -- rules are set. so if we determined we were not satisfied with the responses we got from an r.f.p., we could have cancelled that r.f.p. and gone an r.f.i. but once we undertake an r.f.p., we don't have a lot ofof leeway because we need to ensure that it's transparent all the way through. >> can we improve the r.f.p. process? >> no. >> well, we have a difference of opinion. i believe we can. we'll come back and talk about this because the need to improve every piece of the portfolio to include the international, the global and the emerging, that need does not go away. the opportunity is not going to go away. can we do better? >> well, under perfect circumstances if we would have been fully staffed, we could have brought the information earlier, if that's what you mean by improving the process, but once you issue an r.f.p.,

you know, you have to follow the very specific rules so set out by the city. [inaudible] >> -- joe, and you, jay, are correct. i think there's always room for improving the outcomes in the r.f.p., and that has to do with the predevelopment of what that r.f.p. looks like, different metrics and so forth of different people that are going to be bidding. but like jay is saying, once you get into that, then you have certain restrictions around bidding and certain things that you cannot do based on our city's laws. so yes, there are ways to improve the potential outcome, but it's also true once you start there's limitations. >> you heard me say the phrase earlier about being the first call. we looked for people who will be the first call. that's what we want our

reputation to be. we want people to bid for our work because they've got to believe we will treat them fairly, thoroughly, intelligently. that's done before the r.f.p. goes out. >> we're getting a little late in the day. i don't want to -- i think this is a very important conversation. i've been asking for a while for a review of how we find managers. i'm going with commissioner driscoll's point, in this process, if we only found one manager -- >> and i'd point out we have issued another r.f.p. since we issued this one. >> it's not an indictment on anyone. i think it's a really interesting process. we went down this process and got only one. i'm not as convinced they're as good of a process as some other

people think they are. i would prefer to see us start over and go and try and find the other managers represented here who might look better and add other attributes. that being said, you guys have done a ton of work on this. you've done a lot of good work. i think it's really interesting stuff. really helpful. thank you for bringing it back. i'm happy to call the vote. i'm personally probably not going to vote for this today, but i know there are commissioners who probably will, so i'm asking the board, where do you want to go from here -- or staff. >> i move to adopt staff's recommendation. >> i assume that they've taken note of all my comments the last hour. >> there's a motion on the floor. does anyone want to second? >> there's a motion, there's a second from commissioner chu. any discussion on this? >> i have -- i have discussion. is there a way after this, if we close vote for this, that they can reach out to both individuals -- >> certainly.

>> yeah. >> is that something you'd want to do? >> we have -- and to joe's point, we have work to do. >> okay. >> this is one piece, but we have work to do. >> and another question related to our capacity. we have certain allocations that we are targeting for emerging markets and so on. we still have room in capacity should we find excellent, wonderful great managers to be able to do so. >> yeah. >> i mean, this is public session, but i will say -- i believe we can say, we're very sensitive when we have an r.f.p. with folks who have followed the rules andity submitted responses -- rules and submitted responses. we're concerned about the general -- we wanted to make it clear this they're a completely separate process. we don't want folks to think well, we went through and bid but they reached out in a separate process and hired someone else while the r.f.p. is in process.

we're not frozen out, but we don't want our peace to last a year because it -- piece to last a year because it restricts the public disclosure part from soliciting folks who maybe did not submit an r.f.p. because maybe they didn't meet the minimum qualifications at the deadline, those types of things. so certainly, we appreciate if this passes, and we will continue to reach out. outreach. >> call for the vote. >> i do want to say something that, again, just want to emphasize, looking to you guys to bring forward to us a different way to go out and find the very best managers. i think this process clearly highlights that maybe not everyone that the r.f.p. process is soliciting

responded. so maybe the rules are handicapping us in a way, so let's think about is there a more intelligent and thoughtful and better way to go about sourcing managers is exactly i think what commissioner driscoll said. i'll call for public comment. if there's any members of the public that would like to address the commission. seeing none, i'll close public comment. roll call vote, please. [roll call] >> clerk: motion passes. >> president stansbury: motion passes. >> can i ask for the privilege -- i have to leave. my phone is going off the hook. a new arrival is coming, and i have to go to sacramento to

meet him. but i'd like to ask one question from the executive director's report because the city attorney is here. >> president stansbury: why don't we just call that item, then. >> yeah. >> president stansbury: can we call item 15 and 16 together. >> and the question i have is regarding the anticorruption and accountability ordinance, and i just want to know -- it's silent as to the elected commissioners. can you give me any flavor as to how it applies to the elected commissioners? >> i think from the e-mail that's attached, that's what you're referring to? >> yes. >> they are not -- they don't -- they are not an appointing officer, so the things that apply to

commissioners or an appointing officer would not apply to the elected commissioners, but everything else would apply to you in the same way. >> okay. so that's -- i just wanted to make sure that we got that on the record, and it was clear. >> okay. >> okay. thank you very much. then i'll excuse myself. >> president stansbury: okay. jay, the floor is yours. >> little alexander estimated weight of around eight pounds is due to arrive in the next four hours. [inaudible] >> i will combine the june and the july report. we basically -- in both of those months -- have presented the proxy voting results related to this board's policy that we will always support and

vote in favor of the incr. i believe the proxy season has significantly ended at the end of june but we'll issue one more report in july by hopefully will be the final. initially, there were over 200 that were drk-resolutions that were submitted by incr members. a lot of them have been withdrawn. i believe that i was reading this morning that they believe it's been a very successful season based on fossil fuels and climate risk issues by the fact that some of these resolutions were withdrawn, which they wanted to point out means that shareholders are talking to owners mtded fagsd thfagsd -- the fact that they can get a resolution withdrawn is the fact that they're talking to

shareholders. there have been a lot ofthe fa to shareholders. there have been a lot resoluti fact that they're talking to shareholders. there have been a lot withdraw they're talking to shareholders. there have been a lot of withdrawals which does indicate that there is discussion going on. i submitted last month a 2018 investors statement to global climate change. that was a g7 letter just as an example of the 10,000 things to come across andrew's e-mail probably every day and opportunities that we have, and he's ferreting out what makes sense in terms of what the board has taken action on. certainly, we have some issues that under the broader e.s.g. we've not actually addressed related to executive pay per se, diversity on boards, so as we develop a more holist holistic e.s.g. policy, we will

be able to join for groups that are working, public institutional investors in trying to influence behavior related to these other issues, and we look forward to that because commissioner driscoll is correct. the blueprint and the steps and the deliverables that were presented to the investment committee all are very important and they're going to take a lot of work. bill will indicate that we're getting ready to recruit for a security analyst to support andrew in his work which we think is very critical to make sure that a lot of the reporting requirements that we have get completed, and that he has that support. the other thing is obviously, we have a new retirement board member. i was talking to claire on the way in. she asked if he was here, and i said no, he had to go to the br

board of supervisors. i will do my best to ensure we don't call a special meeting on a tuesday afternoon. we'll be reaching out to him and his staff to try and provide orientation. we have been working with commissioner chu. we've had at least two sessions, and she's willing to sit with us for, like, three hours, so that's very dedicated and has a lot of questions, and so we look forward to going through that same process with commissioner safai. and with that, i will open it up for any questions. >> president stansbury: questions from the board? seeing none, we'll open it up to public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to address the commission? seeing none, we'll close public comment. thank you, mr. huish. why don't we go back to --

let's postpone 9. thank you for bringing it forth. any objection to that from staff? >> no. >> president stansbury: 9? the analysis of protection strategies, we will postpone that. that's going to require a little bit of time. >> president stansbury: i've reserved the option to do it later. can we call 10 and 11 together? >> sure. for item number 10, real quick, we had a very good month back in may. seems like a long time ago. our investments were up over 1.3% for the month. we have a number of disclosures that i still think we need to go through, right? >> yes. >> so marshal ridge is a distressed strategy that the board approved in the absence

of a portfolio. we made a $25 million investment. we expect to get more here in the coming months. that will be called -- called down periodically over time. that was actually the only item closed during the month. there is some valuation data earlier in the memo, just some charts showing the valuations are above average, but they're not ridiculously high like they have been at other points in time, and that there are some markets that are really quite reasonably priced. and also, on page 3, i'll note that this is just a follow up to any p.c.'s quarterly report back at the end of the first quarter, and that is that our performance has been very, very good across all time periods. and it's without taking more risk. you'll see at the bottom of page 3 is that our volatility is slightly lower than the peers, and in public equity, the reason for the table on the

upper page 4 is to show that over the last few years we've seen a pretty comfortable improvement in our excess returns in public equity. with that, i can close that and move onto item number 11, since they were called together, i believe. so fiscal year end, we ended up at about 11.34%. i do expect that number to move around as private market investments, their valuations are closed in the next couple of months. in particular -- and it wasn't just one things, we had a number of good returns. u.s. stocks and private equity were up more in 17. real assets were up nearly 15. special congratulations to art and also to ed and chris and to cambridge for getting an increase in our exposure to real asset to the time when

that wasn't really popular a year or two ago. oil prices had fallen down to about $30 a barrel or a little bit less, and they've rallied to more than double that, so we've seen a reversion to the mean that, and we did that by increasing our allocation at the same time. global equity and private debt were also up in the low teens. and every asset class were in the positives. fix income just barely above break even, which is something that we've been expecting. in the month of june, we were done 27 basis points. this was particularly in international stocks, and in particular in china because of the -- the trade tensions going on. we did have a number of meetings. i was recently in beijing and

pouring through the difference of the business performance of the underlying companies that our managers are invested in versus what's taking place in terms of stock returns, and we're really, really pleased with the business performance of our under lying companies, and the impact, the trade tensions in terms of our companies, our managers are estimating at about 2%. it's really quite deminimus. in addition, one manager is just chomping at the bit because they're seeing p.e.'s of five and 6 where they're expecting earnings and growth of 15 to 20%, so they're really quite encouraged. the year to date, we're up 3.2% on a calendared year to date. economic conditions -- i do want to point out one or two things here. overall, economic conditions continue to be really good. the one highlight i would want to point out is that earnings

growth has been really strong lately, up about 26% in calendar year 17, up about 20% here in the first half of this year. it's going to be really hard for the markets to duplicate that. you usually don't get say even three years of 20% earning growth, and that's going to make next year's comparisons harder, okay? so just to keep an eye on in the future is that i would expect that the -- i'm not expecting any really serious trouble, but it's just going to make the -- the comparisons going forward more difficult. but -- but the good news is if you see the chart at the bottom of page 2, is that stock prices and -- and earnings growth have mirrored each other. as a matter of fact, earnings growth has been a little bit higher. that is a really good sign that

the stock market appreciation is based on fundamentals, and it's based on the present value -- on cash flow, and it's not based on speculation, it's not based on a repricing of the market going higher. a couple of closures to note. the biotech value fund, we -- the board approved $200 million. we have intestvested 60,000,04 million in various vehicles. we do expects the remaining 100 to be called in the next few months. also, the board approved a real estate opportunity strategy for fortress of 75 million. we've invested 100 million so

far. we believe further will be called in the next number of months. long hill, which have a venture investment strategy in china, we asked the board for 30 million. the board approved, and we did get all 30 million on that. there's a lot of ways to make money in health care in china from biotech to medical equipment to health insurance. tower brook is a strategy that we asked the board -- it's a large cap buyout strategy. the board approved 75 million. we did get 50 million, and beacon light, which is an equity long-short strategy, we asked the board to approve 220 million. the board -- 225 million. the board did so. we expect the remainor of that will be call -- remainder of that will be called, as well. you see the portfolio is up 6.5% on an annualized basis and

that's at a period of time when the bond market is actually slightly down. i am very pleased to welcome ron manning, and ron, if you could please stand and perhaps come to the podium and introduce yourself. ron has -- ron played football at rice university, so he's going to make me a really good running back. he played offensive line, but he also previously served at the dallas-fort worth retirement system, and he's got a distinguished education, as well. >> i'll just tell you a little bit about myself. i'm raised in houston, texas. i went to rice university in houston, so -- and got my graduate degree at texas tech. my wife brought me out here. she's from the south bay area. she grew up down there. came out here, visiting her family a couple times, and really fell in love with the area. she found a good job.

i followed her out here and found a great job myself, so i'm really happy here. city of san francisco's been really exciting. looking forward to -- obviously, the summer's been great. the nice winter weather you have here in the summer. it's good. you all think it's hot. i have to stop saying y'all. you think it's really hot, but it's not. let's see...working here, i'll be working with eunice and the private credit strategy, but i'll also be working with victoria owens on the public strategy as we make the transition back and forth there. so with my previous job with fort worth, i was a generalist. i worked with the portfolio half, and then i would have hedge funds, private equity, funding only strategies. here, i'll just be concentrating in one area, which is private for me. >> and did you close on a house in the last couple days? >> i did.

>> wow. east bay. >> yeah. planning on jogging out here. >> welcome. >> thank you, ron. >> welcome. >> and we do have our manager director of asset allocation, risk management and innovative solutions. an offer's been extended and accepted, and that person will start on august 27, and i look forward to introducing you to her at that time. that closes the c.i. reports. >> great. thank you. any questions? commissioner driscoll? >> i'll skip my questions, but on this monthly report, on your page 5, the sf sfers monthly net aet ises, some month -- assets, some months, we started putting the liability bar on there. i highly recommend we keep that there, but only looking at the assets and not looking on the

right hand balance sheet, people are going to focus on that. it's much more useful information in terms of what we are trying to do here, so if you could put that back in here -- i see this one's been amended by staff. i would highly recommend, even if it's a once a year number, you can do that. >> happy to do that. i'm glad you mentioned that, commissioner. it is a highly relevant number. we are at june 30, and since that number's going to be hard coded in november , we can include it. >> yeah, and you can footnote it to say it's only measured once a year. >> okay. we'll move to public comment. any member of the public wish to address the commission? seeing none, we'll close public comment. thank you, mr. coaker. regarding items 12 and 13, i don't see miss chuy. i think we can take the items as submitted unless there's any

highlights you want to bring up to the board. >> i just want to bring up two matters. in the third quarter, interest rate was set at 2.26, so we're moving in the right direction, and on july 25, there will be a deferred compensation meeting, and that, as submitted. >> thank you for the reminder. we'll cope it up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to address the commission on this issue? seeing none, we'll close public comment. any comments from the board? >> the eligible participates now is north of 36,000. that's a big number. it shows how much the workforce has grown. it affects liabilities. it's at least 8,000 more than eight years ago. many growth in jobs. again, that means more work for staff, rolling people, but again, it affects the participation efforts that deferred comp is trying to work on. >> thank you so much for the report. item 14, we are going to postpone to a future meeting.

16, so i believe there's only -- do i have this correct? there is -- [inaudible] >> what's that? [inaudible] >> yeah, why don't we call items 18 and 19 together as submitted. any public comment on items 18 and 19? seeing none, we'll close public comment. any comments from the board? okay. that leaves one item, item 20, retirement of a board member, good of the order. >> order to request information either from staff or from our city attorney because i think one of the things -- or one of the issues that have come up in different meetings over time is

a confusion for me around our use of our fee r 5 so i would be interested in hearing from a city attorney if there's any restrictions or requirements from us to be engaging in r.f.p.'s or r.f.i.'s in our search for a manager. >> i might add onto that, a repeat of something i've said before, if we could please look at how we are going about finding managers, and whether or not there's any areas for improvement, and i think that goes hand in hand with commissioner chu's request. okay. public comment? are there members of the public that would like to address the commission? seeing none, we'll close public comment. anything else from the board? great. thank you, everyone. it's been a very long day. meeting adjourned. >> very long day. go.

>> shop and dine the 49 promotes

local businesses and changes san franciscans to do their shopping and dooipg within the 49 square miles by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique, successful and vibrant so where will you shop and dine the 49 hi in my mind a ms. medina

[♪] >> i just don't know that you can find a neighborhood in the city where you can hear music stands and take a ride on the low rider down the street.

it is an experience that you can't have anywhere else in san francisco. [♪] [♪] >> district nine is a in the southeast portion of the city. we have four neighborhoods that i represent. st. mary's park has a completely unique architecture. very distinct feel, and it is a very close to holly park which is another beautiful park in san francisco. the bernal heights district is unique in that we have the hell which has one of the best views in all of san francisco. there is a swinging hanging from a tree at the top. it is as if you are swinging over the entire city. there are two unique aspects. it is considered the fourth chinatown in san francisco. sixty% of the residents are of

chinese ancestry. the second unique, and fun aspect about this area is it is the garden district. there is a lot of urban agriculture and it was where the city grew the majority of the flowers. not only for san francisco but for the region. and of course, it is the location in mclaren park which is the city's second biggest park after golden gate. many people don't know the neighborhood in the first place if they haven't been there. we call it the best neighborhood nobody has ever heard our. every neighborhood in district nine has a very special aspect. where we are right now is the mission district. the mission district is a very special part of our city. you smell the tacos at the [speaking spanish] and they have the best latin pastries. they have these shortbread cookies with caramel in the middle. and then you walk further down

and you have sunrise café. it is a place that you come for the incredible food, but also to learn about what is happening in the neighborhood and how you can help and support your community. >> twenty-fourth street is the birthplace of the movement. we have over 620 murals. it is the largest outdoor public gallery in the country and possibly the world. >> you can find so much political engagement park next to so much incredible art. it's another reason why we think this is a cultural district that we must preserve. [♪] >> it was formed in 2014. we had been an organization that had been around for over 20 years. we worked a lot in the neighborhood around life issues. most recently, in 2012, there were issues around gentrification in the neighborhood. so the idea of forming the cultural district was to help preserve the history and the

culture that is in this neighborhood for the future of families and generations. >> in the past decade, 8,000 latino residents in the mission district have been displaced from their community. we all know that the rising cost of living in san francisco has led to many people being displaced. lower and middle income all over the city. because it there is richness in this neighborhood that i also mentioned the fact it is flat and so accessible by trip public transportation, has, has made it very popular. >> it's a struggle for us right now, you know, when you get a lot of development coming to an area, a lot of new people coming to the area with different sets of values and different culture. there is a lot of struggle between the existing community and the newness coming in. there are some things that we do to try to slow it down so it doesn't completely erase the communities. we try to have developments that

is more in tune with the community and more equitable development in the area. >> you need to meet with and gain the support and find out the needs of the neighborhoods. the people on the businesses that came before you. you need to dialogue and show respect. and then figure out how to bring in the new, without displacing the old. [♪] >> i hope we can reset a lot of the mission that we have lost in the last 20 years. so we will be bringing in a lot of folks into the neighborhoods pick when we do that, there is a demand or, you know, certain types of services that pertain more to the local community and working-class. >> back in the day, we looked at mission street, and now it does not look and feel anything like mission street. this is the last stand of the latino concentrated arts, culture and cuisine and people.

we created a cultural district to do our best to conserve that feeling. that is what makes our city so cosmopolitan and diverse and makes us the envy of the world. we have these unique neighborhoods with so much cultural presence and learnings, that we want to preserve. [♪] do, particularly -- it's tough to endorse against someone that you are sitting with. they were there from the very beginning and i'm so proud to have supported sandy fewer and hillary ronin in their