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.

>> supervisor safai: good of the good afternoon. i'm safahsha safai, and to my l, supervisor yee and supervisor stefani. i would like to thank sfgov tv for staffing the meeting. mr. clerk, do we have any announcements before we begin? >> clerk: yes, be sure to

silence all cell phones. completed speaker cards should be submitted to the clerk. items acted on today will be on the july 31 board of supervisors agenda. item 1 is a motion approving or rejecting malia cohen, nominations for the reappointment of dennis richards to the planning commission, for a four-year term. >> supervisor safai: unless there are additional comments, i would like commissioner richards to come up and address the committee. >> 2 or 3 minutes? >> supervisor safai: there's really no time. brevity is appreciated. >> i will be brief. it's weird being on this side of the railing. i'm nervous. to supervisor stefani, i always

tell people, please don't call me or write me the morning of the commission meeting to try to talk to me or send some substantive communications, and i did the same thing with you this morning, so i apologize. i'm happy to meet with you any time day or night between now and the board vote if you would like to get to know me better. i would like to get to know you better. i turned in my community resume, which you have in front of you. there was so little space, the type font got so tiny that supervisor safai had a hard time reading it, so i know it didn't show up that well. i have 20 years of community service, volunteering, advocacy around the neighborhoods, especially around land use. the octavia plan in 2005 and serving on that c.a.c. in 2014 when i assumed the commission -- being a commissioner. prior to that, i was in tech for

30 years. on the 30th day of my career, i left and did something fun. the last four years, i've been on the planning commission. i tell people, never before have i worked so hard, made so little money, but had so much fun, being a planning commissioner, and i seek your reappointment today. one of the things -- i had some reflection on this. i work with all sides, neighborhood groups, community groups, developers, mayor's office, supervisors, in fact, after this meeting, i will be sitting down with the mayor's office of housing, ken rich to go over the india basin project that we'll hear tomorrow at the commission. i tend to balance out the needs and am collaborative, but when i believe in something, i stay firm to that. a couple of things that happened recently, we have a historic resource in the gay and lesbian

community that was going to be demolished and worked to delaying the certification or the e.i.r. and we got word from the sponsor that he will add more units. so that's a win there. so it's an example of being collaborative and firm, so a win for everyone. when i got into the planning commission, we would talk on things and we didn't know if anything would happen. but learning from tech, the action item list. i have in my hand, it's four years old, we have a lot of items on it. i've contributed a lot to it. we have some larger policy initiatives that will come out of that. during the hearing, people were talking about housing stabilization. i want to know from a radius of the 5m project, where they're stabilized. they produced a map for me. out of that, came the capacity

of -- understanding the capacity of zoning of 141,000 units. subsequent to that, housing affordability study that was a couple of weeks ago at the planning commission. from the things that we talk about, there's a genesis and the department runs with them and then the action item list is the thing that did that. we also came up with a commission policy. we saw affordable housing being lost because two identical flats are being changed. one made into a tiny unit. one made into a large unit. and then being sold as a single-family house. we have discussions around that. and commissioner hillis and i pushed for that and i'm happy to say that we're in place. the other big one i have under my hat is the demolition of definition and reform. we have a lot of smaller units that have been lost. we don't have a standard definition between d.b.i. and

planning on demolitions resulting in a mismatch. we consider something a demo. d.b.i. doesn't consider it a demo. we tried to come up with a solution to that called the residential expansion threshold. it didn't work, but now supervisor peskin is coming up with legislation to harmonize the legislations, and it will go a long way for the development community and neighborhoods in the city on attaining affordable housing. i served on the rule subcommittee, updating the commission rules. i advocated in the budget for a process person and i got the looks from people, what is a process person? planning is a factory with 8,000 ins and outs. at times i would get different answers from different people. and we hired somebody this past fiscal year and working on the process improvement legislation, so i believe your board has

passed in the last couple of weeks. lastly, i advocated in the f.y. '19 for a tenant advocate. we've had so many times where projects come before us and the tenant comes that lives in the building that they will be displaced because the project will displace them. and i only knew about the project when the sign went up on the building. myself and fellow commissioners asked for a tenant advocate in the f.y. '19 hiring plan and that's going to happen and we can understand and take into account the effect of projects on displacement of existing tenants in buildings that will be refurbished. goals for the next four years. retail is a big issue in most districts. on the action item list, i'm pushing for n.c. 30. we had an n.c. 20 at the department 10 years ago that got a lot of fanfare and publicity,

but nothing came out of it. eating and drinking establishments need to be looked at and i'm pushing for, joint hearing with the small business commission to understand our decisions and how they affect retail. the second goal, housing affordability study. that was put before us a couple of weeks ago. i think what we need to understand is what will come out of it. short term, medium term and long term. we have to triage what we have before us right now and we need long term solutions to figure out how to keep the middle class we've been losing. it's been about 10 years in the making and it's just sitting there. and there's been a lot of other projects that have floated to the top and given the development pressure, preservation is needed. a look at live-work and a policy

around amnesty. we had projects come before us and found that half live-work are not being used and they're considered dwelling units and avoided the impact fees when they were built. my estimation is there could be $100 million left on the table for people that want to come out of the shadows and say that they live in a dwelling unit. and the last is parking standards for the city. we had a project coming before us with a parking garage into office space. we don't have any standards that are parking wise. a look at that is warranted in the next four years. thank you. >> supervisor safai: thank you, commissioner richards. i was thinking maybe, supervisor yee, we would open it up for public comment unless you want to ask your question first.

>> supervisor yee: doesn't matter when. >> supervisor safai: okay. we'll open it up for public comment and then come back to folks here. anyone like to comment on this item, line up to the right, or i can call your name out. i see there's a bunch of people that have come to speak on this. >> good afternoon, supervisor safai, stefani and yee. >> supervisor safai: i'm trying to get an idea of how many people are going to comment on this. we're going to limit public comment to 1 minute. please start over. >> yes, please. i will be short and tell the commissioners to be short in their presentation to support commissioners richards, moore, johnson and fong. i know that the diversity -- they bring diversity to this city. i don't always get what i want when i go there, but they bring a different perspective and

that's what it is and that's what your rules committee has tried to uphold. i can tell you that we need them collectively. please pass all of them on. they're good for this city. they work hard. thank you. >> supervisor safai: is your comment for all four commissioners? >> yes. >> i'm jerry dratler. to save time, would i like to comment about agenda items 1 and 2. ms. moore is an architect and urban designer and brings 38 years of professional experience to the commission. she was recently awarded an acip, lifetime award by urban land institute. land use policies and environmental impact reports are reviewed, and those can be 700 pages. mr. richards says it takes 20 to 30 hours a week to be an effective commissioner. i've observed ms. moore and mr. richards in planning

commission meetings dealing with a variety of agenda items. they're always well prepared, ask insightful questions and lead to fair and logical conclusions. they comment on site bureaus they've had made and that demonstrates their personal commitment to understanding all neighborhood impacts of the project. the citizens of san francisco are fortunate to have able and committed individuals willing to serve. >> supervisor safai: thank you, sir. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm ken hogart. i'm here to advocate for commissioners richards and moore being reappointed. i've personally met with mr. richards concerning an eviction that was going to take place. i can assure you, mr. richards is -- has utmost sensitivity for

those who are vulnerable among our citizenry. he's got a heart of gold, in my opinion. i've been a real estate agent for 43 years in san francisco. and i can see how things have changed. when i started in the 1970s, the affordability index was 23%. today it's less than 7%. we need people like mr. richards and ms. moore to help -- >> supervisor safai: thank you, sir. next speaker. i will interrupt for one second. trying to get a gauge if everyone in line is here to comment on items 1 and 2. it may make more sense to allow public comment and allow commissioner moore to come up and speak and then allow more

public comment. is everyone here going to speak on items 1 and 2? okay. let's have commissioner moore come up and speak and then we'll resume public comment. before you do that, we have to call item 2. just sit there and wait for one second. >> clerk: motion approving or rejecting president of the board of supervisors malia cohen's reappointment of kathrin moore to the planning commission board for a term ending july 1, 2022. >> hello, supervisors. let me begin by looking back and reflecting on how i engaged with the city. working as an urban designer and architect since the early '70s, i've found myself on the opposite side of the table, explaining to city officials like yourselves, planning directors, commissions, while planning and urban design

matters. over the years, people started to recognize my voice. so in 2001, i was asked to sit on the treasure island citizen advisory board, which i continued for 15 years until 2015. in 2005, i was appointed to the san francisco waterfront advisory committee. and i continue to serve on that body. earlier this year, elaine forbes asked me to join the pier 70 design review, this is sprinkled in between my three terms on the planning commission. i was first appointed to the planning commission, if you count backwards, in 2006. i'm speaking with the unchanged conviction that as an urban design architect, i'm able to bring a broad perspective and raise the bar in discuecembe did

decision making, which is coupled with institutional memory. what other milestones during my time on the commission? there are many, but i will mention a few just for reference. there's a market octavia plan, the first time i met now-commissioner richards. there's the eastern neighborhood plan, merced, shipyard two, japantown cultural heritage. the commission 2020 plan, 5m, the hub, central soma and the list goes on. there are many other projects large and small and all that have mattered to me. i remained anchored in my profession, shaped and challenged by circumstances inside and out side the city and by an ever increasing amount of planning in san francisco,

including gentrification. today i find myself expand and shaped by my past 12 years on the commission and my professional skills remain one of my strengths, i find i've become more consistent and stronger voice for neighborhood concerns including ethnicity, race, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, types of disabilities and other relevant demographic qualities of the city at large. with an urgent awareness of the enormous, increasing imbalance in our affordability for housing, rising income gaps, i believe that a balance has to be balanced somewhere so we can be livable and our way of life sustainable for all that can regain an element sustainable for all.

i'm actually rooted in the conviction that a balanced position between social and environmental equity are more important than economic considerations on their own. to that end, my objective for serving on the planning commission reflects my commitment to supporting the committee. we will continue to engage in authentic discussions and bring new insights when we look at the environmental and social and city-wide planning. those are challenges that we face every thursday and i reflect on them every week. i believe we need to add a new ingredient into the process, which is a comprehensive, broader view of the city of the future, where we can -- where we

need to balance the important qualities of our city with a step-by-step thoughtfulness. it's not about good plans and long visions but how we achieve formulating that. in closing, i'm honored to serve again on the planning commission and today i ask for your support. i'm firmly committed to bring what i can to preserve and enhance a strong, traditional planning in the city that for me includes a voice for all neighborhoods. i would like to thank the many supporters that have written and spoken on my behalf and especially those who have come today to voice their support. i do also want to mention that i strongly support my three fellow commissioners in front of you today. as a team, think we're unbeatable. thank you. >> supervisor safai: thank you.

we'll reserve our questions until after public comment. please come forward. >> good afternoon. i'm here to support the appointment of dennis richards and kathrin moore. i've lived in san francisco for 30 years. i've seen planning commissions and directors come and go along with land use and aesthetics. i believe that in commissioners moore and richards, we have individuals that can bring a measured, balanced perspective that bodes well for the san francisco of the future. no one can deny the credentials that commissioner moore brings to her role. commissioner richards is tireless in his commitment to the community. both of them are willing to speak up to question and to compromise when it's the best option. the presence on the planning commission assures me there will be accountability to the residents of san francisco for

the important decisions being made. thank you. >> supervisor safai: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm stephanie peak. i'm here also to support katherin moore and dennis richards as their appointment to the planning commission. and i'm not speaking just for myself, but a lot of neighborhoods couldn't come due to work, such as chris and duta hockett. especially these days when we're tempted with short-term housing solutions, we need critical thinkers with years of experience like mr. richards and ms. moore. ms. moore is one of the few who have been around long enough to understand exactly how the building and planning departments function together. we need someone who understands this system in need of rehabilitati rehabilitation. mr. moore spoke out strongly in the last couple of weeks,

exposing the machinations of scoff law developers who have been making people's lives miserable for years. >> supervisor safai: thank you, ma'am. i appreciate it. next speaker. >> good afternoon, members of the committee. i'm john buruso. i'm here to thank president cohen and the board of supervisors for reappointing dennis richards and katherin moore and to thank them both for ongoing service to the city. my brother and i encountered them when we joined the russian hill association responding to a project on my block . commissioners moore and richards demonstrated their job dedication when they agreed to

site visits, assessing the block's homes and streetscapes firsthand. over the course of two hearings, commissioners moore and richards showed patience and resolve working through circumstances drawing on backgrounds in architecture, land use and reaching a solution. commissioner moore and commissioner richards are committed to ensuring the environment serves the purposes of the community, the neighborhood, and the city of -- >> supervisor safai: thank you, sir. next speaker. >> good afternoon, chair safai, supervisors yee and stefani. here in solidarity to support my sisters and brothers of the commission and urge to you reappoint all two of them, as the items are called today. i value both commissioner richards and commissioner moore. the roles on the commission are very important. dennis with his lgbtq background

is valued as well aztec. he's objective, logical and fair. i also highly value commissioner moore, with her european background and architectural design, she is experienced, thorough and detailed. thank you. >> supervisor safai: thank you, commissioner. next speaker. >> rick hall, cultural action network. we have a very good balanced, planning commission at this time. knowledge and experience, people with judgment that are reasoned and fair and recognize that planning is not just about buildings, but about people and community. both commissioner richards and moore exceed my expectations in all of those areas. commissioner richards is well-read, always brings new

information to commissioner comment that is relevant and stimulating. he asks thoughtful questions and brings the right issues to discussion and judgments. commissioner moore brings her rich design perspectives based on her back ground world travels and also is very thoughtful in discussions and judgments and both bring a human quality. thank you. >> supervisor safai: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i want to associate myself with the comments of the people before me and want to thank the -- i appreciate the reappointment of all the commissioners. they all bring their own perspectives. and even though they're closer than some than others, i appreciate the appointment of everyone. thank you.

>> supervisor safai: thank you. next speaker. >> i'm jim orshell, i'm representing van ness neighborhood groups and victoria alliance, of which i'm president. on behalf of those groups, i'd like to heartily endorse both commissioner richards and katherin moore's reappointment. anyone who attended katherin moore's board of supervisors meeting where she was acknowledged sees what her outstanding qualities are, recognized by her peers. she represents experienced professionalism and commitment. dennis, unbelievable openness, accessibility, preparation and caring. as a d.b.i. commissioner, i look forward to working with