lot of it was noise. >> of the 52 complaints that was filed and submitted to this commission and to the abc by the police and officer mathis, 4.5 out of 52 were substantiated, 8%. so when you say -- and it's our position that because of the positioning of the police car, the reports, the incidents were attributed to this club. that has been substantiated. that position has been substantiated by the abc appeals board. >> sorry to interrupt. it has also not been -- been substantiated by the abc, it has been substantiated by this commission. commissioner tan was part of that board, and it showed all the inaccuracies of these reports. to where commissioner joseph even mentioned about how

inaccurate these reports are, and it weighs hujly gely on someone's permit. >> okay. and it weighs on sound. since i've been on this commission, we were in cbd meetings with you. the neighbors wanted to work with you. they didn't file complaint against you because you said you would be working with them. i stopped going to those meetings, and you said you would work with these neighbors. >> if you see all those neighbors, they're not here. there's 30-plus neighbors in the same building that i'm in, and there's no complaints. >> that's what i'm going to ask. events, clubs unrelated to this club, two commissions have

said, it's one complaint. we have one complainant here. it's mr. and mrs. diamond. the diamonds have -- and i don't know what their motivation is. i don't know them. i've never met them, i've never spoken to them, but it's troubling to me that a man's livelyhood, depending on mr. and mrs. diamond -- maybe they're racist. maybe they don't want black people there, but how come they're the only people, the only people complaining. >> okay. i do want to acknowledge that there is a letter from supervisor pen kinskin's that the comment that a lot of the non-english speakers that did come in and made comments during the meeting e they', th afraid to return. >> i missed the word, i'm sorry. >> there's a lot of seniors that live in the sro's across the street, and they're scared. >> scared of what?

>> scared of complaining. >> so that's why the supervisors, sometimes they have to write a letter at the end of the day to work with their constituents. >> i would love -- >> okay. let's just stop it here. let's get us the data. get everything that we think we need to protect yourself, to protect the neighbors, and to also protect the code. >> can i work directly with you, commission, to give me specifics on what you guys need because last time i was here, you guys told me to come with a plan and what we have done, and you guys told me that's what you needed. now you're telling me that i need data, and this is not -- >> it's not complete. you told me -- i got an e-mail from kevin. i got kind of a memorandum from

ollie. >> pretty detailed e-mail from kevin. >> no, because he doesn't tell me what decibel he played the music on the inside. [ inaudible ] >> you guys ask for a plan -- >> hold on, hold on. hold on. can we have one speaker at a time. commissioner lee, did you want to finish your question? >> i want going to say, we need the data. it's not complete. and if you want us to make a decision on this, it's not correct. >> mr. montoya's correct. last time we were here, you asked what was going on with the neighbors, 1k we responded. you said you need a plan, and 100% of the external doors are finished, complete, and there's an internal door that's 90% complete. >> sir, if you want to watch the tape again, i specifically asked for data. >> yes. >> so if you want to go and say

i did not, it's incorrect. and you can rewind the tape, and i asked for data, okay? actual data. so telling me what i said is wrong. >> we've got data. you've got -- >> it's not complete. >> it's not what you want. that's why i'm asking for specifics. i would love to work with you guys, and i just need to know what exactly it is that you guys want so i can get that done. >> so a couple of things. one, i think it's challenging where you come in and say well, there's a report but it's not finished yet, and we're doing soundproofing but it's not finished yet. it would be helpful if you say here's a report, and it's been finished, and we can take action. it's difficult for us to take action when the reports aren't finished. and commissioner lee has been very consistent about his desire to see some of the data

specifically around the noise. so i appreciate your frustration. that's very clear, and we want you to be back in full operati operationas soon as possible. so i think finishing the reports that are in process, finishing and completing the work that's in process, and then, coming back is what we're asking for, instead of coming in and saying things are almost done. i'd also like to hear from other folks who are here to speak on this issue, as well. so are there any other final questions from the commissioners? >> i just want to add one note. it goes back to something that director weiland said.

we are accustomed to a very specific set of data. they're reports that are easily obtainable on-line. i'm sure the director has a number of these reports that we can share with you. that's what we're accustomed to getting. it's very kind of standard operating procedure. so when commissioner lee says he wants data, i'm thinking, and i could wrong, but it's we want to see the data that we usually see with these complex reports that third parties put together. >> copy that. so the report -- kevin's report needs to be a different report under a different guideline, as far as the study goes. the data of the study, that needs to be complete. >> they take measurements of sound, and then, they analyze that. today, we've already seen a couple. >> can i say one thing?

i respect your position and commissioner lee, as well. i understand it's clear, and it's clarity here. what happens when the data come in, and the diamonds say hey, still noisy here? i don't like it. my kids can't sleep. i don't like it. what happens? what do you do about him and her? >> i'll leave that as a rhetorical question. >> yeah, it is. >> it's what we do all the time. >> let me make it specific. what if that in fact happens? >> so can i just give it my opinion because i've been here on that side of the track before. >> yes. >> if you do everything physically possible, provide us the data, spent the money on soundproofing, done everything possible by the book, the diamonds can file whatever they can file, but you're in compliance. as long as you're in compliance, you're not getting anymore tickets. this commission can only do so much. >> you've answered my question. >> that's all.

it's not about -- i mean, other things can happen, but at the same time, when it comes to impacting neighbors and noise, which this is the issue right now, it's done. >> okay. that was my question, and you've -- i respect your answer. >> all right. so thank you. is there -- are there other people here to comment on this? san francisco police department, are you here to comment on this? do you have input on this decision? welcome. >> steve matthias, central station. i would respectfully request that i be able to speak on different issues if the hearing is going to be presented at a later date just so that the issues are fresh and can be presented at the same time. >> yes, that's fine with us.

we'd certainly like to have your input at the same time as everything else, but you're also welcome to make comments now, if you'd like to. >> i think i'll let the public have their time. i know that they have a lot to say, and -- but yeah, i think i'll address the other things. i think it would just be a better package to be able to do that. >> right. great. thank you. >> thank you. >> members of the public who would like to comment on this? yes, please, come on up. we'd like to have three minutes perperson, if possible. >> thank you very much, commissioners. my name is andrew diamond. you've heard my name mentioned a lot this evening. i live at 2 roland street, which is across the alley from hue night club. i first moved there in 2007, before there was ever a night club at hue.

i met bennett at some neighborhood meetings where he told me he was going to be a good neighbor. i was in support of the club. i love the community. i've lived there now for 11 years. i've heard some disparaging things about me said. i will just say, i will be the first to come in front of you and say when i don't have thump, thump, thump, coming through my walls at night. and even though you put the 12:00 restriction on, they still play music after midnight, so we still get that thump, thump, thump, coming until 1:30, 1:45 until they shut their music off. that's all i care about. i know there's security issues. broadway's a tough place. everybody talks about roland, and everybody talks -- i'm really concerned about the volume going up. at the back of the alley, it's actually really very quiet.

it's not like being out on the broadway the cars are going, so this bass music just cuts through everything. i've spent over $10,000 soundproofi soundproofing and taking apart my walls, covering my windows that face roland street to try to decrease that issue. we bought our condo before we had kids. we'd like to live there forever. this is really a solvable issue. there are nights that hue is operating, and i don't have a problem. it's great and i love it. there are nights that they go overboard, and all i'm looking for is a solution to what i think can be solved. we've had countless police officers, entertainment commissioners. mr. pauli, sean burke has been in my home. dr. matthias has been in my home.

abc has been in my home. everybody can hear the music. you can come to the back of roland street at midnight and hear it. it's not like this is a mystery issue. it's there, and i'm really appreciative of everything the commission has done because it's actually gotten better since last july. things have started to get better, and if it could just get fixed, we would be in heaven. i wouldn't care what hue was doing because, you know, it's just frustrating because they've known about these issues for so many years. bennett was in my living room eight years ago. i've met with him many, marijuanmany times. this is an e-mail. we've bought our own sound meter, and this is inside our home where the sound just bounces about between 70 and # 0, the bass hits; it just goes right up. and that's what i'm hoping can get solved, and i really want

to thank everybody for their help on this. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is garth smith. i'm a homeowner and resident at 2 roland, as well, a neighbor to andrew diamond. it's a pretty simple issue here, it truly is, about a large part of noise and security. both of which have improved dramatically since our meeting last june, where there were many people to express their concerns. as andrew indicated, we've met with mr. bennett over the ten years he's been there. he has indicated he was there to be a good neighbor. he tends to be a procrastinor. for example, in june of last year, obviously, his operation

permit was modified primarily because of noise. it's been six months now, and this insulation noise barrier has just been installed within a week. and the reports to show the improvements aren't even put together yet. so the point is, all we want is the noise down to a reasonable level, and it hasn't been there. it's getting better, and we think it is a situation that can be solved. we just need somebody to put some effort into it, do what they say they're going to do. and we have nothing against the operation. it's -- we know it's broadway. we live there; we own property there. it's just an unusual -- or unreasonable condition at this point. thank you for your time. >> thank you.

>> good evening, commissioners. my name is dominick lamandre. i'm the district manager for the top of broadway cbd. it's good to see you. this is the third time i'm going to submit a comment on this issue. what i will say is that it seems that benity came here today to ask you to make a decision based on incomplete information. we brought this issue to the entertainment commission back in june 2017, and then subsequently went to the appeals board on june 20, 2017, and there were some stipulations laid out in that ruling that bennett has to follow in order for his case to be reviewed. so he comes to you with 90% of it done, and my question is, this has been an issue that we've been dealing with since

february 2016, and he comes to you today to make a decision based on work that has yet to be completed within that two-year time span and asks you to bank that extra time on his good word and on his good faith. and at this point, bennett hasn't shown any good faith in the neighborhood. i've been trying to have a constructive dialogue for over two years now. only recently he's started responded to my e-mails, and it's a one way dialogue that doesn't promote conversation when only one party responds. nothing else to say except i would be very worried about taking bennett at his word. i've tried to cash that in many times, and i have yet to see any results. so thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? all right. then public comment is closed.

commissioners? >> well, obviously, you know, we should continue this, but maybe with maggie showing some samples of sound studies that we usually look at, get all the soundproofing and everything all done, all done to the best you think to your ability and then bring sean out there and do the check, you know, like we normally would do, but i'd like to -- >> you may want to stipulate that in terms of you want sean to do a new sound test, and if so -- >> i think he kind of wants to work with sean and all this, but i want to make sure -- 'cause we're not anybody's personal sound person. we want to get it resolved, but i want to make sure that the -- the place holder has all -- everything done, have those -- those things for the door in, everything done, have jordan's

paperwork all done, all the data ready to come to us so we can finally make a decision. and i guess at the time i want to know what's sean's findings are. >> i'm happy to send sean ought ought -- out to do monitoring. it's a little bit out of the ordinary, but you want him there as they're doing testing? >> in my opinion, i think it's better that sean's with them with their people so that -- they're saying that he's taking readings at different times than they take readings. i mean -- >> sorry to interject. i don't want to be contrary, but i think -- i think it would be necessary to send me out if what we were talking about is an increase in their internal sound limit or an adjustment to

what ambient is, and i think that's maybe not what's on the table here. i think what's on the table is they need to -- >> well, they're saying that they're in complains. neighbors say they're still having problems skbl they have have -- >> they have an opportunity to fight the ticket that was issued -- that's not true. actually, the ticket has been paid, but they still an opportunity to appeal that. >> i think right now they're asking some guidance. >> happy to do that. >> so before they come back to us, we want all of their data complete, and maggie can show them -- they don't have to go so extensive, but give us some points of when they took the data, at what time, where they were at; a little bit more detail than a paragraph or a

report. i want all their witnesses to be here, kevin, and everybody who's going to testify for them to be available for us to ask questions. and you say their standards when they take their sound check and your sound check, and if you say it's different than what they have, then, we can bring that up, too, i guess. >> okay. sorry. i don't want to go on too long here, but i want to make sure that this is -- this is clear. you're stipulating that i have a role in them -- >> i'd like to verify -- >> the process prior to them -- >> i'd like you to verify what they're claiming that they're in compliance, okay? like, i want you to take the same reading -- is it possible to take the same reading? >> i think that might encourage a situation in which there's a difference of opinion actively

on-site in the moment, and i think maybe that's not the best course. >> yeah. i don't. i think inspector burke's job should be to offer guidance and to help them to provide the data that we're requiring with director weiland. i would personally not assign or try to assign him to something way outside of his -- >> help them out, let them get all their data. >> well, to me, it's a very legitimate concern they're bringing up. you want something. help me to tell me what it is, and i think between inspector weiland and director burke, they'll be able to do it. >> do what you guys got to do, what you guys think you're in compliance, and inspector burke will take his own readings, as he would do with any other poe. >> but that's the thing we need to clarify, commissioner lee,

because if we're sending sean out to be doing readings, what are the parameters for that? sean's role for going out and doing readings are to a, set a limit or b, ensure the readings are within the limit. he's not going out and doing 24 hours of data or information that you're used to seeing. that's separate. if you want him to skbrust go out and oversee the process, have a -- lending advice on what's going on, that might be a separate thing. >> yes. and i don't know -- speaking for myself, i do not think setting the limits is the way to go on this. >> i think it's compliance. >> ensuring compliance. >> they can supposedly legally work out of that. if they say they're hitting that same limit, but they're still hearing it in the back,

then, there's got to be something wrong. >> i think the sound study will just be interesting and curious to see what are the levels that we're hearing in the alleyway based on the soundproofing they've done. >> all right. so are you guys okay with just the data? >> and to have that -- the final piece of the soundproofing put in place before the next meeting, that small little check box of their -- >> okay. so i'm waiting -- i'm not going to be having him set any kind of a new limit. >> no. >> especially because it's that at ambient right now. >> i think i'd prefer to hold off on that. >> okay. so he will just be, like, an expert witness to help out. is that -- >> so mr. bloom, so you understand, before you come back, please have your compliant have everything ready to present, and they will give you the guidance of what

they're looking for. we can just talk about -- there might be other issues, but let's get the sound thing out of the way so we don't disturb a neighbor that obviously doesn't want the business to go down, but let's establish a kind of mutual understanding. >> that's okay, no, no, no. no worried. >> -- no worries. >> all right. so i have a motion to continue. >> motion to continue. >> with all the data -- complete data from whoever experts they have, and all their witnesses here. and if you can't make it, then skip -- skip the hearing where -- especially the sound people can be here. >> so are you asking for a motion to continue it and when they're ready, they're contact our director and ask to be calendared then? >> yes. >> february 6th.

>> okay. >> yep. >> all right. so that's a motion. >> i'll second it. >> and a second. >> so just for clarity's sake, within that motion, are we also -- 'cause you didn't list within your motion that you wanted a recommendation from an expert that includes data. and you also had mentioned that you wanted -- or commissioner bleiman had mentioned that you wanted the soundproofing to complete. so are those two motions to continue? >> yeah. >> yes. >> all right. and then a vote. [ roll call. ] >> all right. thank you, everyone. and thank you for your patience on this item. our final item is commissioner comments and questions. yes? >> just one thing.

i think a lot of us down here understand what the tones mean when people come up and talk, but sometimes people that don't come down to city hall much don't understand that there's two tones, so when we talk to them, maybe we can kind remind them, you'll hear the two tones, 15 seconds left. >> that's the only thing. i hear people starting to get uncomfortable and starting to hurry up. >> yes. thank you. useful to remind me of these things. any other comments or questions from the commissioners? >> are we doing the rdr changes of the -- the lighting? >> my bad. i mean -- >> data. we don't have to keep repeating it. >> i still think -- skbl is that somethi that -- >> is that something that you guys want to have in another

offline group. >> i think we should discuss that in our yearly retreat, just so everybody can get a little more informed on the kind of questions we can ask. >> we can make the changes in that kind of a setting. >> i would love to have an rdr crash course. >> when did we have our last retreat? >> march. >> in march? >> yeah. >> okay. let me get through the summit, and then we can go to a retreat. we can go to napa and do some wine tasting or something. >> i just want to acknowledge the staff for throwing an amazing holiday party. yeah, thank you. >> and a belated happy birthday to steven rice. happy birthday. >> all right. thank you all for sticking with us for this meeting. no final comments? meeting's adjourned.

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. we'll be starting off today by going right into staff presentation, and what we'll do is after they've had a chance to present we'll open up to public comment. we'll 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 we're 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 everyone's 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 i'm 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,

e-mailed, 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: i'd like to add one thing, i'd like to thank supervisor peskin for showing up today, it's important that our supervisors are here to add their opinion, because it's 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. they'll 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, it's been a longstanding focus of our firm. we have a very large clean energy business, we've already deployed about $40 billion in capital to clean energy and have expanded that goal to $150 billion by 2025. we've 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. i'm going to turn it to john. >> i'm 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, i'm 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 we've 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, it's a potent one because it has these two characteristics. number one between policy change, physical change and market change, it's pretty much unquestionable there will be pre-found 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. it's 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. it's 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 don't know how the world is going to unfold, but if the insurance is cheap or free, it's 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 doesn't look like two lines, it's one line, but it reduces their carbon footprint by 72%. that allows to you say i'm not making a bet on how this is going to play out, but i'm

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 we're 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 doesn't change, you're fine. if it changes you're 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 20-30 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. we've found we're spending more time talking to private equity firms about how are they working with their company? they own these companies, they're 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, you're advocating don't sell the company -- don't sell the company stock, but look at the actual projects that are within that company and move down to that level? >> so number one, i'm 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 they're 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 didn't 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 it's 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, it's 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 we'd 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 don't know if there is a way to get -- >> i'm 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, it's what they believe in, care about and to be giving money away to solve problems they feel like they're 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 i'll 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, i'm 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. i'd say that first category, it's more value-aligned investors tend to take a spectrum. some of them will divest from

fossil fuels because they don't 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, we've 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, we've 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 -- >> that's 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. we've 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 york's process? >> new york city? so i haven't been involved in that. the release says they're 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. >> i'm not the expert on that, but no guideline and it's 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 they've set up, in terms of the legal bar. this is more me speculating having read the same materials you read. but i think it's 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, you're -- actions

that take to move money, bodies and vote today while still having longer term aspiration. i think it feels like either, or. it's either aspirational statement that puts off action, or it's action. and a combination of those two seems potent. i think i've 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 it's 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 you're trying to do, but impact and extend. i think not to be really boring, but good execution is innovation. and i think it's important to not lose sight of that.

>> one of the things we as a board, it's 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 you're saying implementation, we need to -- that's a key for us. >> yeah. i'm a few minutes over, apologies, but hopefully that was useful.

with the 15 minutes i had and i'm going to caveat it that the presentation i prepared is longer than that, so i'm going to try to cover the most important points. but i'm going to spend a couple of minutes on my background. it's 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 multi-pronged 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

climate-related engagement initiatives. and they hired staff to implement all this. so it's 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. we've got just under 2000 constitutional investor and service provider signatories or members that represent 70 there will, over half of the world's wealth. and you know, it's 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 10-year strategy. we spend a lot of time thinking about it. and advising our signatories on it. and what i'll say through the

whole journey, you know, if i didn't think divestment was a powerful tool, i wouldn't 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 shouldn't be standalone, it should be part of a thoughtful multi-pronged 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, let's 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 that's the way the board wants to go, and at the same time, doesn't 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, they're 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. norway's 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 i've come together to engage the largest carbon emmitters, under even umbrella, new umbrella, called the climate action 100, which john mentioned. that is to say, that the directionality is clear and transition to a low-carbon economy is nuanced in the impact it's going to have. john spoke really well to the nuances. it will create winners. it will create losers. the question is, how do you manage that downside risk and capitalize on the upsides of the transition? this response, how do you manage that and mitigates the solutions. time check? >> i haven't been timing