Skip to main content

tv   MTA Board of Directors  SFGTV  July 31, 2021 4:00pm-6:01pm PDT

4:00 pm
some agreed lifting the restrictions until the conference. participating today via tele conference. this will ensure the safety of the board an staff and the public. it may not be as seamless as we would like it to be. a reminder to the board members and staff to mute themselves. we are not providing comment to minimize background noise. >> : thank you very much. at this time, could you please take roll call. >> : (roll call).
4:01 pm
>> : thank you. >> : thank you. we have a quorum. >> : at this time are there any communications. >> : item number two, communications. due to the covid 19 health emergency and to protect members, the retirement system is closed. other members participating in the meeting remotely this is taken in precaution to the state order and directives. members participating via video conference as if they were physically present. public comment will be available on each item on the agenda.
4:02 pm
you will be given two items to speak. when connected you will hear the meeting discussions but be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up press star three. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your tv or radio. >> : thank you very much. is there any public comment? >> : moderator, do we have any callers on the line. >> : madam secretary, there are no callers on the line. >> : thank you. hearing no calls, public comment
4:03 pm
is now closed. >> : call the next item, please. >> : action item. review an approval for a recommendation to establish an ad hoc committee and committee assignments. >> : thank you very much. at this time, i'll entertain a motion and any discussion if desired. >> : commissioner, i move to approve the appointments as presented a and b of the formation of your ad hoc search committee. >> : mr. president, i second. can madam secretary read the committee assignments. i think they are are slig slighy
4:04 pm
different than the packet. >> : we cannot hear you. >> : sorry about that. the deferred compensation committee. governance committee. investment committee. members committee as a whole.
4:05 pm
staff legal liaison. operations oversight committee. staff legal liaison. personnel committee. the committee of the ad hoc director's search committee. >> : commissioner, i have a question.
4:06 pm
everything looks well but the personnel committee meeting assignment shows as amended just now, the the consultant was said to be -- if we're going to do the director's search committee as a committee as a whole then basically gary is not necessary to be on the consultant as the personnel committee. >> : that's correct. that's an error there. thank you. >> : okay. so i will second -- i will rescind my motion previous and replace it with a motion to approve as adjusted and amended.
4:07 pm
>> : i second the amended motion. >> : okay. thank you very much. is there any discussion on this? >> : i have some thoughts on the committee assignments. >> : go ahead. >> : i think the spirit of the retirement board has always been trying to have a balance between elected and appointed members. we see that around rules of reference as related to the president. always trying to have an elected member. when i look at the committee assignments what i see for operations oversight is stacked with committee members. i think we should make some changes to those two committees so there at least one member from each group on each of those
4:08 pm
committees. >> : thank you. anybody else have any thoughts? >> : i didn't offer to say anything but the observation that the labor management balance that we tried to maintain, will not be in effect the way these committees are appointed.
4:09 pm
if that's what people are trying to achieve, you've done it with these appointments. unlike, for example, the presentation several weeks ago, many of the pension plans in canada, that was a subject that came up recently. they have unit rule on many fltf the subject plans in canada. we don't have a unit rule but we have balance here for two of the most important ones. >> : anybody else? >> : president, i understand the spirit of it. given where we are right now and
4:10 pm
the search for an executive director as well as cio, i just think that we have to pivot a little bit because we're looking at something that's a little different this time. i'm okay with the assignments this time based on what we're working with. >> : actually, never mind. we can adjust this shortly but we have to get through what we're working on right now and get that behind us. i would not be adverse to making a swap from one governance between operations and doing a swap there. i have one in mind. we have to get through the issues we have right now.
4:11 pm
anybody wish to chime in on that? >> : i think what we're trying to get through right now, i think lacks a little bit of balance. especially the way you have these set up. i don't think it's an effective use of the board on this committee. if the balance has always historically been important. which i know it always has to you, you talk about it a lot. it just doesn't seem right. i think we should have balance on all committees. >> : balance is important to p me. me.i thought i could do that. we have a situation we're trying to work on immediately. given where we are and what
4:12 pm
we're working on. i agree with president, we can always pivot and change back unless we achieve the goals we're working on in the eg and cio. >> : is that the only goals. ceo and cio issue. >> : i guess i feel like people are talking cryptically here. as it stands,ly not be supporting this. i know labor is not a fan of how this is set up either. >> : okay. let's call for the vote then and see where we're at. >> : we need public comment, first. >> : if you have not already done so, please press star three
4:13 pm
to be added to the queue. >> : there are no callers on the line. >> : thank you. hearing no callers public comment is now closed. >> : (roll call) we have two
4:14 pm
noes and three ayes. >> : motion passes. >> : thank you very much. we've already called for public comment. item number four. >> : item number four closed session. >> : okay. public comment before going into closed session. >> : if you have not already done so please press star three >> move to not disclose. >> we need roll call first. [roll call]
4:15 pm
4:16 pm
4:17 pm
>> clerk: we do have a quorum. >> okay. thank you very much. also, do you -- we've got everybody? >> commissioner safai is not in attendance. >> okay. he was complaining that he was in the other session. >> clerk: no, he's not. he's not here. >> okay. okay. thank you. at this time, i'll entertain a
4:18 pm
motion to not disclose. >> so moved. >> so moved by commissioner heldfond. >> second. >> seconded by commissioner [inaudible] okay. any discussion? all those -- or take a roll call, please. >> public comment? members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, access code 146-416-2189, then pound, and pound again. moderator, do we have any callers on the line? >> operator: madam clerk, there are no callers. >> clerk: thank you. hearing no calls, public comment is now closed. president casciato? >> clerk: okay. roll call vote, please. [roll call]
4:19 pm
>> clerk: thank you. we have six ayes. motion passes. president casciato. >> can you call the next item? >> clerk: item number 5, general public comment. >> commissioners, i've received one e-mail public comment that was asked to be read into the minutes of the meeting, and so it is from mr. john stinson, and i will read it.
4:20 pm
at the june 4 board meeting, the city attorney gave you a presentation about your fiduciary responsibilities. investing in [inaudible] when you can get better returns by just making a passive investment in stocks, bonds, and real estate. ask your chief investment if he got 6% growth returns on your hedge funds investments? what would your net return be after payment and fees? respectfully, john stinson, a 46-year member. that was the only public comment that we received. >> clerk: callers, if you have not already done so, press star, three to be added to the queue. moderators, do we have any callers on the line?
4:21 pm
>> operator: madam secretary, we do not have any callers on the line. >> clerk: thank you very much. public comment is now closed. >> thank you very much. call the next item, please. >> minutes of the june 9, 2021 retirement board meeting and minutes of the june 30, 2021 special retirement board meeting. >> is there any comment on the minutes? public comment, please, on the minutes. >> clerk: callers, if you have not already done so, press star, three to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have
4:22 pm
been unmuted. moderator, do we have any callers on the line? >> operator: madam secretary, we have no callers on the line. >> clerk: thank you. hearing no calls, public comment is closed. president casciato? >> roll call vote, please. >> clerk: did we have a vote? i didn't hear it. >> mr. president, i move that we adopt the minutes from last month's retirement board meeting as well as the special board meeting. >> okay. thank you. motion made, commissioner bridges. is there a second? >> second. >> okay. commissioner heldfond, second. okay. any discussion, commissioners? okay. roll call vote, please. [roll call]
4:23 pm
>> clerk: thank you. commissioner safai is present. we have six ayes. >> okay. next item. i'll entertain a motion to adopt the consent calendar at this time. >> so moved. >> i second, mr. president. >> moved and seconded. is there any discussion? is there any public comment? >> clerk: a reminder to callers, if they have not already done so, to press star, three to enter the queue. moderator, are there any callers on the line?
4:24 pm
>> operator: madam secretary, there are no callers on the line. >> clerk: thank you. public comment is now closed. president casciato? >> roll call vote? [roll call] >> clerk: we have six ayes. motion passes. president casciato? >> okay, next item, investment calendar. >> clerk: item 8, discussion item, chief investment officer report. >> good afternoon, everyone. i hope that everyone is well.
4:25 pm
i'm going to invite anna lange to provide an update on the status of our investments and our investment facilities. anna, are you on the line? >> yes. i'll see if i can share the c.i.o. report. one minute. can you see the report? >> yes. >> excellent. so good afternoon, commissioners, and everybody who is on the call. it's a pleasure to see and hear you? i would like to walk you through the details of a few liquidity management tools. first, we use futures contracts
4:26 pm
to gain exposures to this year's treasury market in a cash efficient way. if you see on page 7 of the c.i.o. report, if you look at the capital preservation under treasury, you will see that we have both physical and synthetic exposures to u.s. treasury bonds. the physical exposure relates to holding bonds that are [inaudible] this account is fully funded, which means that we sent $1.1 billion to black rock, and they bought $1.1 billion of u.s. treasury bonds, replicating the treasury benchmark that we set. the synthetic exposure refers to holding of market treasury
4:27 pm
futures. to match [inaudible] and requires about 10% of the actual exposure in cash. that is $40 million in cash funding to gain 400 million of economic exposure to the one to ten viewer treasury mix. the remaining 160 million cash is available to be drawn should we have a large capital call. however, if you see on the six calls that we did not use this 160 million cash. that means that we have sufficient cash, and that means we do not have fund level leverage. if you see, all the exposures
4:28 pm
4:29 pm
add up --
4:30 pm
[please stand by]. >> the annual cost [inaudible] was 63 basis points, which included 30 basis points of administrative fees and 33 points back to our lending cash collateral account. in total, as you see on this table, we did $11,864 with the access to an additional $50 million at the time when the cash position was the tightest. so this liquidity management tool, we use this to gain economic exposure to treasury indexes and the credit facilities are critical for the flexible and additional cash management of the fund. we will provide a comprehensive overview and update of first
4:31 pm
liquidity management update next wednesday, july 21, at the investment committee meeting. on that day, we will update the board on projected cash flows for all private investments, projected cash payments, and liquidity cash payments under various stress scenarios. now i'd like to turn it back to bill. >> thank you all, board members. i'm thrilled to report that for the fiscal end of june, is that we returned about 33.8%. the report, the numbers that we had at the publication date, the c.i.o. report was 33.99. right now, it's at 33.76. i wouldn't expect it to move very much from there, but it is
4:32 pm
by far a historic -- a record setting year for sfers. our previous high was just under 24%, which we had done twice. i think this was the third year where we had returned 20% or more, and we have fund data on annualized returns going back to 1985-86. this is just projection, but i believe that our returns this year were an all-time high, and that is because back prior to 1985, sfers was more of a fixed-income centric portfolio than it was right now, going into our returns a little bit is that in public equity, it was a sweep across the board, and we performed in the 30s to
4:33 pm
near 50. in private equity, we returned a stunning 66% for the year. our venture capital book alone returned 87%. the -- compare our returns of 33.76. today, calpers announced their returns, which is 21.3. the median pension plan was probably about 26 or 27% for the fiscal year. if 27 was correct, that means we outperformed by about $1.8 billion this year? and in returns of gains, we returned approximately close to $9 billion for the year. going a little bit further into private equity, you can see on page 2, technology is beginning
4:34 pm
to sweep across a wide array of industries. i gave an example of large i.p.o.s in the last 1.5 years just so you can see how large these are for digital payments. travel, social media and dating, infrastructure and crypto currency, platform prescription drug, and more, and fee platform for construction. these are very widely disbursed different types of businesses that technology is beginning to impact. digging a little bit further into our book beyond public and private equity, you'll recall that in our real assets
4:35 pm
portfolio really took it on the chin in -- particularly in 1-q, 2-q, and 3-q 2019, where it staged a strong come back. our natural resources book for the year finished up 21%. another area that got -- took it on the chin in march 2020 was our absolute return portfolio. that's also staged a very, very strong come back, including the returns for june, when the book returned about 30 basis points is we finished up 14.1% for the year. credit, this is where there's an adjustment downward, our
4:36 pm
private [inaudible] that's a very impressive return for a credit year. our fixed income book is the one part of our portfolio where it didn't do much, about 3% for the year, but our treasury book was in the red. however, if we step back and take a look at just the last 3.5 years, the fiscal year 21 is our public equity, our private equity, and our credit books all posted sterling returns. just previous to that, it was our equity book that had a stellar return prior to covid
4:37 pm
and then, we were bailed out because of our treasury portfolio. if we go back to 2018, when almost every public plan lost money for the year, we edged out a positive return. i think we were the top performer or the second best performing public equity plan in the country in 2018. that is because our natural resources book returned 20% that year. so my point is that every portfolio in just the past 3.5 years has had times where it's contributed significantly to our excess reports. so we've had this rotation --
4:38 pm
returns, so we've had this rotation of excess returns in the last 3.5 year period. so because of that, our projected status is 12.9%. you see on page 4 that our trust assets are also now at an all-time high, $34.5 billion. we were under 25 billion just 15 months ago, 16 months ago. and our plan has grown more than 3x, 11 billion, from 2009, so just in 11 years. i do want to comment on inflation. the most recent numbersfrom the c.a.o. report is about
4:39 pm
5.8%. the core inflation, so stripping away food and energy, that's 12.5%. that's actually near a 40-year high. there are two schools of thought regarding what the future for inflation might be. one school of thought is that this is a -- the uptick in inflation is caused by an uptick in economic growth post covid. the u.s. had inflation in world war ii, but the c.p.i. was up in 1946, but it quickly
4:40 pm
returned to its very low trend of inflation. the reason why this might not be the case where we wouldn't have a return to very low inflation is we're really putting an extraordinary and unprecedented amount of money -- we're really printing an extraordinary and unprecedented amount of money. when you have more money that is chasing too few goods, that's when you have inflation. so the volume of money is out pacing the volume of produced goods. i do want to move onto a date board of approved investments -- >> i'm going to wait a second. i'm going to lose electrical power in just a few minutes. darlene? >> yes. >> can you switch me to the cell phone? >> sure.
4:41 pm
you're not in as an attendee, no. >> can you see me as a participant? >> you're as a participant, not as an attendee. >> okay. can you move me on that one? >> al, we do not see you coming in on your cell phone.
4:42 pm
>> okay. i called the number for public comment. >> clerk: 415-655-0001. >> that's exactly what i used. >> clerk: yes, and the event number -- >> yes, and the double pound. >> are you hearing the meeting on your phone? >> no, i cannot hear the meeting on my phone. >> you should probably hang up and try dialing in, because you're not showing up as an attendee. we can only see you on your computer with the participants. you want to verify -- >> clerk: the event number? >> 146-416-2189.
4:43 pm
>> okay. just go ahead, and if you lose me, it's because of a power surge. >> thank you, president casciato. board members, regarding items previously approved by the board in closed session that have now closed, alteris, the board approved this, pelion, we received an allocation of 25
4:44 pm
million and 24.75 million respectively. moving onto -- we have what staff thinks of is one of the most important meetings of the year with the board, and that is our asset class updates, and this month's i.c. meeting, which is next wednesday, july 21, 1:00 to 4:00, it is a really robust meeting. we have five agenda items, assets for public equity, updates in provide credit as well as updates on private
4:45 pm
schedules, and alan has his updates for when we have the delegation of authority. staff spends several months providing these materials, and you'll see that there's going to be a really rich and robust amount of data. it includes more detailed, more granular updates. it includes planned actions completed, planned actions going forward, and it includes a more comprehensive market update for all three asset classes. regarding our liquidity position, it's much better than it was a year ago, and i think it's structurally improved because of our credit facility as well as more active engagement across asset classes
4:46 pm
and careful management across the portfolio. so i think our liquidity is in very, very good position going forward. the the -- and staff is enthusiastic and excited about presenting these materials to you. we are going to need to start pretty close to right on time at 1:00, and we're going to go right up until 4:00, but you'll see there's a lot of material and a lot of good material, as well. with that, president casciato, i can turn it back over for any questions or comments. >> okay. any questions or comments from anybody for the c.i.o.? >> commissioner casciato, i just want to remind mr. coaker is that a question that will come up next week is a question of immunizing the portfolio. >> okay. thank you.
4:47 pm
okay. any others? i want to thank you, thank you for all the good work. appreciate you. thank you very much. >> it is, president casciato. staff works very hard. they're very thoughtful and comprehensive about what they do. >> thank you. all right. next item, please. >> we need to take public comment on the c.i.o. report. >> clerk: callers, if you have not already done so, please press star, three to enter the queue. moderator, do we have any public callers on the line? >> operator: madam secretary, we do not have any public callers on the line. >> clerk: thank you. public comment is now closed. item 9, sfdcp committee report.
4:48 pm
>> the report was filed. it's very exciting, the work that's being done at the deferred comp committee, and it's all there before you in the packet. do we have any public comment on the deferred comp report? >> clerk: callers, if you have not already done so, press star, three to enter the queue. moderator, are there any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there are no public callers on the line. >> clerk: thank you. public comment is closed. next item. item 10, sfdcp manager report. >> thank you very much. good afternoon, commissioners. can you hear me okay?
4:49 pm
>> clerk: yes. >> thank you, miss secretary. so commissioners, today will be a brief report as it is our monthly report. next month will be our full quarterly report in addition to our semiannual investment performance update. so before you, i've included the stable value crediting rate for your reference, by is 1 -- which is 1.7 for the third quarter. as a reminder, this is a rate for the quarter and is a dip of .7. yields were in line with last quarter. i'm also happy to report some early results from our targeted mail campaign that dropped in june. more details will be provided next month in the full report, but e-mail results this month are very prompting. as of yesterday, the restart your savings e-mail garnered a 47% open rate with a nearly 7%
4:50 pm
conversion rate. the conversion rate is when the receiver actually clicks through the e-mail to learn more. the save more e-mail received a 53% open rate and a 67% click rate. for comparison, an all-industry average open rate is around 18% and a click to rate of 2% to 3%. so we seem to be benefiting from a very participating bait or a very interested base. i will be providing updated to the board once we received 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day post drop. i will say we've received the feedback of our most recent news letter and it's one of our best click-through rates of
4:51 pm
almost 50%. we hope to capitalize on this momentum. and lastly, attached is the monthly activity report for may. you may recall i walked the board through the design of this last month. on page 6, we're -- we've added the c.a.r.e.s. act section, and two members have paid their covid distribution. while the number you see is not a huge number to the $39 million take-in, it is certainly a step in the right direction. with that, i am happy to answer any questions you may have regarding this month's report.
4:52 pm
>> if there is no questions, thank you very much, and public comment on that. >> clerk: thank you. moderator, do we have any callers on the line? >> operator: madam secretary, there are no callers on the line. >> clerk: thank you. hearing no calls, public comment is closed. next item, number 11, action item. declaration of vacant see on retirement board occurring february 20, 2022. >> commissioners, as you're aware, we have elected members who are elected to five-year terms on a staggered basis, and we are asking the board to declare a vacancy that would occur on february 20, 2022, next year, for the term of office that is currently being occupied by president casciato. you'll see by the timeline and
4:53 pm
the documents that we bring this to you today so we can partner with the department of elections starting in august so that we can come to a decision on the timeline and the schedule of election that we would bring back to the full board [inaudible] on this item, however, we do request a motion to approve [inaudible]. >> okay. at this time, i'll entertain a
4:54 pm
motion. >> i'd like to make a motion, president casciato. >> go ahead. [inaudible]. >> as commissioner [inaudible] pointed out, it is nothing personal. it is procedure and routine, and we just need a declaration. >> i second. >> okay. thank you very much. is there any comment? if there isn't, call for public
4:55 pm
comment and then roll call following. >> clerk: thank you. a reminder to callers to press star, three to be added to the queue. moderator, are there any callers on the line? >> operator: madam secretary, there are no callers on the line. >> clerk: thank you. hearing no callers, public comment is now closed. roll call vote. [roll call] >> clerk: that's six ayes. motion passes. >> okay.
4:56 pm
thank you very much. next item, please. >> clerk: next item, item 12, action item. approve recommendation to retain nossaman, l.l.p., as retirement board fiduciary governance consultant. >> [inaudible] this is an engagement that has, over the past five years, been fulfilled by nossaman, l.l.p., a law firm of the main person that was assigned to this -- that is assigned to this contract is ashley denning, and so we submitted the -- or we actually issued the r.f.p. in march, and we received responses from
4:57 pm
three firms in april, by the april 5 deadline. we had an evaluation team composed of myself and [inaudible] who is the deputy executive director. we reviewed the three proposals and determined that all three president firms -- [inaudible] basically saw that, as you're aware, we have basically
4:58 pm
spanning and organizing and conducting off-site board retreat back in 2017 focused on governance and improving governance, so the majority of the experience that they've showed in their r.f.p. response was very similar, very project-based, audit based, shorter term engagement with plans for the -- and nossaman has applied also, and in their response, showed similar, and because they are a law firm, most of the plans experienced with public plans was in the fiduciary counsel area rather than in the governance plans consulting air, and the same
4:59 pm
was true with the third proposer [inaudible] who provides legal counsel to an impressive list of public pension plans, but again doesn't have any experience with what we would ask them to do under the r.f.p. so long story short, it might be too late for that. we had evaluated the three proposals. we are recommending that the board retain nossaman for another five-year term for this agreement, and just as a reminder, this statement of services is not to provide legal or fiduciary counsel to the board but to do more of the mechanics related to governance, helping the committee and the board conduct
5:00 pm
reviews of governance policies and procedures, conducting and helping the personnel committee conduct performance reviews for the executive director and the actual service coordinator and being generally a consultant and a resource for the governance committee as they work through priorities that they may have. so with that, i'd be happy to answer any questions that you, the board members have, but with that, we'd request that you approve the recommendation that we retain our agreement with nossaman for an additional five years. and i've put in the write-up that this is rather unusual because under the city charter, we cannot engage a law firm directly, meaning the department cannot engage a law
5:01 pm
firm directly, so for the past five years, we have been negotiating directly with the city attorney's office, and i think robert would agree, it's been operating very smoothly, making sure that the procedures have been progressing nicely, and with that, i'll answer any questions. . >> if there are no questions, i'll entertain a motion to adopt staff recommendations. >> so moved. >> i second. >> okay. it's moved by commissioner heldfond, seconded by commissioner bridges.
5:02 pm
any discussion? public comment, please. >> clerk: thank you. a reminder to any callers, if you have not already done so, press star, three to be entered into the queue. moderator, do we have any callers in the queue? >> operator: madam secretary, there are no callers on the line. >> clerk: thank you. hearing no callers, public comment is closed. roll call vote. [roll call]
5:03 pm
>> clerk: we have six ayes. motion passes. next item, number 13, discussion item, operations oversight committee report of may 27, 2021. >> yes. thank you, madam secretary. the operations oversight committee report has been submitted, and as stated here, our meeting was held on may 27, but we did have approved amendments to the operations oversight committee terms of reference that are being forwarded to the governor's committee, so you'd like to know what's being forwarded, i can do that now, and from there, it'll be submitted to
5:04 pm
the full board with approval. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you, chair bridges. the amendments that we had provided to the committee and that were approved included oversight of the department strategic plan, oversight of the new divisions in operations management, oversight in data security, oversight -- customer service and member education services, and lastly, an oversight for the tracking for staff response to member inquiries. i'm happy to take any questions. jay, did i catch them all? >> i believe you did, yes.
5:05 pm
>> i'm happy to answer any questions. >> yes, that was all of them. >> and again, these have been forwarded to the governor's committee for review and approval and then to the full board? >> that's correct. >> okay. thank you. public comment, please. >> clerk: thank you. callers, if you have not already done so, press star, three to enter the queue. moderator, are there any callers on the line? >> operator: madam secretary, there are no callers on the line. >> clerk: thank you. public comment is closed. next item, item 14. discussion item, personnel committee reports of june 2, 2021 and june 7, 2021.
5:06 pm
>> commissioner stansbury, go ahead. >> nothing to report. >> so we can take -- this committee report is submitted. >> please. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. can you call for public comment, please? >> clerk: yes. callers, press star, three to be added to the queue. moderator, are there any callers on the line? >> operator: moderator, there are no callers on the line. >> clerk: thank you. hearing no callers, public comment is now closed. item 15, discussion item, executive director's report. >> the major thing that i had to report was that the department budget had made its way through the mayor's budget office and also the budget and
5:07 pm
appropriations committee, and it had remained significantly intact, and we have been able to procure all the new positions that we'd requested, including the investment division positions as well as funding for the other priorities that the retirement board had supported in the budget that we presented. so i believe the timeline is there are two readings before the mayor's budget before the board of supervisors this month, with the second reading to be july 27, and the mayor is expected to sign the final budget by august 1. the department of human resources and the payroll will have loaded all of the new positions and the budget for all the new positions hopefully soon thereafter, in august, and that we will be able to start filling these positions within
5:08 pm
the next four to six weeks, and with that, i'll be happy to take any questions. >> are there any questions? any public comment? >> clerk: callers, please press star, three to be added to the queue. moderator, are there any callers on the line? >> operator: madam secretary, there's one caller on the line. >> clerk: thank you. caller, please state your name. your two minutes begins when you speak. >> my name is [inaudible] and i am calling for the retired employees in the city and county. i understand that the budget is being heard finally on july 27. my question more is with regard to our funding. it did not indicate whether
5:09 pm
[inaudible] 100% market funding and their discussion about supplemental cola, and i would like some clarifications on that because i believe that [inaudible] i would like clarification also on the good returns. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your call. moderator, are there any other callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there are no more callers on the line. >> clerk: thank you. hearing no callers, public comment is now closed. >> okay. thank you very much. >> clerk: item number 16, discussion item, retirement board member good of the order. >> does any member have anything for the good of the order? the only item i have is that we're starting to think about
5:10 pm
in-person meetings and what the protocols will be for those, so we'll be discussing those among -- jay will be discussing that with the health department and etc. okay. thank you very much. any public comment on that? >> i have one other item to add to good of the order. i had to wait until the blackout period was over. one item that is not listed, and that's correct, it would not be listed under educational items that nossaman sent to us, but one of the other companies, mr. rick nelson has also been doing educational, one of the -- [inaudible] sister fund, calpers. i did not bring the link to us,
5:11 pm
but the upcoming series had to do with performance and risk management, which is really good educational stuff, and if you're interested, i'll provide the information to all of the trustees at the same time without discussion purposes so i'm not violating the [inaudible] rule, but that's what it relates to. >> yeah. thank you very much. if you could just submit that to darlene, and she'll make sure it gets out. >> all right. thank you. >> okay. >> clerk: public comment? >> yes, go ahead. >> clerk: callers, a reminder to press star, three to be added to the queue. moderator, are there any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there are no callers on the line. >> clerk: thank you. hearing no calls, public comment is closed. item number 17, adjournment. >> okay. at this time, unless -- unless anybody has a comment from the
5:12 pm
commission, i will adjourn the meeting. okay. thank you very much. we are adjourned. >> thank you. >> president walton: all right. we will now resume the july 27, 2021 board of supervisors
5:13 pm
meeting. my apologies to the public for that delay. as you know, we are still living in a remote world, and unfortunately, things are not perfect. we do appreciate your patience. we are going to continue with public comment of the appeal, and this is for folks who are in opposition of the appeal. so folks who are in opposition of the appeal, we are now continuing. madam clerk? >> clerk: thanks to the members of the public and operations. all right. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. welcome, caller. >> hi. my name is oswald, and i am the tenant that lives above 5 leland, and i'm against the cannabis store opening because i want to go to sleep and my
5:14 pm
children go to sleep without smelling the cannabis that comes through the heater vent and seeps through the wall. i cannot afford to go anywhere else because of the housing crisis, so i'm asking the supervisors to vote no on the cannabis business at 5 leland place. >> clerk: all right. operations, we have 27 listeners and five in the queue. if you'd like to make public comment in opposition to the project, please press star, three. next caller, please. >> hi. my name is nelson, a lifelong resident of visitacion valley. you know, i just want to say that i'm an anticannabis person, but what i'm hearing today, i just want to get this
5:15 pm
straight. it sounds like to me like this is what all is boiling down to, i guess they're saying that the planning commissioners are incompetent. they don't understand or not decipher what was written on the planning code or the general plan. that's what i'm getting from this whole hearing today. you know, i'd like the five members of the board of supervisors who signed for this appeal to identify themselves and explain themselves, why they signed for this because i find this to be insulting for the members of the community who stepped forward and explained themselves why this project was a detriment to our community, and now, they want to unravel it and somehow change the -- the decision by the planning commissioners. final concern -- what we'll
5:16 pm
experience today is a direct res judicata. what it means is you cannot reexamine a case just because you don't like the outcome from a competent group of planning commissioners' decision. this is -- >> clerk: thank you to the caller for your comments. all right. operations, do we have another caller, please? all right.
5:17 pm
hello, caller? there are 26 listeners and six callers in the queue, if you want to provide public comment in opposition, press star, three, otherwise, we're going to take this group through to the end. all right. let's take the next caller. welcome, caller. all right. that might be an unattended line. operations, let's go to the next caller, please. >> hello. my name is gina tovar, and i live in visitacion valley. i've worked here for many years, and my grandmother lived here, my father lived here. my son is being raised here. i live within walking distance
5:18 pm
of this location, and as i understand it, the petition or the appeal before the board of supervisors today is to determine whether or not the planning commission made a sound decision. and as was stated in the initial introduction to their opposition, that the planning commission absolutely considered all the facts. they listened to countless people who called in for and against, and i also called in against at that time. it's absurd that they would have another dispensary within two doors of another, and ou entire district is within three blocks. we're a majority -- we're not a majority -- actually, it doesn't makeup. the racial makeup of this area is very diverse, and that's not at dispute at the moment.
5:19 pm
it's whether or not the concentration of dispensaries is right for our neighborhood, and it's wrong. it's just the wrong location. the project's fine, but it doesn't belong at 5 leland and 2400 bayshore two doors down from elevated at 2440 bayshore. the other point i'd like to make is the photo that they shows of closed businesses on leland was very deceptive. they took pictures of churches that actually have live congregations on leland avenue. they took pictures of businesses that are closed at night to make it look like -- >> clerk: thank you to the caller. thank you, kindly. i apologize for interrupting
5:20 pm
you. we are setting the timer for two minutes. all right. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. welcome, caller. all right. that could be an unattended line. let's go to the next caller. we have eight callers in the queue. welcome, caller. hello, caller? if you're unsure if it's you, just please standard speaking. [speaking native language]
5:21 pm
>> interpreter: hello. this is the cantonese interpreter. >> clerk: miss lai, can you please provide instruction that you'll take one caller at a time? >> interpreter: this is winnie. i heard cantonese, and i am providing interpretation. >> clerk: thank you. [speaking cantonese language]
5:22 pm
5:23 pm
>> okay. well, i'm strongly opposed to the marijuana shop at 5 leland avenue because initially, from the get-go, they lied about this project. they did not send notices to the residents in the neighborhood, and when they had the appeal, none of the residents who lived here receive any notice about what they're doing, and after i got wind of that, and i mobilized the people in the neighborhood, we went and talked to many
5:24 pm
people and get signature from over 60% of the residents here. there were 153 units in this neighborhood, with over 100 units of -- people from 100 units who signed the petition for us to object to oppose this store. and they did not notify any of the storefronts, any of the businesses on this street. and also, the stores told us they did not receive any notices about their proposed business, either, so we're firmly opposed to having a cannabis shop at this location. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, miss chan. all right. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please? welcome, caller.
5:25 pm
>> clerk: hello? >> can i have speaker, please? [speaking cantonese language] >> hello, supervisors. i live in mission [inaudible] street, and actually, i'm here in opposition to this peal, and i'm against opening another m.c.d. in this area because there's one thing i'm really concerned, and i really want to let you know is because from monday to friday, there's a lot
5:26 pm
of after class or after school programs for the kids, and i really think that it would not promote good health and good safety for the kids, as well, and thank you. >> clerk: thank you, miss lai, and our thanks to the caller. all right. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please? >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. welcome, culler. -- welcome, caller. >> hi, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. welcome. >> thank you, board of supervisors for this opportunity. my name is [inaudible]. i live in the area. i live up the street on raymond and i am not opposed to the cannabis itself. it is mainly the size of the
5:27 pm
place, a 2200 square foot establishment. there is -- it's not a good fit for our neighborhood. as someone already mentioned, it's a very small, you know, few blocks, and to have something of this magnitude in this area doesn't make sense. and i still think it doesn't make good sense to do so. and i say that because you look at how people conduct themselves in these establishments. sure, the business will say we'll make sure we keep the streets clear and all that, i've seen double parkers all over the place. this is a two-lane road right on the corner of bayshore. all it takes is a couple of double parkers, someone trying to get around them on leland. no one can say anything to them because of the social climate. i asked a security guard once,
5:28 pm
this person is blocking the crosswalk. why aren't you doing anything about it? good question was their answer, so when you have a few people that are really going to make it dangerous, we need to think about our citizens and the area. also, there is a daycare in the area, right up the street, so i am thinking that this is not a good place for it. it's too big, it's going to be dangerous, and it's too bad it would have to be [inaudible] to have an accident for things to change. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. all right. operations, do we have another comment? we have 30 listeners and six callers ready to make their comment. if you're wanting to make public comment, now is a good time to press star, three to enter the queue, otherwise, we
5:29 pm
may take this group to the end. welcome, caller. [speaking cantonese language]
5:30 pm
>> hello, board of supervisors. i want to mention something here. there's many callers mention before talking about the minority who helped a lot of business at 5 leland, and actually, there's a lot of business maybe just two blocks away that are abject poverty.
5:31 pm
this is also the blacks and chinese, as well. and i think the black and chinese business owners, they should receive equal treatment. also, they mentioned that this is minority, also, [inaudible] may occupy the biggest amount, but that's not true. and actually, the m.c.d. owners didn't change at all. they actually are telling lies, so i hope my concerns can raise your attention, and thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments and for your interpretation, and the speaker for his comments. operations, we have another comment. we have 27 listening and six
5:32 pm
callers in the queue. welcome, caller. >> hello. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. welcome. >> hello? hello. excellent. my name is jennifer hamlin, and i am a long time resident of visitacion valley. i am in opposition of the business at this location. i am not in opposition of marijuana, however, i am in opposition of this location because of the close proximity to the other business as well as the location on the roadway. i would appreciate the right thing for this community. a number of you are familiar with what i do for the community, and i ask you to please, please do the right thing and reject the appeal. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, let's have the next
5:33 pm
comment. >> i just want to say i'm a lifelong resident of visitacion valley. i think the process works when a person or organization has one time to serve their claim of litigation, and whatever decision that's made is final, and i'm not sure why there's an appeal unless there's new evidence to show that there was evidence suppressed or bias by the person or group of people who made their decision, and the planning commission made a decision based on the facts, based on the planning codes -- codes and the general plan guidelines. each side got to explain their case, why their project is good for the neighborhood, and the community had an opportunity to explain why it was bad for the neighborhood. and i find it disrespectful to
5:34 pm
the planning commissioners to say that they can't make a decision. they've been doing this for many, many years, and they understand the guidelines and rules of supervision. so i ask the supervisors to honor the decision, respect the community. this is about the community in general, not about a handful of investors. i got this e-mail just from the office of cannabis, stating that ownership has never changed -- i can't pronounce the last name, and i just got an e-mail at 5:00, stating that the ownership has never changed. they've been lying from the
5:35 pm
very beginning. they're lying to the board of supervisors, and they lied to the planning commissioners. so please vote no on this appeal. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. welcome, caller. >> okay. hello? hello. i'm marlene tran. i'm speaking on behalf of hundreds of visitacion valley residents. i've lived here for many years. in their few documents, they made blatant claims that there are no other cannabis retail store for a mile in any direction. how can we ignore the 2442 bayshore store that is 100 feet away and has been operating for a few years.
5:36 pm
this blatant lack of acknowledgement is alarming. they haven't been in touch with us for years. [inaudible] project sponsors should explain to us, supervisors, why they received support of organizations not even from visitacion. this project failed to meet the planning department's threshold. our community considered this not necessary and simply not
5:37 pm
desirable. yes, there were obvious concerns about the proposed cannabis score and please support our opposition to the appeal. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you very much for your comments, miss tran. operations, do we have another caller in the queue? hello, caller. we are ready to hear your comments. >> hello? [speaking cantonese language]
5:38 pm
5:39 pm
>> hello, board of supervisors. i'm here opposed to the appeal. i'm against to open another entity at 5 leland avenue and 2400 bayshore boulevard. actually, i am the resident living in visitacion valley, so i know there's a lot of chinese people living in our neighborhood, and we really think they didn't take any community outreach in chinese
5:40 pm
for other language other than english, and we really think that it's not necessary and desirable to open another entity in our neighborhood. and also, you think about the cannabis. it doesn't promote health and safety to our residents at all, so i don't agree with opening other cannabis stores, storefronts in our neighborhood. and i really think that if they want to open an m.c.d. in our neighborhood, they should do a community engagement or outreach to let residents know in their own language. and they always -- the m.c.d. owners, sometimes, if you say that, they will hire more employees to increase the
5:41 pm
revenue for the city, but you should consider the relative impacts to our leaders, and also, that's the reason why i think that they will only provide negative impacts to our neighborhood, and i'm strongly in opposition to this appeal. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. we have 28 listeners and four callers in the queue. i would like you to make an announcement, miss lai and miss chan, that if any of the 28 listeners are wanting to make comment for this item, that they should press star, three now. [speaking cantonese language]
5:42 pm
[end of translation]. >> interpreter: thank you. [speaking mandarin language] [end of translation]. >> interpreter: thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your interpretation. all right. operations, let's hear from the
5:43 pm
next caller. we have 28 listeners and four callers in the queue. if we do not have any other callers pressing star, three, we might be taking this group through to the end. next caller, please. welcome, caller. all right. perhaps that's an unattended line. next caller, please. welcome, caller. all right. operations, next caller, please. welcome, caller. we can hear you.
5:44 pm
>> are you talking to me. >> clerk: yes, we are. >> my name is david hooper. i'd like to speak to two issues about the proximity of the present and the proposed entity at leland and bayshore. it hasn't worked, especially on the 5200 block of mission street, where neither of the cannabis retailers are able to be held responsible for the problems that they brought to the community. that's something that i don't think people pay attention to. it was unfortunate that two of them were allowed to be in close proximity when they were originally approved as medical cannabis dispensaries. the other thing i'd like to say is that there has been a big gap, and if you go to the gas station, you can see the instructions to pump gas in
5:45 pm
several different languages, but when it comes to an outreach for something like cannabis retailers, it's grossly inadequate with respect to the chinese speaking community. this is a basis for saying you should go back to the drawing board. i oppose the cannabis retailer at leland and bayshore. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. i'm glad to say that the organizers of this hearing requested cantonese and mandarin in addition to spanish and filipino. do we have another caller in the queue? >>
5:46 pm
5:47 pm
>> hello, board of supervisors. my name is jennie, and i am going to speak about the marijuana store on number 5
5:48 pm
leland avenue. when i looked at it, that area already has one existing marijuana shop, and visitacion valley is a very special neighborhood, and we don't really need another marijuana store on the same block. visitacion valley has a lot of senior elderly residents. we don't need another marijuana store, but i would like to see another restaurant, a place where young people could go and do some youth activities, some child care business and things like that that is more suitable to serve the needs of the community, especially that visitacion valley has many
5:49 pm
chinese residents and many other minority residents, and i think a marijuana store does not serve the needs of the residents in the area. i would like you to take that into consideration and not to allow another marijuana store established there. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, and thank you to the caller for her comments. okay. operations, is there another caller in the queue, please? >> hello? >> clerk: hello, welcome. [inaudible] >> clerk: sir, we can hear you. please proceed.
5:50 pm
[speaking cantonese language] >> clerk: thank you, sir, for your comments. >> hello, board of supervisors. as a parent of two kids, i'm in a position to this appeal.
5:51 pm
i'm against to open another medical cannabis dispensary at 5 leland avenue because i just live one block away from this subject property, and also, the traffic problem will be an issue after -- if the planning commission allowed another entity in this area, it will cause another traffic problem that is another concern that i am worried about, so that's why i'm opposed to this appeal. thank you. >> clerk: thank you to the caller, and thank you for the interpretation. all right. i believe we have 26 callers in the queue, and there are three who are prepared to provide their comments this -- to this
5:52 pm
item, specifically in opposition to the appeal and in support of the opposition to the project. operations, can we have the next caller, please? [speaking native language] [end of translation]. >> this translation is not in chinese, so i don't understand. >> well, i'm a senior citizen, and i'm very elderly, and i live in this area, and i don't
5:53 pm
feel that a marijuana shop is suitable for us, and i would like to see some other kind of business in that area other than a marijuana shop because it's not contributing to the senior citizens in this area. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, miss lai and miss chan. great team work by miss lai and miss chan. operations, do we have another caller in the queue? >> hi. my name is celina, and i'm a native san franciscan, and i live in visitacion valley. i'm not clear why we're visiting this issue again. i thought it was clear that we shouldn't be clustering cannabis dispensaries in the area of leland and bayshore.
5:54 pm
i oppose it. we already have a dispensary in the area, and another is not needed. i would like to see other organizations actually take up that space that the valley, the neighborhood deserves, like a cultural center, where we can -- you know, where people can get to learn about each other or maybe a job training center, educational center, maybe a city college outlet or something. but i just feel like we don't need another dispensary. there's so many other resources that i think the valley could benefit from. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, do we have another caller in the queue? >> yes. good evening, everyone. how's it going?
5:55 pm
>> clerk: okay. thank you, caller. >> can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. welcome. >> so my name is [inaudible]. thank you. i'm calling in regards to the marijuana dispensary. we're members of a church in the community, and we've been there more than ten years already. and i believe having a second place like this, it's not good for the community. i mean, it's -- the last time we had this conversation, a lot of the people that were opposed to this project, they were told it brings a lot to the community. so far, it hasn't brought a lot to the community, the one on bayshore. i'm calling to oppose because i don't think another dispensary is going to be good for the
5:56 pm
community. like someone else was saying, bring something else that's going to help the community. everyone who's in that neighborhood knows that this neighborhood needs help, and that me as a church member and as part of the community, we go there probably five or six times a week, so we know how it is. we know it's going to get worse with parking, with you know that there's going to be all kinds of people there. i've seen -- i'm not lying about this. i've seen a guy pull a gun out on that block, walking to the bayshore dispensary, and i know it's going to get worse, and i'm calling to oppose it. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments this evening. all right. we have 25 callers and three callers in the queue. let's hear from the next caller, please. >> i'm opposed to the marijuana
5:57 pm
shop. my name is camlee. i also can see the robbery for the people at the curb by the marijuana shop [inaudible]. we also saw that the people around night time, 7:00, there was always robberies around that corner. actually, it's not really comforting to have another marijuana shop. i understand that the shop opener has spent so much many and years for the last four years, five years. i'm sorry, but the neighborhood not really welcome the shop,
5:58 pm
and we don't want another concentration marijuana -- because this area becomes a concentration marijuana area. and also, the supervisor, if any of you spend in two areas, at the business or in your car on the street, it's bad. we always smell marijuana, and when we wait something of the [inaudible] the people in the car can always smell the marijuana smoke, so please, don't vote for it. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. thank you to the caller. thank you for your patience this evening. all right. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please?
5:59 pm
[inaudible] >> clerk: all right. operations, that caller is very muted. welcome, caller. miss lai or miss chan, do you mind provide instructions to speak directly into the phone, please?
6:00 pm
>> clerk: thank you. caller, if your television is on, this will not be in synch for you. >> interpreter: maybe it's a different language. is it possible to get in another language? i guess they're not responding. >> clerk: okay. well, operations, next caller in the queue. >> oh, hi, this is josephine, representing