[inaudible] >> okay. so couple billion dollars, really? 'cause when i look at three -- one, three, five year returns, it's real assets is the category that's really driving it. all that shows is private equity is sort of detracted. i don't consider that could be correct because of the benchmarking issue. it's really private equity and real assets that have been lifting us up above everyone else. >> yeah. i mean, you had an earlier commitment to that than others did, and it's been a good asset class, and you've executed within that extraordinarily well. >> and even the stuff that was moved over for the private equity energy, and some of these investments have done quite well. >> okay. thank you. that's all i have. any other questions from the board? commissioner driscoll? >> let me start.

page 57, it only shows three month returns. they've been longer. maybe we can show longer numbers or footnote that because they were hired pursuant to a hiring somebody on -- what do you call, numbers -- they were unreal numbers. that wasn't about berk -- >> in fact, joe, on that, if you looked at the small caps there, you notice in the small cap category, you under performed and all the managers did better, and that's because biviam is in the result but no longer a manager. >> let's hope that's a closed chapter. on page 32, the scatter diagram, on page 2, the question -- all the little dots, is that previous pension funds. >> each of those is a fund

greater than $1 billion in value. >> the circles change size, and then, you can see a progression over time. i don't know if that's possible to do, but what we're trying to figure out, are we getting better risk management or not, trying to move to the upper left. >> it does not show that. >> does not show that, but is that a possibility, trying to improve that report. >> that is a possibility. >> page 25, the thing about that, yes, we look very efficient. the question the board may want to ask ourselves is whether or not we want to take on more risk. we look very efficient. that's great, but we actually need to produce returns, so again, this is a result, but whether or not we should take or could take on more risks, and we are doing some more shifting, that's why i bring that point up. that's a wonderful chart, but that's a result as opposed to -- >> but again, the whole output of your approval of an asset

allocation is indeed an expression of the level of risk you think you should be taking. so that indeed is a representation of the asset allocation that this board chose to have. a lot of folks are asking the question, those that have been very low risk, should we be taking more risk, and i think the -- the few is for many, yes, but not now in terms of more equity exposure because of the relatively high valuations in equity. >> again, i'm not saying we should, we maybe it indicates we could or could not. >> i just want to go back, page 25, any way you could improve this table, table 2 and 3, and put the performance numbers on the same parts 2 and 3? the numbers -- they're up in table 1, but if you put it in 2 and 3, then, these would match up to 2 and 3, the floating bar

charts that you have. is that something you can do? >> yes. >> seeing the performance number in the same table with standard deviation rank, etc., etc., it could help. thank you. >> yeah, any comments. there's massive amounts of data. we try to keep it down to something that -- but any suggestions on things to add or add more understanding, we're happy to entertain. >> okay. thank you very much. why don't we open it up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to address the commission regarding item number 7. seeing none, we'll close public comment. any comments from the board? seeing none, we'll close the item. call item number 8. >> item 8, report on managers under review. >> can i -- i'll just say that right off the bat, some of these, they've been here for a while, and in some sort of --

some some of t in some of the instances, it's maybe things that are not their fault, so if you prefer time sake, just focus on any changes or new developments or any new concerns. >> absolutely. there are no changes to this list. as you acknowledge, these four that have been on the list -- or i should say, last time we met, we removed a number of them off the list for a variety of reasons. they had been on for sometime. these four, two equity, two fixed income, tno changes. we continue to have a dialogue with them. each of them has a quality bias relative to their index. we have a convertible manager, we have a small company international manager, a high yield manager, and a multifamily housing manager. each of them run portfolios that have higher quality relative that are indexes and as a consequence, they have

under performed. not terribly, so we keep an open dialogue. it's our preference that we keep ahold of them. that is we're keeping them on the list and not taking any actions on these. >> questions? >> i would accept that comment about every one except fidelity. maybe their selection program is not so great. >> what is common among all of these is the under performance through their numbers, the vast majority of these four, including fidelity, occurred in 2016. and the reasons for that is that index, the rise in the index in 2016 i believe was due to commodity producers, so you may have a comment or a view on -- on fidelity. our view is their approach has

been consistent. most of this performance occurred in 2016. >> just leave you with a question which i've asked about some other things, other items in the past, are these really the best indexes for comparison? >> for these four, they are. they're the best available. >> okay. so you don't think there's -- there's another way to look at who they should be compared to? >> okay. thank you very much. why don't we open it up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to address the commission on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. any other questions or thoughts? seeing none, we'll close item 8. double-checking, i think we have -- did you want to come forward for item 15. >> 15, discussion item, deferred compensation manager

report. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am aware of the hour, so i will try to make this as brief as possible. item 15 covers the monthly activity report. if there are no questions of the monthly activity report, i'd like to proceed with the rest of my report. >> please. >> i wanted to inform you that next monday, on september 19, prudential plans to issue a website survey that's going to go out to all their plan participants. we were not consulted on whether or not this was going to happen. this was something that they do on a global level, so just want to inform you on that. there is ae no current end date for this website survey. what's going to happen is when somebody logs onto the website, a random 30% will see this link on the website. after they complete the survey, it will be hidden for 45 days but then it'll show up again randomly, so it's possible that a person who was initially

asked to take the survey will potentially be asked to take it again. i have asked if we'll get the results of the survey particularly to our plan participants that responded, and i was informed that was not possible. i just wanted to inform the board about this participant experience that's coming up next week to make sure that you're aware. >> and to that, i would just say, we should be doing our own survey. we shouldn't be relying on a third party to tell us how good or bad they're doing. >> since we're in the middle of an r.f.p., is this action by an incumbent something we should discourage. >> it's just a survey of how they're doing. >> i -- well, based on the public comment today, i'm not so sure that it -- i mean, the timing is -- >> suspect.

>> yeah. >> i mean, they said they were rolling it out on a global level. honestly, we can get the results later. if we continue to do business with prudential, fine. i don't think it's worth anybody's time. >> okay. i think it's a concern. there's been a lot of due diligence. [inaudible] >> that's a way of verifying that statement, so it would be a nonissue. >> it's a great idea. for me, it doesn't change how i make my decision, whether or not they're sending out a survey, and i don't think it changes how our participants view prudential. >> i don't know. >> yeah. i think it's a moot point, but thank you for the heads up. >> okay. onto the tprfp update. so i wanted to inform the board that the deferred compensation committee met on july 25 and authorized due diligence off-site, and so staff and consultant have consulted those

off-sites. all the items to complete the r.f.p. were actually received by midaugust, and so they were all complete in midaugust. since then, staff and consultants have worked very diligently in analyzing all those materials and have formed together a recommendation that will presented to the d.c.c. next wednesday. so the meeting for september 19 will occur at 10:00 a.m. to discuss the t.p. recommendation that staff has formed. >> and can i ask a question on that. to the extent a commissioner wanted to sit in the audience and hear the presentation only as a member of the public, are they able to do so? >> yes. >> okay. great. is there a way that we can send a note to the board just to let them know that's available, especially because of the politics surrounding this, but please just highlight there are constraints. >> certainly. i can send the e-mail out with -- we'll consult with --

robert has some comments. >> i think we should be careful with that. if that extra commissioner is going to constitute a quorum of the board, it would be best that they not make that appearance. >> but if they sit in the audience, are they not members of the public. >> yeah. just sit and not participate. >> yeah. they'd have to sit out in the audience. is that acceptable? no? >> we will send it out. >> okay. if you guys could just -- >> we've done it in the past and allowed commissioners who are not members of a committee to attend the meeting but not participate in the meeting. mean, they can't make public comment even as a member of the public, but they can sit and listen to what -- the presentation. >> only for educational purposes and obviously there are some unions and other things here today, and they seem to have an interest in this. so to the extent the other board members are interested and who like to hear the presentations from staff, would we please just let them know

that they can, but there are some restriction zb. >> sure, and certainly, the interested parties that express they want to have input, we will be posting the agenda for the deferred comp committee meeting on friday on our website so they will know that they can come to that meeting and it's planned probably in october the committee's recommendation before the full board which will be a second opportunity for participants or groups to have input into the final decision, so we'll make sure that's published. >> thank you. >> sure. >> all right. so moving onward, i wanted to inform the board, as well, that in october we have some marketing and outreach plans. if you look at page 9 in the materials in item 15, you will see the october education initiative. the first one includes a campaign that we do every year. they have a national security

retirement week. as a reminder, this is something that was petitioned by negda and it's been very successful with planned sponsored on joining in this on an annual basis. this year, it will be happening between october 21 and 27 of the national retirement security week, and the timing this is timely, and it's designed to actually occur simultaneously with on-line enrollment -- open enrollment as employees tend to be in a benefit state of mind. as people are thinking of their benefits, we want them to think about their retirement benefits as well, and this is a good time to inform them of what options they have with deferred compensation. we're going to do another education seminar this year in october to piggyback all of our nrsw efforts. this year, we're going to

position retirement plans as your whole story, where we're going to have people actually look over the course of their life to see how long they are working in comparison to how long they're actually going to be in retirement. when you frame it in that way, people will then possibly realize that they could actually be living in retirement a lot longer than they were actually working. so planning on how to sustain that is really important and is a way for our employees to start thinking about their retirement planning. so we are excited about this education seminar. i've included a picture of what it looked like last year. commissioner driscoll was in attendance. it was standing room only, so we are looking forward to having another successful education campaign. >> is that staff and prudential or is that just staff? >> it is primarily driven by staff, and we do partner with prudential in helping create some of the materials and providing retirement counselors on-site to answer questions

related to the plan. >> okay. >>. [inaudible] >> thank you. why don't we open it up for general -- or public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to address the committee regarding this particular item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. anything further from the board? thank you so much. >> the chair of personnel is not here. should we just -- >> accept it as submitted. >> do we have to call and call for public comment if we accept as submitted? we'll just push that. 21 and 22, do you want to do today or do you want to push to a future point in time? >> i think we should probably try to do it today. you okay? how's everyone on time. >> if he does fast. >> you want to do them together or separately? [inaudible]

>> okay. let's call item number 21, please. >> item number 21, action item. review and approval of amendments to securities litigation policy. >> thank you, commissioners. so these are amendments to the 2005 security litigation policy which sets parameters for monitoring security litigation and evaluating and reporting on the litigation and options with sfers. the changes to the amendment basically includes a description of changes in u.s. security laws requiring purchases of stocks on foreign exchanges or other nondomestic means, to pursue claims for damages in the country in which the stocks were purchased by filing or joining litigation in that country, and then makes the following three amendments: based on the efficient and effective use of resources, potential cost risk and potential for recovery, the amendments increase the threshold for evaluating

whether to join as a lead plaintiff in domestic litigation from 2 million to $5 million. and secondly inkpraess the threshold by evaluating whether to join litigation in a foreign country from 2 million to $5 million. and then, the third substantive amendment would be to authorize the executive director to make decisions to implement litigation strategy after consulting with the city attorney's office and the president or acting president if a regular meeting or a special meeting cannot be convened promptly or timely and then report the decision back to the board at the next regularly scheduled meetings. those are essentially the amendments. you have a red line copy of the policy in your documents that shows all the other smaller amendments that are involved. >> i have a question. does this mean our executive

director can choose an outside attorney should he find that that need develops, to consult on sfers matter snz. >> well, the next step, the next item would be an r.f.p. for selection of counsel to do the monitor and evaluation. under the policy, you would approve a list of counsel that can do the monitoring and evaluating, so you would basically give your consent to a list of counsel. >> but there's also a request for qualifications for a list of folks who would represent us in the litigation which again is through the city attorney's office and that's going to be coming up probably later this year, where we're going to go out again for a request -- or the city attorney's going to go out for a request for qualifications. so to answer your question, if i give the go ahead that we want to pursue, the city attorney selects among the litigation folks on the list of

who they would assign that to. >> right. but you would approve the list of -- in advance. >> but who makes the decision who you go to? you have the choice to go to -- >> no. >> don't we want to give him the choice? >> can i ask my question? it'll only confuse what you're trying to do. >> if i read the next section, it says the office will decide. who is the office? the office is the city attorney, not the board. >> right. right. >> so that's where the confusion comes down. who's going to decide who goes on the list? you may say both, but then, who picks which firm on the list? >> -- this is -- this is city attorney business, and it has historically been city attorney business, to go out -- they're the only ones who can engage legal counsel to represent a department. it might be over stating it or simplifying it. so they go out, they conduct the r.f.p.'s, they conduct the

r.f.q.'s. they come back to us with a list of folks who will handle security litigation monitoring, securities litigation, should we engage, as well as just general investment related legal work, and there's a list of, what, five firms that previously -- that this board approved. >> four firms for the monitoring. >> no, i'm talking about the investment. >> the transaction work, we'll probably choose eight firms. >> well, we currently have -- no, i'm talking about regular work, not securities litigation. >> we're talking about the scope of your office. so the cope of your office is security -- scope of your office is securities litigation monitoring irm firms, securities litigation, and then transactional lists, which is

currently five. >> we have actually a list of eight transactional firms, but we're currently using four. >> but they make the decisions -- there has been an instance where i've requested that they switch to another firm, and they did, you know, they -- they went and did that at my request. >> have they switched the firms when we did not make a request? >> if we -- if we believe that a firm is not performing, then we wouldn't continue with the firm, we would -- yet, we would make a switch at that point. >> that didn't exactly answer any question. have they switched firms who were performing? >> well, they've -- they've dropped people from the list over the years, if that's your question, from people who have been working with the system for a number of years through the prior qualifications, but they have dropped firms that, you know, to a certain extent, create --

we have working relationships with those firms. they know our business, they know us, but it's their list, and so -- >> i think you said we approve the list. >> well, the board approves the list. >> but then, they drop somebody off the list. did we approve the firm being dropped? >> it doesn't work that way. you approve their results of the evaluation of an r.f.q. or r.f.p., and -- >> well, we have a pool of attorneys. we have the power to select from that pool, the attorneys that we think will best perform the work. if we are working with an attorney, a law firm, and we decide that the law firm is not doing the job, then we'll go to another firm or attorney to finish doing the work. >> we need to clarify, which i think i mentioned before, under our rules of reference, we have

rules how to deal with vendors. this may have to be its own separate term. just a little language clarification in general about this issue in general of the city attorney picks our attorneys when this is their unique relationship, that problem will continue forever. >> and we don't consider the city attorney's legal services, including the extended services with outside counsel under the service provider policy of the board because the board plays no part in selecting who gets on the list or selecting whether it's the city attorney we would like to hire. it's determined by the charter, and so all the board does is have the ability to approve a renewal of the list. >> we just fill it out to blms

who will -- board members who will understand, even though we get to vote on the list. >> certainly. >> yeah. and -- right. >> thank you. >> sure. >> this is an action item. call and see if there's a motion in a moment. in the meantime, are there any members of the public that would like to address the commission regarding this item? seeing none, i'll close public comment. >> i have a question. >> please. >> have we been in a situation where we've been in conflict, the board has been in conflict where we would have wants to -- waunds to seek outside counsel, and what did we do? >> that is spelled out in the charter. >> yes. and what we did was we approached the city attorney. we believed there was a conflict of interest. some of us believe there's an

inherent conflict of interest with the city attorney representing the plan sponsor and then representing the retirement system, but in this specific case, it was the protector of benefits case. and the city attorney, although -- and i will say, he's always been available to help us accommodate any special requests like this. he didn't want to admit that there was -- he believed that there was a conflict, but he did allow us to engage outside counsel, and we were able to influence the outside counsel that we wanted to hire that we felt might be the most qualified, so the city attorney has been very receptive. >> we have an agreeable city attorney right now, but how do

we right this in what we're dealing with today to address that. >> well, the charter sets out how we deal with conflicts with the city attorney's office, and that's the process that was followed.

[inaudible] >> certainly. >> so this is an action item. >> and i move to adopt the policy as amended. >> second. >> there's a motion and a second. any discussion? we take this item without objection? item passes. item 22, please. >> item number 22, action item. review and approval of r.f.p. for portfolio monitoring and securities litigation evaluation and reporting. >> so on this item, i'll be brief, we currently have on the contract four law firms to monitor the sfers investment portfolio and evaluate and report on securities litigation. those contracts will be expiring at the end of march of next year, and this r.f.p., it

basically seeks proposals from law firms to continue with the monitoring and evaluation. they would select the four firms, again, with contract terms of three years with two terms to extend for one year each. so the point is to replace the current monitoring firm that we have -- not to replace, necessarily, but once again, evaluate and select the best firms. >> thank you. this is an action item. does anybody have any why don'c

comment. are there any members of the public that would like to address the commission regarding this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. can we take this without objection? great. item passes. that was number 22. number 23. >> item number 23, discussion item, executive director's

report. >> yes. i wanted to reiterate that we have next wednesday, we have a deferred comp committee meeting at 10:00, and then, we also have an investment committee meeting starting at 1:00. we have a guest speaker, so out of courtesy for that speaker, as well as the other members of the committee, we ask you to try your best to be punctual and be here at 1:00. i think it's going to be a very interesting speaker, and so we'd urge you to make best efforts to be here on time. and i want to change the third -- >> that's open session. >> that's an investment committee open session. my third and fourth bullet have changed since we published there. we are now going forward with a consolidated meeting on a regular board meeting date, october 10. we're proposing that we start at 12:00 instead of 1:00.

and that you would sort of strip down the regular monthly calendar to those items that really do need to be heard. so we anticipate the timeline to be something like from 12:00 to 1:30. we'd have closed session investment items. we'd call the fossil fuel report and recommendation for a time certain 3:00 pm m. and in the interim, we'd do the -- 3:00 p.m., and in the interim, we'd do the deferred comp record keeper recommendation between 2:30 and 3:00. >> so i had asked to survey the board availability to do this on a different date. this has the potential to be a very long meeting with an enormous amount of public speakers that goes hours and hours. i don't know how many board

members we're going to have, but for me to vote on the fossil fuels, minimum of six board members, i don't think it's good to proceed on a vote of anything fossil fuels with anything less than six board members. so let's survey the board, find out their availability for that date. i know at least one board member has sort of an availability time certain of needing to leave at 4:00. so let's try -- maybe we'll flush out some of those details where we commit to doing it all in one day. >> do we have any idea of how many people will show up? >> no. we can just go from the last time that we reported -- i mean, i was curious to see how many people would have read the agenda to see that we actually had additional divestment recommendation in front of the board of another $1 million which was twice as much as we divested from internal coal the first time around, and we

certainly did have supervisor avalos's -- former supervisor avalos's aide come and deliver a presentation to staff. but i anticipate we're going to have a full room, and that's why we're trying to figure out, in courtesy for their time, to give them a realistic time for them to show up and be heard. certainly, the last meeting was a rushed event, and a lot of folks were not able to make public comment on that. and so that's why i wanted to put it toward the end. >> is it allowed to set a certain time period for public comment, like, so you can't say five hours or three hours? >> no. if you give everyone two minutes, you have to give everyone two minutes. that's why everyone at the last meeting were asking people to waive their time for public comment. it got really messy really quickly.

probably saved us at least an hour timing wise. >> at least. >> but i think we had over 100 folks requesting the two-minute opportunity to speak. >> we can -- can we have it be less than two minutes? >> yes. >> regardless of what the time limit, is we just need to make sure it's equal time limit, correct? >> is one minute reasonable? >> we've done that on the board. >> one minute is now reasonable? >> it depends on the subject matter. it's in your discretion to decide it. i'm not going to say here that it's not reasonable. >> i feel like i've had some moving goal posts recently on some of these items. is one minute reasonable? so if we have 50 people, we'll make it one minute a person, so we're not here three hours. i don't think one minute a

person when you have three people is reasonable. >> should we put it at the ending. >> city attorney, i was told before, not to put you on the carpet that anything less than two minutes gets a little dicey. >> yeah, i said that and i'll stand by that, but ultimately, it's in your discretion, but yes, i stand by that. >> so if we have 100 people, and we give all of them a minute apiece, is that reasonable? can we do that? >> and the reason being that you -- that you have a meeting that's less than three hours? >> no, it's because it would be three hours of public comment. i mean that's an exceptionally long period of time for just public comment. >> yeah, so it depends on the context. if it's going to force a meeting that goes on extraordinarily long, and you think they can comment appropriately in one minute, then that could be reasonable. >> okay. let's follow up. >> within the context, and when you tell them that they have a minute, if you're changing it

from three minutes, then, you let them know why. >> okay. so jay, we'll follow up offline on that. so just note for the board that the 10th, things are a little bit in flux and we'll get you an answer soon. >> okay. the other announcement i would like to make is that we just have had the auditors, the independent auditors, they're doing their preliminary work with the department there, here, and this is the -- i think this is the five year that we've had the same auditor, and that they'll be issuing their report close to november and december. and with that, i'll invite any questions that you might have. >> no questions? okay. we'll open it up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to address the commission regarding this item. seeing none, we'll close public

comment. thank you for item number 23. actually, i do have one question. trying to find a way to be more efficient here at the board level, and one of the things that you and i have talked about is not always having a report every single month on all the items, trying to make them quarterly, in terms of comments from board members and committee reports, is there a way we can try to aggregate these things, instead of having ten reports on travel, can we have them quarterly or annual? >> you take them as submitted, any way. >> we'll look at it offline, but let's get -- if we can consolidate some of these things and reduce the agenda, let's do it. >> we put it on the consent? >> the conference reports, right, could be on consent. >> let's find a way to hash

some of these things out. so we'll call -- that's item 23. item 24, retirement board, good of the order. >> item 24, retirement board, discussion of the board, good of the order. >> in the interest of time, is next month is a better time, i would then give my comments about retirement seminars, the annual letters that i received my copy recently, the annual letter, i'm going to make somement coulds about, again, this issue we talk 99% of the time about information, when this service, information, educating our members about preparing them for retirement. i think we should talk about that a little bit to include just giving a positive report about what staff did at the seminar as well as what this staff does. >> as a selling point to be future chair of the finance committee, it's going to be

evolving into a retirement operations over sight committee, so it's a very exciting time for any members of the committee to volunteer to chair that because you can actually set the stage in terms of reference for that committee going forward. >> well, we have three members on that committee. we will try to sell one of them on it. okay. thank you very much, everyone. we'll call for public comment. is there anyone who'd like to address the commission regarding this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment, and anything else we will push to the next meeting that we missed. thank you very much. meeting adjourned.

>> please welcome, canyon sayers

roots. [♪] [speaking indigenous language] >> it is still very important to recognize the indigenous peoples , histories of these spaces and places that we occupy in today's postcolonial secular settler society. it is important that we recognize we have a

responsibility to the earth. indigenous peoples have been stewards of the land for thousands and thousands of years i am honored to be present here that you acknowledge that. i am here to offer a song. my mother and grandmother believe that one song and ceremony and dancing stops, so does the earth. i too believe that and i would like to offer this song. without that we would not be here. we share this time and space together for a reason. it is with humility and gratitude and present mindedness that i welcome you here to our territory. [singing]

>> can i hear a good '02 send that out in a good way? we have a responsibility to the earth. we need to ensure safety. don't support carbon trading and please keep the fossil fuels in the soil. honor our mother earth and our father sky and our next generation. [cheers and applause] [♪] >> please welcome our master of ceremonies, the head of communications for bloomberg, linda douglas. [♪]

>> hello and welcome to the global climate action summit. i am honored and humbled to be here in san francisco was such extraordinary leaders from around the world. these are leaders from every sector, every industry, business , government, technology , philanthropy, entrepreneurs and artists, inventors, investors, scientists and students. all united by a common goal. the goal of protecting the people who live on our planet by confronting the existential threat of climate change. we are off to an auspicious start. on saturday, tens of thousands of citizens around the world march to demand greater climate action to fulfil the promises made three years ago in paris. our task becomes more urgent every day. can this summer, temperatures, once again reached record highs. people are dying as wildfires burned their houses to the

ground. they are starving as droughts destroy their crops. hurricanes and other disasters have claimed thousands of lives. displacing entire populations causing billions and billions of dollars in damage. of course, at this very moment, hurricane florence is bearing down on the eastern seaboard and already one and a half million people have been told to evacuate their homes. florence is said to bring 50% more rainfall due to climate and human -induced climate change. meanwhile, tropical storm olivia is sweeping across hawaii. since the start of the hurricane season, this is an astonishing number, there have been eight other named storms in the atlantic and 14 more in the pacific. here in california, more than a dozen different wildfires are tearing across the state. so now is not the time for us to rest. this year marks the halfway point between the adoption of

the paris agreement and 2020. a critical moment when carbon emissions must peak if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change. by mid century, we must be carbon neutral. these are ambitious goals. by the speakers you will be hearing from over the next few days are working hard to achieve them. it won't be easy and the solutions won't be perfect. we are learning by doing. as we undertake a more radical shift in our global economy that has ever been previously undertaken. we will make mistakes and we will see some failures along the way. but we cannot and we will not back away from this fight. so all of you here today and all of you watching around the world are proof that we will not back away from this fight. please join me in welcoming someone who is heading the way right here in san francisco. the newly elected mayor of san francisco, london breed. [♪] [cheers and applause]

>> mayor breed: hello, everyone. is my distinct pleasure to welcome all of you to san francisco for this incredible, a global climate action summit. we are united here today to take action on the defining issue of our time. protecting our environment and fighting against climate change. this is an issue that is bigger than one city, one region or country. the choices and commitments we make over the next few days and are sustained cooperation will determine if we are able to lead a better future for the next generation. california has long been a leader on climate action and san francisco has been at the forefront of those efforts. since 1990, we have reduced our greenhouse gas emissions by 30%

and cut our landfill disposal in half. all while growing our economy by 111%. [cheers and applause] >> mayor breed: we are proof that you can have a strong and growing economy while advancing ambitious environmental policies we were the first major safety to ban single use plastic bags and i pushed legislation to establish the strongest set -- styrofoam ban and enact drug takeback policies to test 40 tons of prescription medication out of our bay and landfill. [cheers and applause] and our 100% renewable energy program, clean power s.f., has produced and resulted in greenhouse gas reductions, equivalent to taking 17,000 cars off our roads.

by the year 2030, we are committing to for major initiatives in san francisco. cutting our landfill waste in half. decarbonization all new buildings, achieving 100% renewable energy and continuing to issue more green bonds to finance critical infrastructure that is desperately needed to combat climate change. today, thank you. [applause] >> mayor breed: today i ask you to join us. the impacts of climate change are not constrained by borders. our actions shouldn't be either. let's send the world a bold message of action, unity and determination. together we can go further to protect our planet and our people for generations to come. thank you all so much for being here and enjoy your time in san francisco. [cheers and applause]

>> when i open up the paper every day, i'm just amazed at

how many different environmental issues keep popping up. when i think about what planet i want to leave for my children and other generations, i think about what kind of contribution i can make on a personal level to the environment. >> it was really easy to sign up for the program. i just went online to cleanpowersf.org, i signed up and then started getting pieces in the mail letting me know i was going switch over and poof it happened. now when i want to pay my bill, i go to pg&e and i don't see any difference in paying now. if you're a family on the budget, if you sign up for the regular green program, it's not going to change your bill at all. you can sign up online or call. you'll have the peace of mind knowing you're doing your part in your household to help the environment.

>> president cohen: i'd like to bring the chamber to order. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. i want to welcome everybody to the chamber. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: i want to welcome you to the september 11, 2018 meeting for the san francisco board of supervisors. i'd like to be able to conduct this, and i'd like everyone to remain in the chamber. thank you for being with us today. madam clerk, could you please call the roll