the ability to participate in some longer dated opportunities. liquidity provision and strategies like mortgages and structured credit that would require some relaxation of some of the constraints. so one thing to focus -- to consider, is maybe the board should consider harmonizing some of the guidelines on leverage, potentially even increasing those guidelines and relaxing some of the guidelines on liquidity. >> president stansbury: some of the takeaways here is the programs are a little more than twice as much or right at twice as much in an up market as it has in a down market. bonds are about flat during this period, just a little bit better than that, and have lost money 12 out of 27 months, the program's made 2 out of 27. in 2018, 70/30 did lose 6.5,

60/40 would have lost 5.5. this program lost 1.5. for the liquid markets, this has been really additive in terms of completing the -- the risk adjusted returns when you consider the outlook for bond returns is very low, and stocks, as we know, are very volatile. >> i just wanted to make one more comment before we take your questions, and this is to connect back to one of the points that allen made in his presentation around the total plan performance, particular for 2018 calendar year performance, allen mentioned the impact of our asset allocation changes, and one of the fundings, one of the quarters of funding that we reflected on that page in

staff's presentation, where we identified the pace and the evolution of funding, the absolute return program by quarter, in q1 of 2018 to be effective january 1st of 2018, staff funded slightly more than $1 billion of additional absolute return exposure, and the majority of the funding for that, the majority of where the liquidity came from, was by selling our equity investments, and if you take a look at the margin of performance difference between what our global equity portfolio delivered in 2018 and what the absolute return portfolio delivered was 900 basis points of difference there. if you do the math on that, that's about $100 million of value reserved. >> president stansbury: board members, questions? >> questions from the board?

>> 13? >> david's presentation. >> page 13, this is combined, right? >> okay, that's enough for now, thank you. >> president stansbury: other questions from the board? >> very thorough. answers a lot of questions. >> president stansbury: i would open up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to address the commission on this item? >> i'd just like to say that hedge funds are a high risk, low return, high cost, long-term investment and you should follow the lead of the state of new

jersey pension funds, new york city pension funds and divest from them. the main selling point you were given, hedge funds, is go in the down market and we are going to have a down market. all hedge funds do is 2008. average hedge funds lost between 18% and 20%. even on the bonds, less risk, run of the mill hedge funds last 21% and -- top hedge fund manager, the average about 2.5% return over that ten-year period and the s&p 500, which was the recommendation, 8.5% return. so if you want to invest in

2008, a million dollars -- and by the way, they were all funded bonds, which was supposed to be electricity. if you would have invested $1 million, you would have had a return of about $250,000. [ indiscernible ] . you should have divested years ago. >> president stansbury: thank you very much. seeing no other members of the comment, we'll close public comment. >> final one, i can take the answer offline, but i'm curious for david to come back at some point to talk more about the considerations that we should be making going forward. so that would be something i'd be interested to hear. >> we're actually prepared to do that at next month's board meeting.

>> i know this is a little bit of a hypothetical, but if you just did a back of an envelope analysis of where we are today on our exposure, versus where we would like to be when we're fully funded, do you have a sense for maybe how we might have performed, say, given during 2018 or these moments of market dislocation? correction? >> i have a thought. >> yeah. there's a little bit of backward-looking selection in there, obviously. >> president stansbury: of course, of course. >> and one of the areas that in our existing investments that performed quite well during q4 were our quantitative investments, and this part of the reason why you see that in our key initiatives, and, you know, some of bam's comments, as

well, that we look to increase our investments in quantitative strategies on an absolute basis but also look to add one or more managers and one or more strategies to increase the diversification on the portfolio. >> president stansbury: i'm sorry, you say did well in q4? >> our quantitative managers did, yeah. >> president stansbury: comparatively speaking. >> correct. for example, looking here on page 13, i agree with david. i think if we'd been fully implemented, we would have run the margin better. for example, stated we planned to reduce our equity exposure. we see that in 2018 we were down 7.5% in the equity part of this book, and we planned an increase quantity and that was flat. so what did that mean? say we had a -- we were 5%

overweight equity relative to target, if we'd replaced that negative 7.5% with zero, returns would have been about 38 basis points better. >> president stansbury: how would you -- how would you rate your satisfaction with where we are, if you had to score yourself? simplistic question, but are you -- would you rate us an a, rate us a b-plus, how would you grade us? >> probably b to b +, but i'm a pretty firm grader. take that into consideration. in terms of the program, i would give us an a. we've absolutely delivered on

all the expectations we've set there. we utilized the strategic relationship to the fullest extent possible in order to get to this point in the program, and the results speak to that, you know, both at the absolute return program level but also at the plan level in terms of getting this allocation in place prior to the q4 of 2018 when we experienced the biggest market dislocation that we've had in the last ten years. but as allen mentioned, you know, there's some luck in the timing of that and the board making its decisions when it did and what staff was able to do in the time period from when that decision was made on the asset allocation to when we were able to have the capital in place. but, you know, in executing the build out, an a. in being able to execute on the composition, the portfolio construction, and getting all of

those processes in place and our ability to optimally source, recommend, and monitor all of the relationships that we have in place, we still have some work to do there, so that's why i would grade that slightly lower. >> president stansbury: seems to me maybe the rate at which you built out the program really has a greater attribution to our probably our returns and maybe -- no? >> we have outperformed the hedge fund index by 1.8%, so -- but the asset allocation effect, you can look at it. it's tactical from the point of view that from the time it was approved we got it done relatively quickly, and that just turned out to be fortuitous, but it was also planned. we did this specifically to achieve more alpha and to considerably reduce the impact caused by negative markets on our funded status.

>> i guess maybe what i'm saying is that thank you very much for working so hard to get this done. i think part of our concern as a board and your concern and staff was we felt we were entering a point of time in the market where maybe there was going to be some movement and you were able to execute, get some things done and get our equity allocation down, and, obviously, that shows. so thank you to david, to you, and to bill for even getting us on the agenda in the first place, which was, i think, really extraordinary effort it took to finally get this done. little bit of a rough road, but we got there. i think our returns speak for itself, so thank you very much for everything. >> it's the returns and it's the risk profile. again, the goal, and we look at this in a portfolio context. and absolute returns contribution in a portfolio context. again, we're designed to do two

things, earn high long-term returns and minimize the impact caused by a large market decline. if i were to grade this, i'd say in terms of asset allocation and the like it would be an a. i'd say in terms of, you know, manager selection probably more in the b plus range. the equity returns, i expect a couple of these managers are going to bounce back pretty darn good, but, you know, we do have an a-rated quant manager and lineup, and in terms of portfolio construction, it's always going to be a little messy when you have two partners. one is going to build a diversified portfolio, the other is going to do the same thing, so when you put it together, you could be overdiversified, so our goal is to get down from 33 into something that every manager is

impactful in a portfolio context. >> president stansbury: anything else from the board? okay, i'll just say it's been a little bit of a long and bumpy road at times, but we finally got here. thank you, everyone. i think it's been well worth everyone's time and effort. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> president stansbury: okay. why don't we go to item no. 13. >> clerk: no. 13, discussion item. chief investment officer report. >> board members, we made a little over 1% in the month of february, and now in just two months we're up almost 5%. quite a rebound. and on a fiscal year basis we're a little over 3%. i'd imagine that we're still probably outperforming the median public pension plan by about 3% or close to that on a fiscal year basis.

if we can turn to, real quick, to the narrative, i did include some charts here to show, beginning on page 2, that show our ranking returns by asset class. i don't think we're ever going to see 111 again over one, three, and five years. i'd love to be proven wrong, but we're not set up really to do that if there's a major market rally. again, our absolute returns are going to look great, but our relative ranking would not look so great. i would like to point out the risk adjusted returns. they are all in the top 5%, 6%, meaning the sharp ratio and the sortino ratio. alpha, we talked about the difference between alpha returns and beta returns. our alpha returns, again, ranking in the top 6% or better.

i did want to draw special attention to real assets, in that our returns here over the last five years are the highest ranked returns in the universe of real assets, so special recognition to chris and to ed for the returns and the partnerships that they have posted and built in the real assets program. i do want to move, real quickly, to the closings here, beginning on page 6. aubrey, which is a flagship manager that we've had, mid cap buyout strategy, we asked for $50 million and we did get $50 million. serverus we asked for $50 million, and this was a distressed loan strategy. we did get the $50 million. gen star, a new relationship in the buyout strategy, we asked

for $75 million. kind of anticipated it would be a little difficult to do, but we did get $75 million there. new mountain also a new relationship in private credit. we asked for $50 million. we were allocated $50 million. the rise fund, we did ask for $100 million at the january board meeting. it closed at the end of february for $100 million. i do have some newsworthy item related to the academic misgivings that were filed by the justice department yesterday, is that the founder and the portfolio manager, the cio for the rise fund, was implicated in that. he has been put on administrative leave by tpg. he is the head of their tpg growth strategy. the team has met with tpg this

morning. there's nothing really more that we can say right now. bill mcglashen, the cio, bill's leave or even departure, should that happen, is not enough alone to cause the key man clause. that is one of two causes, both on a stand-alone basis it does not. and so we're monitoring this very carefully. and we will update you as soon as we have further information. you might recall the tpg rise fund is a fund that emphasizes social and environmental concerns in making investments. personnel. i believe i announced last month, ian, and he is with us, luke angus joined us shortly

after the february board meeting. you'll see his credentials. he's got quite a bit of extensive academic and work experience for someone of such youth. i think of that as youth nowadays in my place in life, and we do have a couple of openings, the managing director of private markets, as well as a security analyst for real assets. those positions are opened. at least one, we think, is very, very close to being closed. and commissioner chu, we have not forgotten about your request to calendar the items. the last month was extraordinarily busy. i anticipated that, so at the february board meeting i said we'd anticipate getting this to you in april, and we still hope to do that. the investment committee meeting has been calendared for april 17th. we do have an agenda that we need to put forth to that.

that concludes the cio report and we'll turn it over to board for any questions or comments. >> thank you, bill, and welcome, luke. board emembers, any questions? >> where's luke at? stand up. good color, my wife will appreciate it. >> any questions from board members? seeing none, public comment. any members of the public wish to discuss item no. 13? seeing none, we'll close public comment. and with that, turn it back over. >> president stansbury: okay, anything else from the board? all right, thank you very much. mr. huish, where would you like to go? >> executive director huish: item 14, travel report. wouldn't mind if you accepted as presented. >> president stansbury: take it as presented. any members of the public that would like to address the commission regarding this item? seeing none, close public comment. anything from the board? great. item no. 18, please.

>> clerk: item no. 18, executive director's report, discussion item. >> executive director huish: you have deadlines coming up before the next meeting for your form 700 filings, as well as your ethics training. so far we've gotten a report from one board member who has completed their online filings, and as commissioners, you will need to file online. also we provided you copies of the audited financials that were released at the end of february. the representatives of the audit firm will be here next month to be a formal presentation. we're very proud. this is the 19th year where we have had a clean audit without any kind of management issues or deficiencies identified through the audit. and then finally, i provided you sort of a synopsis of one of the california supreme court decisions that everyone's been watching related to the

california rule. this one was the first one through, we think by design. it was related to air time and the changes to calpers law that provided air time. the supreme court dealt with it very cleanly, basically saying that was never a promise during employment. it was just an opportunity. shutting that opportunity down doesn't violate the constitution, and they never got to the issue of whether it was a vested benefit or not. the next case we're watching is an alameda case that does deal with components of pay that are included in calculation of benefits, so it's a closer one to the california rule, and so there's no oral arguments set in that case, to my knowledge, although the briefing has been

complete. so we continue to watch these cases. they are very important, both to the city, as well as to employees related to the power or the authority of a planned sponsor or an employer to reduce benefits or to somehow limit benefits that have been previously provided. but we thought that you'd be interested in at least a synopsis of this. >> president stansbury: thank you for that. i know it's received a lot of attention. why don't we open up for public comment. anything from the public? seeing none, we'll close public comment. any questions from the board? okay. seeing none, why don't -- do you want to go -- >> executive director huish: actually, the one thing i would say is that for -- staff is going to make ourselves available over the next month to talk through any questions that people have individually related to the proposed department budget.

we'd be happy to provide background information, answer any questions, and so we'll be reaching out most likely the end of this week or next week to try and set up a time so that we can, you know, brief folks on where we are with the budget and what the budget looks like. so we'll be calling. you don't have to be briefed if you don't want to be briefed, but we're certainly offering the briefing. >> president stansbury: thank you. there have been some increases in the budget, so we'll have some questions about particular line items. anything else from the board? mr. huish? okay, great. do you want to go back to item no. 9, managers under review? or do you want to continue it? >> executive director huish: we have time. we can do item no. 9. >> yeah, perhaps they can just share with us if there's been any major changes. >> president stansbury: why don't we call item no. 9 then, please.

>> clerk: item no. 9, discussion item. report on managers under review. >> kirk, can you give a salient report? >> sure. as you know, provide the board with details regarding status of public managers under review. there were no managers added to the list. we removed one earlier by way of action we took with fidelity. the rest of the status and our diligence and discussions are detailed in the memos that we provided you. >> president stansbury: expect any action on the managers in the near future? >> potentially. >> president stansbury: great. great, why don't we open it up for public comment? any members of the public that would like to address the commission regarding this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. anything from the board? great. thank you for item no. 9. as a matter of record, item no.

16 was continued. only item we have left is item no. 19, please. >> clerk: no. 19, discussion item. retirement board member good of the order. >> president stansbury: anything from the board? >> commissioner driscoll: make one comment. there's a couple groups that write about what's going on in the public apprentice sector area at length. one is the -- i forget the official name, but connected to the boston college in boston. there's another group called the pew group, pew research. one of the recent white papers they published, and they put it out, connected to harvard, i think it's a branding trick, because the people who wrote it are not actually professors at harvard, but they used a harvard, like others use a

stanford research stationery, but i had an opportunity to talk to our coordinator about the stress tests that they did, and they used ten public funds, ten different states, basically, and the method they did to come to the conclusion of the stress test, the method they used was different than what we do or cheiron does and focused on the local economy, local jurisdiction, their economy's ability to pay. i won't say that's a wrong question, but it's not the way we phrase the question. the question is, what is our ability to collect contributions and earn investment returns to meet our contribution goals? that's how we invest. i won't say it's a fair or smarter way of doing it, but sometimes i see another headline, it has a way of blanketing, making it look like all public pension funds are doing something wrong, and that analysis, i think, was incorrect the way they did it and i would

say in case anybody challenged you on it, be prepared to stand up and show what cheiron and our own process has done to prove why, particularly -- not typically the city of san francisco, but the taxpayers in san francisco, the methodologies we use and the stress tests that we use going way out into the future shows that we're running a very solid firm and we're not taking the wrong kind of risks, not doubling down on our economy in an imprudent way. so, again, that's if you read those kind of articles, i just made a point to find out comparing our stress tests compared to what that pew research group has been doing. >> president stansbury: anything else from the board? please, commissioner chu. >> commissioner chu: i would just want to add my appreciation for the work of board member wendy paskin-jordan. i'm not sure if we typically do and acknowledge the service or the length of time that she's

put into it, but i certainly appreciated having working with her the last five, six months or so and have learned a lot from her conversations and her knowledge base. and i certainly want to make sure that comment and that sentiment of thanks and appreciation is expressed publicly. >> also i'd like to say that she has been a great person to work with and great colleague. >> president stansbury: i will just say that when i got on the board in 2012, if i look back to where we were there and where we are now, there's been quite a bit of change at the system, and it's due in large part to the people who come and work here every day. jay, you, bill, all the staff members. thank you for all the hard work that you've done. our returns, i think, speak for themselves. we don't always agree and see eye-to-eye on things and i think from time to time some of the

burdens we put on staff, i'm sure you'd love to do without, but just know that we see things maybe a little bit differently, but nonetheless, we're here where we are -- we are where we are today because of all the hard work of everyone who works here, not because of necessarily because of board members pontificating on things. that being said, i think commissioner paskin-jordan over the last several years has been a very important member of the board, sometimes on votes where the board didn't always see eye to eye on things, and all i can say is that the returns speak for themselves, and just want to thank her for her years of service. commissioner driscoll, i saw a hand? were you going to say something? >> commissioner driscoll: no, no, no. i was just going to say, i hope we have a opportunity to thank wendy more formally. >> president stansbury: okay, great, thank you very much, everyone. meeting adjourned.

>> hi. my name is carmen chiu, san francisco's elected assessor. when i meet with seniors in the community, they're thinking about the future. some want to down size or move to a new neighborhood that's closer to family, but they also worry that making such a change will increase their property taxes. that's why i want to share with you a property tax saving program called proposition 60. so how does this work? prop 60 was passed in 1986 to allow seniors who are 55 years and older to keep their prop 13 value, even when they move into a new home. under prop 13 law, property growth is limited to 2% growth a year. but when ownership changes the law requires that we reassess the value to new market value.

compared to your existing home, which was benefited from the -- which has benefited from the prop 13 growth limit on taxable value, the new limit on the replacement home would likely be higher. that's where prop 60 comes in. prop 60 recognizes that seniors on fixed income may not be able to afford higher taxes so it allows them to carryover their existing prop 13 value to their new home which means seniors can continue to pay their prop 13 tax values as if they had never moved. remember, the prop 60 is a one time tax benefit, and the property value must be equal to or below around your replacement home. if you plan to purchase your new home before selling your existing home, please make sure that your new home is at the same price or cheaper than your existing home.

this means that if your existing home is worth $1 million in market value, your new home must be $1 million or below. if you're looking to purchase and sell within a year, were you nur home must not be at a value that is worth more than 105% of your exist egging home. which means if you sell your old home for $1 million, and you buy a home within one year, your new home should not be worth more than $1.15 million. if you sell your existing home at $1 million and buy a replacement between year one and two, it should be no more than $1.1 million. know that your ability to participate in this program expires after two years. you will not be able to receive

prop 60 tax benefits if you cannot make the purchase within two years. so benefit from this tax savings program, you have to apply. just download the prop 60 form from our website and submit it to our office. for more, visit our website, sfassessor.org,

good morning. thank you all for being here and i'm happy to be join bid supervisor from district ten and our new director of the department of public health. also here are the people from my office working tirelessly to help protect another generation of san francisco youth from becoming addicted to ecigarettes. that has been lead my chief deputy and chief of strategic advocacy, sarah eeisneburg.

in december, the u.s. surgeon general, jerome adams, issued a warning of the epidemic of ecigarette use and called this a cause of great concern. know the risks, take action, protect our kids. he was absolutely correct and we're heeding that warning. today we are taking action to protect our young people. the steps we are taking are necessary and all the more urgent because another arm of the federal government has failed to do its job. the food and drug administration is the entity responsible for revealing new tobacco products to determine whether they are appropriate for the protection of public health. by law, before a new tobacco product goes to market, the fda is supposed to conduct a review to evaluate risks and benefits of the product on the population

as a whole. that's common sense. if the fda determines this poses a threat to public health, it should never hit the shelves. inexplicably, in the case of ecigarettes,s that has not happened. despite the fact in 2016, the fda deemed this a product subject to the jurisdiction. these products were on the street even though the premarket reviews have never been done. in fact, fda has given the ecigarette industry a pass. for no clear reason, they have given the nicotine companies until 2022 to apply for a premarket review. the result is that millions of children are already addicted to ecigarettes and millions more will follow if we don't act. until recently, we had made great strides in reducing youth tobacco use. the percentage of youth was an

all-time low in 2017. there had been a generation of success, kid wer kids were gettf of nicotine. but last year, according to the centre for disease control and prevention, tobacco use among youth rose for the first time since the 1990s. this dramatic reversal is directly attributable to the nation-wide surge in ecigarette use by talents. adolescentses. the use in 2016 increased 14% and 4.9 million america students reported they were using tobacco products up from 3.6 million students in 2016. use of ecigarettes increased by 27% for high school students and 48% for middle school students. nearly five million american

students were using tobacco products. that's a generation of kids, addicted kids facing lung cancer and heart disease and thousands will likely die of preventible diseases if we don't act and that's not high perso hyperbole. tobacco kills more than 480,000 people a year. that's more than aids, alcohol, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders and suicides combined. that is why we're acting now to reverse the tide of ecigarettes. let's be clear, they're product is addiction. they're in the business of getting people addicted or keeping them addicted. a relatively small number of adults may switch switc from ant

useful to turn another generation of kids into addicts and it's up to a government like san francisco to protect our children and today we are announcing we're taking four concrete step. first, san francisco along with the city of chicago and the city of new york sent a letter to the fda that demands that the fda do it's job. we are jointly telling fda to immediately conduct the required public health review of ecigarettes that by law was supposed to happen before these products were on the market. a companion letter includes a rey for the fda to turn over records to my servic office so n francisco can determine if we need to take legal action if they don't take the public required health review. second, we can't wait on the fda to act. so in coordination and partnership with supervisor walton and i want to thank him for his leadership and vision on this issue, we are introducing

today ground-breaking legislation at the board of supervisors to prohibit the sale in san francisco of any ecigarettes that has not undergone pre-fda market review. my ecigarette that has not received fda premarket review cannot be sold at a store in san francisco or bought online and shipped to a san francisco address. this is not an outright ban on ecigarettes. it's a prohibition against any ecigarettes. so far none have been through the review process required by law. this is a prudent step to know the health and safety implications of products sold here. if the fda has an not approved it and reviewed it, it shouldn't be sold in san francisco. third, on a more local level,

we're introducing a separate piece of legislation today, again in card natio in coordinah supervisor walton. this would protect the sale and manufacture of all products including in sanfrancisco, including port property. fourth, my office as part of our review of juuls, operations sent notice to juul seeking an explanation for why juul holds a license when it maintains it does not engage in sale or cigarette products on the premises. san francisco has never been afraid to leave and we're not afraid to do so when the health and lives of our children are on the line. with that, i would like to turn it over to supervisor walton, who has been a fearless partner

and visionary leader both on the school board and now on protecting our city's youth. >> first, i want to thank the city attorney for his fierce leadership on this. i am really sick and tired of the predatory practices for our young people where people are tryintrying to set them up for d habits for a lifetime. this has to stop and ecigarettes are contributing that. when we passed prop 10 in 19198, which wa1998go out and educate t preventing tobacco use, preventing nicotine addiction and we showed record numbers that we were able to do that and accomplish that. and now we have more predatory practices going after our young people and this, again, has to stop. so i want to thank the city attorney for his leadership on this. as you know we're going to be

announcing legislation at this afternoon's meeting. you've heard a lot of the data in terms of the change and shifts from winning people off tobacco to having more and more young people using tobacco and nicotine products. i want to say this, that ecigarettes have been targeting our young people with their colours and their flavours and enticing adolescentses and this is pulling them forked nicotine addiction. we have people addicted to nicotine who would never have smoked a cigarette had it not been for the attractive products that target our young people. so we can see and understand why it's so important to make sure that if things are not approved by the fda, if products have not been given the stamp of approval by the government, then we know they're not safe and until the fda does that, we have to make sure that these products are not sold in our stores here in san francisco. the city has already enacted

ordinance 140-117 prohibiting retail establishments from selling flavoured tobacco products. ecigarettes are flavoured nicotine products. nicotine is what addicts all of our young people and addicts everybody. it is the addictive chemical in tobacco and nicotine and the effect of nicotine is what we have to combat as well. until the fda rules on approval of ecigarettes, we need to prohibit all sales for anyone under the age of 21 and anyone here in the city and we need to make sure that we have a ban on selling products, vaping products on any city property here in san francisco. what juul is doing is irresponsible and claimed to not be a part of the tobacco industry. i meant with them and they swore up and down they were not

connected to the tobacco industry and a week and a half later, they merged with a tobacco company. therefore, not only are they not truthful but irresponsibly focused and working to addict young people on nicotine products so they will be long-time users of nicotine products to make a profit and harm their health. we won't stand for that and that's why we'll fight har in san francisco to avoid predatory products to our young people. i want to thank you all for coming out and we will combat this towards our young people. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor walton. i would like to ask our new director of the department of public health, dr. grant kofax to say a few words, as well. >> well, thank you. i just want to reiterate this is a major step forward for public health in san francisco, continuing the leadership that san francisco has historically shown in addressing major public health issues.

i want to offer my gratitude to city attorney herarra and we know this has been reiterated in the remarks today, that mechanic teethat nicotineaddiction is das damaging affecdamaging effects s brain and it's attracting a whole different generation the youth to nicotine. we know that tobacco is the greatest cause of preventible deaths in this country. ecigarettes are responsible for the increasing levels of tobacco use that we're seeing in youth. we know that we need to do better. we need to turn this epidemic around. ecigarettes are a gateway drug to tobacco use and that has been shown in numerous studies. so we're here not only

addressing the numerous affects being addicted to a substance, the direct effects on nicotine but taking a major step in that gateway from ecigarettes addiction. this is going to save hundreds, if not thousands of lives in san francisco and is a major step forward in breaking this epidemic. again, i'm grateful from the health department's perspective. this is a move in the right direction and major policy advance and the health department is very supportive of that. thank you. >> thank you, dr. kolfax and with that, we're happy to take any questions anybody has. >> is won't happens to the establishments that has the products on the shelves? do they take them down? >> we have to go through the legislative process and i have every confidence that supervisor

walton will sheppard this legislation through as quickly as possible. once that legislation passes and works with the final product, then, yeah, until such time as the fda gave its premarket review and approval, there would not be allowed in either a hard brick and mortar store the sale of distribution manufacturer of ecigarettes and you wouldn't send it online until one or the other products had received the premarket review by the fda. >> so would this be two months, six months? >> it will be introduced today and we'll be working hard with colleagues to make sure this becomes law. when it does become law, it will take affect 30 days after this

is complete. with that said, we'll be working hard to move as fast as possible. i can give you a better answer and response in a couple of weeks. >> why do you all think that the federal government has given a pass to ecigarettes so far and what is the power in strength in numbers? san francisco and chicago all pleading with the ftda to crack down on this. >> i can't answer for the fda but it's pretty darn expoliticcable they have failed to act. the tobacco control act was passed in 2009 and in 2016, the fda said that these products were subject to fda jurisdiction. yet, they said that they didn't have to first file their premarket review until 2018. and then they extended that to 2022. in the meantime, we've known

that ecigarettes, we're talking about 15 years with no premarket review for a product that we know is addicting our kids, a whole other generation of kids to a deleterious drug threatening public health and safety. it is inexplicable and inexcusable to me that the fda has failed to act. the fact that we got chicago and new york to sign this letter in no time should be a message to the federal government that municipalities and localities are not going to tolerate this and we're going to act as quickly as we can to protect our young people. i have no doubt that as a result of today as action, both that letter and legislation, you will see other jurisdictions step up to demand action from the federal government. if we can't expect that the fda will protect the health and safety of our young people, then i don't know what the function

of the fda really is. so hopefully they'll get the message. >> in terms of targeting juuls, would this grandfather them in? will they continue do what they do there. >> good question. under the terms of their -- they have a sublease down at the port and they have said that they are not manufacturing, distributing, doing anything through that facility. at this point, we don't have any evidence that they are in violation of the terms of their lease agreement. but that's why i sent the insmith demantheinspection demae it's areas they havit's curioust doing any sale on property. if i find they're in violation,

i would take action of breaking the terms of their lease. but the legislation that supervisor walton is championing with respect to what is occurring on port property will enshire we will never have a similar circumstance that we have a company like this operatinoperating on similar pr. >> this should be a message to juul or any other corporation that thinks they can come into san francisco and operate in accordance that is against our values here as a city and so, this legislation is going to be focused, of course, and making sure this never happens again on any city property but it's also a warning to juul. it's also a statement to juul that we don't want them here. we don't want them in our city and so we're going to be fighting to make sure that we figure out and learn if there's anything that they're doing that is not in accordance with san francisco laws and regulations. >> would you eventually want to

see juul leave the city? >> i would like for them to have been gone yesterday. we have been clear about that and our neighbors have been clear about that and we definitely would like for them to conduct business somewhere else. >> so excuse me, when the city signed a contract with juul, did they not know what the company did or why did they enter into a contract with the company? >> the city didn't enter into a contract. there's a massive lease developer at pier 70 that had a lease with another tenant and as part of that, there was a sublease between juul and that tenant and under the terms of the agreement that we had with master developer, there were certain rights that were given up by the city unless there was certain milestones and square footage. so we didn't know about it and weren't aware about it but it has been a lesson learned about how it is that the city engages with massive developers. i can assure you and i'm

supervisor walton will, as well, this is a circumstance that will not happen again. >> any other questions? >> thank you very much. [ ♪ ]

francisco. >> my name is fwlend hope i would say on at large-scale what all passionate about is peace in the world. >> it never outdoor 0 me that note everyone will think that is a good i know to be a paefrt. >> one man said i'll upsetting the order of universe i want to do since a good idea not the order of universe but his offered of the universe

but the ministry sgan in the room chairing sha harry and grew to be 5 we wanted to preach and teach and act god's love 40 years later i retired having been in the tenderloin most of that 7, 8, 9 some have god drew us into the someplace we became the network ministries for homeless women escaping prostitution if the months period before i performed memorial services store produced women that were murdered on the streets of san francisco so i went back to the board and said we say to do something the number one be a safe place for them to live while he worked on

changing 4 months later we were given the building in january of 1998 we opened it as a safe house for women escaping prostitution i've seen those counselors women find their strength and their beauty and their wisdom and come to be able to affirmative as the daughters of god and they accepted me and made me, be a part of the their lives. >> special things to the women that offered me a chance safe house will forever be a part of the who i've become and you made that possible life didn't get any better than that. >> who've would know this look of this girl grown up in atlanta will be working with produced women in san francisco part of

the system that has abused and expedited and obtain identified and degraded women for century around the world and still do at the embody the spirits of women that just know they deserve respect and intend to get it. >> i don't want to just so women younger women become a part of the the current system we need to change the system we don't need to go up the ladder we need to change the corporations we need more women like that and they're out there. >> we get have to get to help them. >>

>> good afternoon. the commission will please come order and the sshth -- secretary will call the roll. >> clerk: [roll call]

. the second item