Originally, but not this 6foot structure and nobody else seems to need a windscreen despite the fact that the wind is the same all over. Thank you. President hillis thank you. Project sponsor. You have two minutes. My name is maurice miller, commissioners. Thank you for hearing us. I have three general comments. I shall say, first of all, the reason the piewood is on the the reason the plywood is on the roof right now is for safety reasons because there was no glass installed because we got the permit to put in a 6foot glass and then we were told not to install the 6foot glass. So there was never any intention not to install glass and reinstall it. We were told we could install 6foot glass and purchased its and it sits in my garage. This is my primary outdoor space for the building. I have problems with stairs, and we would like the roof to be more usable. That said, the 42inch screen would also have been acceptable had we been told that we couldnt do a 6foot screen. In response to the comments about 16 poles, in fact, there will be less obstruction because the glass windscreen does not require a top rail. The 42inch windscreen does require a top rail and the amount of steel on the roof will be much lower with the 6foot rail rather than the 42inch because there wont be a top rail going around the roof. Finally, i did spend 30,000 on this, and i think there is some equities involved in this that we were told we were given a Building Permit by the building department. It did seem like a minor change to the roof. And what is being told as a very monumental change to the roof, in fact, isnt much of a change from our perspective admittedly. Thank you very much for your time. President hillis all right. Thank you. That closes this portion of the hearing. We will open it up to commissioner comments and questions. Commissioner moore. Commissioner moore this is a very difficult situation partially because something is approved by one agency and it comes back to us. I believe if it would have been reviewed by us, it would have cautioned in the design phase that it was a questionable thick because of the visibility from the street. The four on 4foot center spacing of the poles could have definitely had a different type of solution. The architect, the owner, probably knows what the prevailing wind directions are in San Francisco, and would have come forward with if this issen the only space that is if this is the only space that is really usable to consider that beforehand. The deck in its configuration is not a small deck. It is properly tucked the way we normally expect it. However, for the extended windscreen to be added to it, i think we would have further shaped it in order to accommodate that. It is good to see the structure, the poles right now almost historic poles, and that is what raises my concerns. Also, the fact that there are really no patterns of these types of roof decks in the adjoining area, something we have talked about a lot when it came to other situations where there is a beginning precedent emerging that roof tops all of a sudden start to make the buildings taller and more different. I am very concerned about this. We have talked about this in another circumstance earlier today, particularly with permit tracking and finally after three years coming together. The department is put in a very, very difficult position when it comes to what we normally would have all done thoughtfully reviewing the entire thing with the intent of having the windscreen on top. At this moment, i am very much sitting on the fence because i think it is too impacting on the street. President hillis i have the same feeling. I think we would normally or at least i would, i dont want to speak for everybody, but deny this permit and keep you at the typical rail height. Because its a large no matter what you do with these, glass, if you drive around the city and you see them, they are a bit jarring when they are you can see them from the properties in the rear and also from scott street. But i think my issue is, so the process that you all go through and clearly was a mistake made to approve this. In this case it was our mistake. It was the Planning Departments mistake to approve this over the counter. It was approved over the counter. We approved over the counter and dbi issued the permit. That was done in error. What is the departments kind of protocol when a permit is issued in error when it was rescind that permit . That is what happened. When we discovered the error, we still go through the process of suspending it. And what if it was built two years ago . When do you if it was already built, it would be a different situation. It would have been the notice would have expired by then. Right. But in this case, we issued a new notice per the zoning administrators direction, and then that made the that prompted the but it was built, he would havent done it. Well, if we discovered the error, after the fact is not typically when we do it. Under construction is when we typically suspend the permit. Right. That is my challenge. President hillis i am sympathetic that clearly it is not an insignificant deck that you have spent money on and the department has issued a permit and now rescinded it. Again, if this was clean and seeing this without anything being built, i would reject it. I would vote to reject it, but i am torn what to do. Sure. In response to that, the notice we received to stop work on it was received on the day that the glass was to be installed. So my contractor was not able to install the glass on the day that we received word from your Planning Department with the rescission of the permit was the afternoon that the glass panels were to go to the roof. Just to be clear that construction was one day away from finished. President hillis i think we understand. Commissioner richards. So we get stories all the time from project sponsors about extended families and need 20,000 square feet and yada, yada, and a lot of times i actually dont believe until proven true. We see the project sponsor has a mobility issue. We see its not like its an architect representing some llc and this is going to be flipped. Here is a human face to the need for having the windscreen. I know 42 inches versus they should have figured it out. But i think its a fairness thing because you went ahead and purchased them. We made a mistake. I wouldnt like to see that walking down the street, but i chalk it up to you win some, lose some, and not taking dr and allow the process to Going Forward out of basic fairness and seeing the project sponsor who really needs the roof deck. President hillis commissioner moore. Commissioner moore im trying to figure out i dont know exactly the prevailing winds in this area. President hillis probably from the west. Commissioner moore south, southwest. And the elevator housing that provides some protection for the roof deck itself. And if it is windy, we just tuck perhaps somewhere near the elevator override. Some put additional planters further inbound, but i personally cannot support adding this windscreen here. I just cant. The fact that something happened over the counter may require another settlement, but i am not a lawyer of how the glass is sold to somebody else or reimbursement, but i cannot support adding a 6foot windscreen. I cant. Doesnt matter. Anybody else could do the same thing and find a way to wriggle themselves into a permit and under normal circumstances is not supportable. It is too visible from the street and impact and jarring. You have toed a mitt that. You have to admit that. I cannot say because there was a mistake somewhere we have to approve it. We may need to support the department to find a way to remedy between the expenditure of the glass, but that does not force me to approve a 6foot screen here. It does not. President hillis commissioner melgar. Vice president melgar i agree with everything you said and it doesnt seem fair to me. Knowing what i know about municipal finance, i dont see a way that we would reimburse the homeowner for something he did in good faith according to our instructions. So the only recourse would be to sue in small claims court. But right, its not small because its 30,000 and that would add cost to him and the city. It would be a bummer. So i agree if this project had come to us, we probably wouldnt have approved it. You guys know that. The fairness element in terms of the process and what citizens expectations can be of government, it doesnt seem fair to me, so i would lean towards just not taking dr. President hillis this in essence was for all intensive purposes, its built and the glass is in the garage and the structure is up. Can i ask a question about the prevailing winds . Are there any modifications made to reduce the impact . I think we agree with the neighbors that this is weve seen these and somewhat of a structure there. Could you have 6 foot on the west side and take the first two or the first i dont know how wide that is on either side, until you get to the first frame . And then drop it down . So youve got some protection to the wind but on the kind of building edges there isnt that 6foot structure. I happen to be in the wind business actually. I am a wind project developer for 35 years. Could you speak a little bit louder . Im sorry. I have been a Wind Energy Project developer for 35 years. Including the altamont pass. The prevailing winds from San Francisco are from the west and southwest. So if you consider there is one aspect of this that also was not that was in the presentation and was not presented. And was that when we bought the hou house, my exact neighbor had an approved permit for a roof deck. And my structure for my elevator and the stairs landing on the roof was designed to be directly next to his. So it is on the wrong side of the deck, if you consider it that way, from the purpose of blocking any wind. It is on the north it is on the southeast sort of corner of the deck. And south side of the building. So the wind will, if you tried to get behind it, you would be on my neighbors roof essentially is what it would come down to. But in terms of can there be anything done to cut posts to reduce the windscreen on the north side, does it change the perspective of the back neighbors, the la villa neighbors in terms of seeing this . I think from my perspective, its not a good solution. It changes the dynamic of at least one pole and maybe two poles to try to reengineer those poles so they dont have an area where the glass tries to be install ed. I was told that this isnt something that normally gets imposed because color can be changed. One thing we can do is we could change the color of the poles such that they are not jarring. They were done that color by my contractor without asking because they matched the interior design. Of course, Exterior Design doesnt necessarily need to match interior design. So that is one area that when you look at when you look at it, then, it would look like the sky instead of other things. President hillis all right. Thanks. Since we have been given you the opportunity to talk, if we can hear from the neighbor. Just a couple of minutes. I think the misunderstanding here is he had purchased the 42inch deck rail and installed the 42inch deck rail. Presumably hold on. Guys, we cant have this. Whether he did, though, or not, and he went and got a permit and purchased the 72inch rail, too, is our issue. He purchased it. He could put up the 42 back, but still out the he got a permit and the department, in error, kind of issued the permit. And allow this to go forward and get built until you saw it in legitimately raised an issue, and admittedly we made a mistake. On the first day they installed the first 6foot post i called building on the first day. President hillis thank you. Commissioner richards . I would be inclined to approve it with two conditions. Take dr and approve the project with two conditions. One, the posts are painted a neutral color. Maybe a white, so not jarring. And two, kind of like we did before on accommodating the persons personal need when we said when they sell the units in question, that we merged, that the units have to go back. I would say upon sale of the house, you have a 42inch rail installed. So accommodate your needs while you are there, but upon sale of the house, the mistake is rectified. Second. Were breaking new ground. That was a motion then, commissioner . It was. And a motion and second. A Ground Breaking one. It was indeed. There is a motion thats been seconded to take dr to aprove project with two conditions that the posts be painted a neutral condition such as white and upon sale, that the 42inch railing is reinstalled. President hillis if its quick. You have to come up to the mic. You have to come up to the mic. Would these conditions be put in the deed. Or be recorded . President hillis yes. They are recorded. Commissioner koppel . Commissioner richards . Commissioner moore . Commissioner melgar . So moved, commissioners. That motion passes 41 with commissioner moore voting against. Okay. New dance. All right. Our meeting is adjourned. Selfplanning works to preserve and enhance the city what kind hispanic the environment in a variety of ways overhead plans to fwied other departments to open space and land use an urban design and a variety of other matters related to the physical urban Environment Planning projects include implementing code change or designing plaza or parks projects can be broad as proipd on overhead neighborhood planning effort typically include public involvement depending on the subject a new lot or effect or be active in the final process lots of people are troubled by theyre moving loss of theyre of what we preserve to be theyre moving mid block or rear yard open space. One way to be involved attend a meeting to go it gives us and the neighbors to learn and participate dribble in future improvements meetings often take the form of open houses or focus groups or other stinks that allows you or your neighbors to provide feedback and ask questions the best way to insure youll be alerted the Community Meetings sign up for the notification on the website by signing up using youll receive the notifications of existing request the specific neighborhood or project type if youre language is a disability accomodation please call us 72 hours before the event over the events staff will receive the input and publish the results on the website the notifications bans feedback from the public for example, the feedback you provide may change how a street corridors looks at or the web policy the get started in planning for our neighborhood or learner more mr. The upcoming visit the plans and programs package of our we are talking about with our feedback and participation that is important to us not everyone takes this so be proud of taking ann we think over 50 thousand permanent residents in San Francisco eligible for citizenship by lack information and resources so really the project is not about citizenship but really academy our immigrant community. Making sure theyre a part of what we do in San Francisco the San Francisco pathway to Citizenship Initiative a unique part of just between the city and then our 5 local foundations and Community Safe organizations and it really is an effort to get as many of the legal permanent residents in the San Francisco since 2013 we started reaching the San Francisco bay area residents and 10 thousand people into through 22 working groups and actually completed 5 thousand applications for citizenship our cause the real low income to moderate income resident in San Francisco and the bayview sometimes the workshops are said attend by poem if san mateo and from sacking. We think over restraining order thousand legal permanent residents in San Francisco that are eligible for citizenship but totally lack information and they dont have trained professionals culturally appropriate with an audience youre working with one time of providing services with pro bono lawyers and trained professionals to find out whether your eligible the first station and go through a purview list of questions to see if they have met the 56 year residents arrangement or theyre a u. S. Citizenship they once they get through the screening they go to legal communication to see lawyers to check am i eligible to be a citizen we send them to station 3 thats when they sit down with experienced advertising to fill out the 4 hundred naturalization form and then to final review and at the end he helps them with the check out station and send them a packet to fill and wait a month to 6 weeks to be invited in for an oral examine and if they pass two or three a months maximum get sworn in and become a citizen every single working groups we have a learning how to vote i mean there are tons of Community Resources we go for citizenship prep classes and have agencies it stays on site and this is filing out forms for people that are eligible so not just about your 22 page form but other Community Services and benefits theres an economic and safety Public Benefit if we nationalize all people to be a citizen with the network no objection over 3 million in income for those but more importantly the city saves money 86 million by reducing the benefit costs. Thank you. Ive been here a loventh i already feel like an american citizen not felt it motorbike that needs to happen for good. One day i pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america and to the republic for which it stands, for liberty and justice for all. Youre welcome. singing . clapping. introduce the San Francisco field officer director ribbon that will mirror the oath raise your hand and repeat the oath i hereby declare on oath repeating. Citizens cry when they become citizenship to study this difficult examine and after two trials they come back im an american now were proud of that purpose of evasion so help me god please help me welcome seven hundred and 50 americans. speaking foreign language. she wants to be part of the country and vote so much puppy. You know excited and as i said it is a long process i think that needs to be finally recognized to be integrated that is basically, the type of that i see myself being part of. Out of everybody on tv and the news he felt that is necessary to be part of community in that way i can do so many things but my voice wouldnt count as it counts now. Its everybody i hoped for a bunch of opportunities demographics and as you can see yourself theres a good life for everyone. Thats why. You have people from all the walks that life and theyre standing in water 8 hours to be an american citizen and contribute to the city and thats really what makes this worthwhile. Everyone, thank you for coming here today, i know a lot of you have been waiting a long time. Thank you for making the time to be here today. Will you please join us by rising and joining us in the pledge of allegiance. I allegiance to the flag of the United States of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Mr. Secretary, roll call. Commissioner bridges . Commissioner drig col . Here. Commissioner makras . Present. Well be starting off today by going right into staff presentation, and what well do is after theyve had a chance to present well open up to Public Comment. Well only be calling Public Comment once today. We have approximately 75 to 90 speaker cards here and if we were to call everyone and give everyone two minutes, it would be three hours, so what were going to do is limit it to one minute per person so everyone has a chance to hear what everyone else has to say. What i do ask, you please be respectful. Not everyone in the room is going to have the same opinion, but core values is being respectful of everyones opinion and have an intelligent discussion today. Staff, go ahead and start off. Before we get started, i wanted to acknowledge, thank you for being here, thank you for being engaged and active participants in democracy. I want to let you know in the interest of full disclosure im leaving this evening earlier than anticipated, i have a sick relative in the hospital that is being discharged, so i need to go pick him up. I will let you know, but i may have to ask for the vote to be called before everyone has an opportunity to speak. I want to acknowledge, again, many of you have come, written, emailed, this body as well as the board of supervisors and the editorial pages of the local newspapers, your voice has been heard and i want to acknowledge that. President stansbury id like to add one thing, id like to thank supervisor peskin for showing up today, its important that our supervisors are here to add their opinion, because its helpful for our commission to hear from them. So thank you. We have several invited guests, you know allan at the far left. Stephanie ivy and John Goldstein from Goldman Sachs, john will speak first. And then ofear second. Theyll be 15 minutes. Third will be allan and i will go last and allan and i, we pledge total of 15 minutes of two, if he takes 8, i have 7. John, if you could. Stephanie, please reintroduce yourselves. Good afternoon to the board, thank you for having us. Protecting the environment and thinking about esg, its been a longstanding focus of our firm. We have a very large clean energy business, weve already deployed about 40 billion in capital to clean energy and have expanded that goal to 150 billion by 2025. Weve held 89 companies scale up the clean energy and renewable efforts in 29 countries. Our own building was built to the gold esg standard, so we focus a lot of resources thinking about this from an investment perspective as well as business. We worked with some of the largest institutions on ways to think about reducing the Carbon Footprint because we agree this is a critical issue that needs to be addressed. We did partnership with the state of new york which was announced at the paris climate talk last year that helped them reduce Carbon Emissions by 70 . To address this issue more aggressively we acquired a firm with John Goldstein, working with the largest foundations on how to think about these issues. We believe there is a way to reduce the Carbon Footprint, but also retain the power to engage with companies that have violators and high carbon emitters and organizations like San Francisco, enable them to maintain and keep the portfolio focus as fiduciaries. Im going to turn it to john. Im going to go over a couple of basic things. Number one, about my background and context. Number two, talk about the particular challenges of climate risk and integrating portfolios and the world is at a point of whether to think about it, but how. The third point is getting to how, what is a way to tackle the challenge and potentcy of Climate Change. And finally reflections on some of the materials we presented. My handy watch, im going to try to stick to the time, so everybody can go through what they need to say. I cofounded a Impact Investing firm back in 2007, focused working with u. S. Foundations and other institutions on this question of changing world, value impact and capital. Made 125 investments across, worked with lots of institutions. And frankly, the sign this is important to investors across the world, we were acquired by Goldman Sachs two years ago, and help clients take concrete action on issues. That gets to the next i think have touched the questions around fossil fuel for many angles. We have clients that have taken a spectrum of approaches to low carbon to engagement to investing in solutions and all points in between. So weve deployed capital and worked with clients on the spectrum and can comment from that basis. I think the second thing is talk about Climate Change as an investment problem. Huge societal issue as well documented and understood, but as investment, its a potent one because it has these two characteristics. Number one between policy change, physical change and market change, its pretty much unquestionable there will be prefound impact over the next 20 years affecting every nook and cranny. The challenge, which ones of those will happen, when and where and how that relates to Market Pricing is really hard to figure out. The scenarios of how things unfold around physical change, policy response. Its certain the world is going to look different, but making bets on how that is going to look is really, really hard. Back to approach, to tackle that, the approach is not to be paralyzed. Its thoughtful actions to take with the basis of knowledge one has today to really start on a path of action and improvement and engagement, as opposed to staying in the analytical phase, which a lot of companies do. So back to the investment lens. This is laid out in a simple picture in the pact, but i can do a little word picture. Against the backdrop of significant change, but uncertainty about the specifics of those change, what are things that make sense for action today . We found three general casts of things that generally make sense across portfolios. Number one, risk management. If people can find ways to significantly reduce their risk posture, without otherwise affecting their financial exposure, kind of like getting cheaper free insurance. We dont know how the world is going to unfold, but if the insurance is cheap or free, its a positive thing to do. They found a way with 25 basis points of tracking error, if you map the russell 1,000 and their portfolio, it doesnt look like two lines, its one line, but it reduces their Carbon Footprint by 72 . That allows to you say im not making a bet on how this is going to play out, but im getting really well priced insurance. If i can free or cheap insurance. The right tail. Other opportunities that may benefit from a changing world, that can get a free option on. If you can find opportunities for example to invest in rooftop solar that gives attractive returns today, but even more at the transition. The materials have example of a client were Getting Started with, they wanted to make active bet that the trends will accelerate faster than they think. There are investments you can make that will look better under those scenarios. A free call option on upside around transition. Similarly, if the world doesnt change, youre fine. If it changes youre even better. Those types of things. Asymmetry that makes sense from institutional perspective. The third thing is the middle. Engagement, esg analysis, working to understand companies are going to take very different paths on this. And being an engaged owner can drive what path they actually take. I think the example is a good one, in addition to the low carbon portfolio, they were part of the 2 planning and having a different conversation with management at companies about what the future should look like and the seriousness of the issues. This is something shareholders want to have a significant conversation about to manage their risk. Having a seat at the table, instead of opting out. Because what is decided around that table, matters an awful lot what the world is going to look like in 2030 years. One thing that is interesting is carbon tracker, a great organization. Ironically, and there is sort of a lot of the research is used around the divestment question. We sat down and said, we were never talking when we started di vesting from companies, has we wanted was to sit down with the companies and figure that the risk return on the high carbon assets was unattractive and the real lever was not to not own the companies, but talk to the management about the prudence of those projects. The question of having a seat at the table, the engagement works on multiple levels. Shareholder of a publicly traded company, which is engaging around strategic planning. But with the investment managers. Weve found were spending more time talking to private equity firms about how are they working with their company . They own these companies, theyre controlled positions. They can drive carbon reporting, change in practices. This engagement can permeate a whole portfolio to drive improvement. If you own the assets and make the assets perform better, you can yeah . Just to clarify, youre advocating dont sell the company dont sell the company stock, but look at the actual projects that are within that company and move down to that level . So number one, im not advocating or whatever. What i think the point is that as part of transitioning to a low carbon future, there is a lot of critical choices Companies Make about what they invest in, how they operate and how theyre assessed. There is a fork in the road, do you want to be in the board room as part of that conversation to push in a certain direction or opt out . There is no perfect approach, but there are pros cons and one of the cons is losing the seat at the table around the cap x decision. There are choices to be made and the world would be better off in the choices move in a more sustainable direction than less. And one of the questions is what role do you want or not want to play in the conversation . Does that answer your question. And so the optimization, the nice thing, there is a great way for that to have real legs because the economic case matters a lot. In some ways it gets popped out in interesting ways. So we had our Real Estate Team help us assess a real estate fund. We were excited to understand. They talked about the properties. After we were debriefing on the conversation and you know, they told us what they liked and didnt like. But then there was a awkward silence. We said what are you not telling us . They said all the things they want to do around community engagement, we do more of that because its good business. I think the world is changing in part because Consumer Attitudes are changing, and economics are Getting Better and better on being the right side, benefitting from the trends and driving the trends, at multiple levels with the companies you own, its a powerful level. If you can invest in an asset manager that is skilled in a changing world, instead of one that has their head pointed down, from a risk perspective, i think generally wed rather have them staying in touch with the world as it will be, than stuck in the world as it was. How do you optimize that exposure . With whom you invest . We have slides. That broad question of not just in whom you invest, but how you invest, how you engage. I think there is a lot of opportunity. I dont know if there is a way to get im sorry, john, can you briefly just explain people that are engaging with you that want to reduce the Carbon Footprint, simply for the audience, why are they doing it and what are they able to accomplish . So, i would put the people who approach us to do that into two categories and there is overlap. So there is some people it is purely from a mission perspective. So one of the Large Foundation clients was in town, one of their key areas where they give around money is driving transition to a low carbon economy, its what they believe in, care about and to be giving money away to solve problems they feel like theyre creating, there would be a distance. We see that with individuals we work with, we see it with investors. There is a distance between the world they want to see and certain ways of investing. And ill talk about each model and what they tend to do. The second are fiduciaries, asset owners, money on behalf of someone else, generally pension. They see the world changing. 60 of new Power Generation in the u. S. Was renewable. The world is changing. And they see it. And they want to be figure out if there is a smart way without making a bet, im putting it all on black. They want to position themselves for a future that is changing. New york state is a good example of what that looks like. Id say that first category, its more valuealigned investors tend to take a spectrum. Some of them will divest from fossil fuels because they dont want to see them from identity perspective. They want to have their voice added from a movement perspective. And others invest in solutions. We do a lot of conversation and the divest, but the invest piece is neglected in terms of what are things that may benefit from the investment. On the institutional side, i think, this is what is exciting about the conversation today, weve seen Pension Funds nibble at pieces of this. New york state low carbon index, the engagement around the 2 resolution, the climate 100 put together, weve seen bits and pieces in those, but what is exciting about the recommendation i read in the materials, i think overnight it would put sfers at the leading edge thats what the current recommendations . Yeah. Hiring people to make it real, plug into partnerships to engage your reach, look at whether there are ways in terms of fossil fuels and clean energy, that kind of looks across the spectrum in a way that once again i think would position you more with the vanguard. Weve seen individual actions along the spectrum, but to come out of the gate a little more powerfully across the tools is a big deal. Why is that more powerful than new york . So, i mean, number one, for us, and you know, inability to move dollars, like to move money versus a broad process, that makes a difference. How long was new yorks process . New york city . So i havent been involved in that. The release says theyre going to go i think work with consultants to develop a set of options that they will then study and have reviewed by a fiduciary counsel that says that is prudent. So no set time line. Im not the expert on that, but no guideline and its not clear what would result, and it would be interesting to see the dynamic between how aggressive and what will pass muster in terms of the process theyve set up, in terms of the legal bar. This is more me speculating having read the same materials you read. But i think its important to note, what is significant, have a broad aspiration. The world is changing we wanted to be positioned for it. Make a down payment, move money away from the worst actors toward better, youre actions that take to move money, bodies and vote today while still having longer term aspiration. I think it feels like either, or. Its either aspirational statement that puts off action, or its action. And a combination of those two seems potent. I think ive gotten to the 15 minutes. I think that kind of covers all of it. The question, it is important to recognize the profound challenge of Climate Change as investing question. The trick is to find not to get started and this if you can find ways to get cheap or free insurance, or free or cheap options and optimize the performance of the middle, where you invest and how you invest, that is a way to allow folks to get started. And its an on ramp, not a conversation, but an actual way to get started. So much comes down to good execution. Back to being an example, the example that has action, aspiration, but good implementation, because when we talk to institutions that are intrigued but skeptical, they have questions about will this be implemented well . This is going back to the days, are we manufacturing models of success or cautionary tales. Do we reinforce those by stubbing our toe, or do we show people that can work in a methodical way that gives its legs. There is a desire to have a leadership position not just for your own pensioners and what youre trying to do, but impact and extend. I think not to be really boring, but good execution is innovation. And i think its important to not lose sight of that. One of the things we as a board, its really easy to take things out, but we have to find things to put it in, and we have to find things with a bogey, so i think finding those clean renewables, enough of them, everybody around the world is chasing those kind of companies now. Where can we find them . And so our fear is always something that happened to cal feres and others, they put their money in things and they lost money. We need the help to identify the good projects. When youre saying implementation, we need to thats a key for us. Yeah. Im a few minutes over, apologies, but hopefully that was useful. With the 15 minutes i had and im going to caveat it that the presentation i prepared is longer than that, so im going to try to cover the most important points. But im going to spend a couple of minutes on my background. Its relevant to folks in the room. So in 2012, as a student uc berkeley, during that time i was divestment fellow at 350. Org and spoke in favor of sfers divesting at the First Council hearing in 2013. Thereafter, i passed the resolution. After graduating i went on to work at shareholder advocacy nonprofit where i basically supported divestment campaigns nationwide and also worked connected research that underpinned shareholder proposals, targeted fossil fuel companies. After that i went to work at the university of California Investment office, where they manage the 100 billion for the uc system and i basically spent my time helping them develop a framework for responsible investment and specifically had to tack the question of Climate Change. So during that time, uc, you know, we came out with the uc came out with a multipronged approach. They joined the principles for responsible investment where i work now and something sfers did a few months ago. The uc sold off the investment in the coal and oil Sand Companies in a short time frame. They committed a billion dollars through private market vehicles. And they committed to active ownership, so where they had a seat at the table, they joined climaterelated engagement initiatives. And they hired staff to implement all this. So its probably you can see the similarities there with the proposed plan. In my opinion, the staff proposal standalone goes above and beyond that. I joined the principles for responsible investment. Weve got just under 2000 constitutional investor and Service Provider signatories or members that represent 70 there will, over half of the worlds wealth. And you know, its become abundantly clear that the Climate Change is sort of a top issue for the vast majority of the signatories, of our members, so the pri has prioritized Climate Change within our 10year strategy. We spend a lot of time thinking about it. And advising our signatories on it. And what ill say through the whole journey, you know, if i didnt think divestment was a powerful tool, i wouldnt have been an activist for years. And this journey broadened by perspective. I worked in an Institutional Investment office that had the responsibility to manage the pension assets of tens of thousands hundreds of thousands of people indefinitely. And so that journey has you know, helped me understand that divestment is powerful and if it is undertaken, it shouldnt be standalone, it should be part of a thoughtful multipronged approach. Because there are many levers to address Climate Change. And i think the conversation needs to be had around not isolating one lever at the expense of all of the others, lets talk about how each lever can be thoughtfully executed in the way that has the most impact on the issue we care about, while fulfilling the fiduciary duty this board is charged to execute on behalf of pensioners. So how do you balance all those differing approaches . And create a really holistic approach that can certainly include divestment if thats the way the board wants to go, and at the same time, doesnt stop there. So, you know, i think each of the proposals that are on the table that have been discussed, each have their own merits and i think there is a path forward for this board that incorporates elements of each and as john said, theyre a leader among Pension Funds in the u. S. And the world and that is the opportunity on the table today. Please stand by. Cheap natural gas, renewable energy. Policies targeting Carbon Emissions, as we all know, decimated the coal industry, depressed oil prices, and have left assets stranded and will continue to do so. As we all know, the directionality is clear. The International Community is committed to keeping warming well below 2 degrees celcius. And that has real implications for institutional investors. John highlighted a number of them. And i will just add to them and provide a little more color. Just yesterday, lloyds of london, oldest Insurance Market in the world, committed to divesting from coal. Norways sovereign wealth fund, largest in the world, is considering a divestment from fossil fuel as well. World bank announced that it will no longer finance fossil fuels. They announced that ive come together to engage the largest carbon emmitters, under even umbrella, new umbrella, called the climate action