about flat in the last six months and our managers in the energy industry have earned 21%. so there's a concern we're replacing our judgment about individual securities when we don't follow those companies and our external managers who are also fiduciaries to the plan are making investments on companies they follow and we do not. we'll turn it over to the board for question. >> why don't we pause and give -- we'll call for a public comment at this time. i do have a couple public speaker cards. the very first i have is jed olson from fossil free san francisco. >> thank you very much. ted olson, fossil free s.f. there's a lot to cover here. first, welcome to mr. collins. sorry to miss the opportunity to

meet with you. i want to thank you for hitting the ground running and getting the work done and thank goldman who supersized the issue in the room. this is the least my brain has hurt in this room ever, i think though alan always does his best and is the whole argument we just heard is a complete logical fallacy on the order of here's a snowball so we don't have to worry about warming or it's a nice day at the beach therefore we don't have to worry about coastal infrastructure. ultimately, all of these issues require us to use our brain to use science to understand the status quo is going to change and because it exists today, doesn't mean we can make our planning decisions based on

that. it's analogous to the physician in world war ii in that we kept our head in the stand until we were hit. the problem with climate change by the time we're hit it will be far too late for investment institutions' actions to be important. we support this but believe you need to move much faster. the report just in every news institution all over the world indicated a two degree future is woefully inadequate and mr. k mr. collins' input of 2% will be 1.5%. i fell short. i'll submit the rest of my

comments in write. >> t >> we also have a speaker card for henry jepsen. >> fantastic. thank you. i represent an interest group that's been consulted on this project here. we're an independent n nonforprofit based in new york and look to enable an orderly transition to a low-carbon economy. we were found on the premise of we can't burn it all. we developed the idea of stranded assets in 2011 because of the disconnect between allowable emissions according to climate scientists an what's available according to emissions in the ground and around the world.

we're working with investors because we think investors play an important role to be active both to persistent use of and some of the trends and and we see prices go down and that means it will be likely bad investment but it had to be an orderly transition. we all know what happened in the financial crisis. it was a disorderly mess that came from that. what we are encouraging investors like yourself is to position yourself win the winners and losers. you can use scenario analysis

and take active engagement which is part of the toolbox that you as investors need. and this would go hand in hand. active engagement meaning some companies are not willing to change and wake up and smell the [indiscernible] thank you. >> thank you very much. those are all the speaker cards. is there any other members of the public that would like to address the commission? >> i'm part of fossil free s.f. i want to start off by thanking mr. collins for meeting with a few of us yesterday. i think you made an excellent hire and i appreciate the emphasis on using open source and publicly available data. it makes it something that could be of use to cities and pension

funds across the world. and you should be proud of what you accomplished and the level of carbon-restricted funds is admirable. we finally have the answers that commissioner has asked about the riskiest fossil fuels. only having a few days to digest it looks like a rigorous and data-driven approach to identifying the worse of the worse and riskiest to the riskiest. how conservative do you want to be about climate change? every new report shows climate change is happening faster and faster and the likelihood of an orderly transition seems less and less likely and the potential for a carbon bubble to pop and have large losses from stranded assets seems greater and greater. i would encourage you to have a

more conservative approach and divesting from seven companies of the holdings still leaves us with a lot of potential stranded assets in the fund. if you were to expand that to divest from the 25 companies in the watch list and move to targeted engagement first you'd save your e.s.g. director a lot of work in engaging with companies like exxon who have a terrible record on engagement and i think the source you cite seems to have a broad engagement with climate change policy and have undermined climate action and to the idea that divestment and i'd refer you to the oxford smith study that stigmatization of the companies and divestment.

>> any other members of the public that would like to address the commission regarding this item? >> herbert whiner. this is my own personal position that doesn't represent any organization. one thing i believe in climate change. and as a city retiree i'm also concerned about the portfolio and a balance has to be struck. one problem i have with outside groups testifying who are not members of the retirement system, their pensions are not at stake. when you categorically want

diversement how realistic is is? i think it's toxic and polluted and ecologically unsound for the portfolio. and what stocks would you want to get rid of and how would you manage the portfolio. come up with an alternate portfolio and run it by the board and see how realistic it is for all parties. these are my sentiments alone but i'd like it considered by the board. >> thank you very much. >> any other members of the public that would like to address the commission? seeing none we'll close public comment. questions from the board? comments? discussion? >> thank you.

first of all, i'd like to thank bill, kurt for the work done on this. moved the needle some. in terms of positions and how we're going to approach divestiture within the fossil fuel arena. my concern is with 25 companies on the watch list and i understand the approach you put here. i think it's great but the concern is typically when we have a watch list they're there forever. at what point do those companies move? >> so we have proposed a coup of companies for engagement.

we listed what metrics and crowd comes we're looking for and -- outcomes we're looking for and they're time bound. between one and two years depending on the results. >> you're telling me the 25 companies we can escalate within three years' period moved from seven die vess ture -- divestiture. >> it would be back-based data driven and analysis-driven based on facts an data. >> and to add to page 21 of the memo, we outlined a set of proposed topics we'd engage companies on and i think at the end of the time frame that's when we'd make a recommendation

to say the risk has been managed. we should remain invested from the risk as escalate and we think you should consider divest org a third option of -- divesting or a third option of continue engagement with those companies. >> i guess my biggest concern si don't want us to get in the process with the watch list and again my experience is we get to the process that never moves. >> no, the one area is the watch list in public. and what's different here is we had one person overseeing a $10

million public equity portfolio. so the watch list was part of our job, an important part of our job but but this say dedicated person that we have to this responsibility. as it multiples different than our watch list with public equity. >> currently this focuses on the public market. our overall portfolio, what's the differential between what's in the public markets versus the other portfolios in terms of the riskiest and dirtiest. >> there's several differences. one is when we make an investment in public markets, they are by definition in a

commingled fund so that's one. the second is the manager doesn't actually have any holdings. we are making a commitment and then they later select investments to make. those are two huge differences. here, in public markets, we actually have investments, managers -- we could do that in the private market but it would not impact commitments that we make today in going forward. we wouldn't know what they're going to buy. they're really completely different universes. in private markets it's really not measurable or actionable. >> for the whole program we see

all the markets increase their use of dirty fossil fuel type companies. hoi do we impact that on the broader scale? >> this is important for the board to know. divestment does not reduce the use of fossil fuels, it simply changes ownership. we sell to someone else. what changes -- what reduce the use of fossil fuels is reduced demand. there's two ways, renewables, solar and wind or change the composition of existing traditional uses of energy. meaning, less energy, more oil and gas. that reduces carbon emissions by

going from carbon from coal to oil, reduces it by about 50% and from coal to gas reduces it by double. what changes it is reduced use for energy. those are not investment driven. they're driven by consumer behavior or government policy. >> when we look at it and how it effect the world, no question this is critically important issue. we are not debate org resisting in any way that climate change

say very serious social issue. what we are saying is divestment does not address the issue. it simply changes ownership. >> then we get back to the issue and i've had discussion with those in the calpers, when you divest you lose your seat at the table to engage and change. i want to stick to the premise of divest because we can find something to invest in that could be better. and one tough thing for us as a board is hitting our bogie and

now inflation protection that some of these companies provided us. that wntd to -- that went to alan's comment of can we hit what we want out the and can we be judicious in finding other areas because i don't think we'll get that in the private sector. >> the point of restricting the universe of investment in uncertain future returns, you don't know where the returns are going to come from, you can impair your future returns. our board feels strongly about this initiative.

they went after exxon and got the sovereign funds and everybody got to the point of saying we have to do something. it's like galvanizing on dick's sporting goods and lots of funds would say when i went to the berlin for the e.s.g. initiative, they said why did you leave your seat at the table. now, i don't know if dick's is selling or get ought of that area but -- or getting out of that area but again, we want to combine the component of affecting the world and finding like investments and it charges our staff and commission with high goals. >> when i say divestment does not reduce fossil fuels,

engagement can. when you combine your voice with trillions of other dollars of other investors, you have a powerful seat at the table in front of the board and how they allocate capital. >> it's important to look at the road map i was happy to inherit when i took this job. they work together to manage our climate risk and manage this trogs a -- management to this low-carbon economy and it's about advocacy effort and the down-side risk of the riskiest companies and providing capital to low-energy, low-carbon energy solutions and low-carbon technologies and in terms of the demand side, you're seeing

projections of peak demand for fossil fuels in the next decade or so and that's peak demand opposed to peak supply because the economics of renewable energy is so favorable. these are all -- i think about them as different arrows in our quiver to manager the risk and take advantage of the opportunities. it's not any single one of these strategies but a comprehensive program. >> commissioners -- >> i have a few comments and then questions. one, i didn't see in the presentation, what's the amount of money we have invested in clean energy? what's the percent the portfolio? >> it depends on how you define that? >> let's give it a broad

definition. >> we are invested in $1.3 billion in carbon-reduced strategies and that's in the memo. in addition to that, we have another $900 million invested in strategies that are life science and biotech. >> how about on the definition of solar thing like that that are related to that type of clean energy. >> when you go to solar and wind, i don't have that number off the top of my head. it's not a big number. so solar and wind are a couple decade now in terms of their technology. whose the market leader?

i don't know of one because there's a problem with the technology. >> if you can present that to us it would be helpful to do a side-by-side comparison. my point is i understand yes, when we divest and transfer our money, someone else is buying the securities an investing but also an argument can be made and i want to put this on the record, you also begin to stigmatize those types of investments. i understand states are the largest investors in these type of technologies so our divestment say -- is a smaller percentage but it changes behavior and stigmatizes similar to the investment investing in south africa during apartheid. that's also an important part of the conversation so i don't want to minimize that but technically

you're right based on the data but there's something to be said as well so a side-by-side comparison would be helpful, at least to me. >> i can get you that number. >> and you're right there may not be that much return of have the investment from an overall perspective. >> we don't know. >> i want to direct to you page two and pa-- page 2 and page 3 outlines some of our commitments investments in specific renewable energy strategies. the bottom of page two commitments in 2018. the bottom of page three, commitments we made in prior years. >> i think it can be redone and some may have left but one of our committee meetings a year and a half ag we had cambridge

speaking on the renewable sector and the returns in that sector have been [indiscernible] and we have to be careful when we invest. it's an issue that touches on what you're trying to get to. >> i'm sorry, you had more questions. >> no, i'm good. >> the report he was talking about i believe is the same report but did a great job of breaking out all the different components of a clean energy sector. it had to do with solar not just in terms of the manufacturing of solar panels but installation, distribution and gave return numbers. can you recirculate that report to the board with e-mail. it would be a good refresher. >> i don't have more questions at least for now.

>> mine's a hypothetical question. with what was put in place in january, i would say our operating costs have ed about $3 million -- our costs have increased about $3 million a year and my point has to do with using the numbers andrew put together nat tables here -- in the tables i would put the number at $7 million or $8 million fossil. if somebody would want us to divest all of it, the question, mr. martin is the assumed rate of return the board adopted based on recommendations from you and chiron's involvement, if we decided to divest and we wouldn't leave the energy sector but it may affect the assumed

rate of returns. this gets to contributions which is one of the things really pay attention to. i'm wondering would we have to change the recommendations for asset classes if we went for total divestment not the plan andrew is recommending we follow. >> and i thought about this, joe. we're talking about the loss of diversification. we would rerun our numbers and assign a higher volatility to your portfolio and that would produce a lower return at the level of risk the board has chosen to take. i'm not sure it's hugely material but probably in the neighborhood of oh, maybe 3% or 4% at the high end.

>> as trustees we have to understand that because we have to turn around and tell the stakeholders and city, we chose this policy and it will effe effect -- affect you this way. i want to go back to the other issue, on divestment. one of the drivers on why we need to consider divestment has to do with called the stranded asset. if it's going to be stranded it has nothing to do with the warming effect, it's a bad investment. are analysts taking that into account? i don't know the answer. it's more than just divestment. it doesn't solve the problem. we have a regular financial question we have to answer.

>> an scam -- >> an example of that would be to test and evaluate how they've thought about the risk of stranded assets. >> we should do it for a bunch of reasons. it's complicated for what this represents. you get the issue. hopefully our supporters and audience members, stakeholders, whether you're a member or not understand how tricky and difficult this is. >> i have more of a statement. in term of our jobs as fiduciaries i think about

contributions an whether retirees will get supplemental [indiscernible] if we're earning enough and all that comes back to one thing, hitting our assumed rate of return. to do anything that would effect that assumed rate of return in a negative for me is a non-starter, whatever it is. i think this is a great plan. thank you for doing all this work. it's nice to have a director of e.s.g. to start working on these thing and have the people who should be working on it, working on it opposed to pulling people from other places trying to shove something through just to get it done. i'm glad year in the position we're in -- we're in the position we're in now. in terms of what this does, i never believed divestment will solve anything. it comes back to all the thing you said, mr. coker. companies will make whatever consumers buy until consumers starts to demand something else,

then companies will make that. so i think we've been solely focussed on fossil fuels and the truth is there's a lot of other thing we can do potentially that might be able to drive the needle on the margin combined with other people and i would just encourage staff to think about what else we can do and i'll give you an example i think of is we wear a lot of diapers at my house. those diapers come in a box. and that box comes in a box. and those diapers are made with fossil-fuel based plastics. in a hypothetical scenario, if you can have every diaper company commit to try to transition to another type of plastic, a plant-based plastic, if it is in fact a better plastic, and you could then have the diapers be biodegradable so

maybe they're being composted instead of going to the landfill and the gap at the bottom of the pampers box can be sealed to put the diapers in the box you can eliminate the box amazon puts it in. there's so many thing that can be done that can really -- if people start thinking about it, that can start making improvements across the whole food chain related to fossil fuels. as we go forward through this, i'd encourage you to not only think about fossil fuels and divestment because i think it's a single-minded approach that don't accomplish much. think of other thing as you go forward and talk to other stakeholders and people interested in this. >> fossil fuels make something like 6,000 goods. they make our clothes, our shoes, our socks, pens, paper,

we have them all over the room now. there are millions of ways we could reduce our fossil fuel imprint. diapers is one of them. >> brian stanbury going to pampers to talk about the problem will never happen because i can't get thing on my door step. when we think of investors we can drive change. >> when we interviewed and hired andrew, he understood this was only one initiative that had been presented before the board. we have two other issues. in fact, one is a board of supervisors resolution relate to executive pay we still need to calendar and the other one say long-standing issue -- is a long-standing issue of diversity

on board which is picking up steam this year and we believe will be very active in the next proxy. he understands as detailed as his presentation on fossil fuel, he understands e.s.g. is a much broader area and knows that those other two issues are in front of the board to be colorado at -- calendared as a later date. >> as a reminder to the board, we shouldn't be focussed on only one thing as divestment. there's thing that go into the strategy that we have decided to work on. that's all i have to say. questions, comments? >> thank you for the report, andrew. i'd like to get your perspective. you're the new e.s.g. director,

what's your overview of what you're experiencing so far and where you think you're going, etcetera? >> i think i said i was happy to inherent this strategy plan relate to climate risk. the board has thought of different approaches to climate risk. it seems that's the general approach we as an investment team are thinking in terms of thinking about e.s.g. risk as well. thinking from an investment lens how it affects the opportunities we have before us as long-term asset owners.

i think we're well positioned and where we think ideologically as an investment staff and there's a lot of opportunities we have to use the lens to inform our view of managers, how we manage downside risk and how we take advantage of these mega trends being shaped by factors as well. in terms of our position globally and kurt spoke to this and bill as well particularly to climate risk we've done a lot in terms of our percentage of assets we've allocated to the strategies. we can do more in the areas jay identified but there's great investor coalition we can be a part more looking at social issues that effect the long-term

performance of companies. a lot of key governance issues around executive comp and structures and basic governance measures. i'm hopeful we're well positioned now but will be at the table as the issues get considered. >> thank you very much. my second question would be to bill coker. can you discuss what impact government can have on the markets on climate change because i know it's a discussion we've had in the past. but i'd like to get it on the record today. >> policy would be huge. if government established policy that carbon emissions will be reduced by 20% by 2030 and 30%

by 2050, etcetera. the market has always adapted to policy. if government would take the leadership position here, then a tremendous amount can be done to reduce carbon emissions. the challenge regarding what government can do is to reduce carbon emissions, it needs to be done on a global basis. it wouldn't be sufficient for us to declare in san francisco we're going become 100% carbon-free by 2040 but the rest of the word -- world does nothing. it needs to be government actions around the world. n now, one piece of good hope is the u.s. has become a huge producer of natural gas. just as the emerging world,

which largely is dependent upon coal production to bring energy to their own markets. because we are now a large producer of natural gas, they're not needing to do that. it's more expensive. it's a lot dirtier for them to build coal plants. instead they can be an importer of u.s. natural gas and we're now being a large exporter of natural gas. so natural gas is a substitute for coal is a great idea. oil itself alone is a good solution to reducing the amount of coal. meanwhile, the energy industry, i believe, is in increasingly --

understands they're in a long-term secular change on how humanity is going to consume energy. so they are now beginning to use predictive analytics to be able to predict when solar and wind will be available and the know demand and weather is predictable within a few hours. if you watch baseball they know when it will start raining within about 15 minutes. so there's a lot of good technology coming on board to help energy companies forecast when solar and wind will be available and deliver that when they are and when they're not, to deliver traditional sources. government can be a huge leader, a huge problem solver but to do it, it needs to be done together

globally. >> in our engagement can we use it to be more powerful. >> there was a globalsome it in san francisco and there was a public advocacy. some peers do recognize the role of asset owners to advocate generally about public policy around responsible investing issues, environmental issues, social issues. we can certainly be more vocal

and advocate for the policy side. we can only pull the lever so far ourselves moving investment dollars is not the silver bullet for any solution. we can communicate and discuss how stakeholders can contribute to issues we affect and ultimate affect us and our returns. >> there's one other way the government can be a leader and they are currently beginning to take what i think is good action. there's a national goal of establishing millions, to have a completely integrated grid. the goal here -- right now they have millions of sensors. i think 15 million. but the goal is to have the entire energy grid completely

integrated. if they do that, we can be much smarter about resource allocation. and about capital allocation. that's another method we can just be much smarter about resource allocation rather than delivering energy when it's not needed. delivering oil and gas when it's not needed. delivering electricity when it's not needed. we can be much smarter about resource allocation. we're increasingly becoming smarter about that. that's a national goal. i forget the year, it might be 2030. >> i think what commissioner stansbury said and from the board of supervisors the s. and g. are important. i've seen initiatives from other

funds on that. the 30% the governor signed in for women on boards, we have heard data that, that presents an actual benefit to investment portfolio and i see what you say from goldman. so it would be great for us to look at what we're doing there. companies have said they want 30% women on boards, it happened in california and we look forward to seeing what you're going to come up with the board can be head on those issues. there is no doubt to me that engagement is so strong. i know commissioner stansbury and i, when we meet with private equity firms we press them on these areas. they've been really core in those areas.

we have two partners out of 40 that are women and to do it in a positive way where you can do better than that but not only that, it offers you better investment results. we have been pretty silent here as a board on a lot of the other issues. it can have positive results in the portfolio so for you to have a path working with consultants in those areas and how to impact that well and so i know that by us pressing our investment managers, their out looking for more opportunities around the world. there's no doubt about that. it just makes everybody better. that's why -- we have to divest in 12 months or whatever that was to give you a path to do it

prudently and develop that, i think that's how we have to do it to reach our 7.5%. to be smart about it and do it systematically. we know this say -- is a start and look forward to more. i just say thank you. this is a great read for us and pathway. >> commissioner, to the progress humanity has made, just in the last 70 years, the percentage of people in the world that live in desperate poverty has gone from 80% to less than 25%. that's remarkable. i think in our life time, we can bring that number down to 5%. i think we'll be able to deliver to produce foods synthetically at low cost and deliver it by drone at low cost.

part of that advancement in human experience is a huge amount of energy consumption and it's polluting the world. no question the human experience needs to change in how we produce and consume energy. if the world were to stop using fossil fuels -- everything is made of fossil fuel, the computers here, everything. there's no question we need to make changes but through resource allocation and further advancement in renewable technology and solar and wind, and engagement a lot of can be done. and engagement a lot of can be done. >> this is an action item. >> i have one more question. has anything been said today

that should give any of our stakeholders pause of where we're going in this direction? >> i think companies that raise resources whether they're human or environmental resources or any other resources are likely to be bad companies. if we keep our focus on the constructive side of this, as bill has talked about not to arbitrarily get rid of them but invest in those that are doing better and take advantage of new technologies is very consistent with your fiduciary. you -- if you had to sell every company that doesn't have two women on the board but to say to companies we fire -- fire --

hire is important but i'd like to get to the discussion of what we can do to make the companies we invest in better. and that should benefit all of us. >> an other -- >> the technology stuff bill talked about to repeat it, bill said reduce the demand, change the mix -- the government action can't be underestimated. taxing fossil fuel would do a lot to help. fiat in norway has adopted a measure not selling or producing gasoline-powered vehicles after 2020. the problem with those is it takes good government action and it's easier to do ironically in a dictatorship than non-dictatorship so it's harder to get the government to take constructive actions in our

circumstance so working more on the companies to behave better is a better hope than the governmental piece though we should as spire to that but the -- aspire to that but the technological changes going on and there's predictions all the owe sales have peaked because millennials don't buy cars. if you can rent and not buy the car it's a better use of resources. there's thing going on that are constructive that we can take advantage of from an investment perspective that don't carry the negative consequences. >> what about our other consultants? >> having a holistic approach stands out in the combination of good analytics an action.

there's a depth of analysis and i think andrew hit the ground running is an understatement. the deep analysis from investment perspective and looking at this from an investment perspective has been a real advancement over common practice and to have a clear fact-based time line makes it more accountable makes it a good distinction and showing where there's leverage and the deliberate apoach and -- approach and the diaper example, it's not just about the energy sector but the whole economy.

that push for performance of efficiency companies versus inefficient companies and low-carbon companies to look across all sectors and not leave out the rest of the work and then investment in solutions to the questions asked about renewables some of the private company investments that is a pretty complete package and the progress that's been made from what was a commitment from january to today, we see a lot of institutions tackle this in different ways and the roundedness of the plan and trade and execution has stood out. >> thank you. >> as brian was talking about the pampers example, i was thinking of pampers and bringing back cloth diapers. >> we outlawed straws.

>> we can outlaw pampers. >> so we have a water shortage in california so -- i wanted to hear from anybody up there. any other thoughts from anybody? >> one thing on the methodology i'd add sit was a great opportunity -- is it was a great opportunity to bring different perspectives into the organization and we spoke with a number of different nonprofits and looked at the carbon factors which ultimately ended up in the methodology and got a range of expert opinions. i wanted to highlight that as a

unique approach especially when you look more broadly at e.s.g. data that that stood out for us as well as thinking how the companies are positioned in the future where they're often looking at the historical path especially with climate change the future will look very different from the past. >> two thing i'd add on to that. one, adding the profit providers and the conventional researchers. and trying to have them together i think was interesting. and the focus of the public speaker's comment on trying to focus on transparent, shareable data can be usable in other context i think that emerged over time but is useful in terms of the functionality. >> the combination of both speakering with non-conventional sector analysis and leveraging

traditional financial data is another thing that i think ended up being a unique approach to what we've seen people do previously. >> thank you, i have nothing further. >> this is an action item. what is the board's desire? >> what is the recommended motion? >> for the board to approve the summary of recommended actions one through five. >> if you look at your computer screens it's the bottom section, one through five that is staff's recommendation. >> i'll make a motion. >> i'll second. >> there's a motion.

there's a second. commissioner driscoll. >> we did this last time and it led to problems. i do note the editing on item number one. i'm not going mess around with that one today, but does this take out the partnering issue the other six we adopted in january? it's not clear. she's five are sim -- these five are similar. >> number one is modified to remove the word passive. just that we would take $1 billion -- >> replacing previous number one with the new number one. so the six from january still stands. except the one item i'm crossing out, passive and recommendation number one. >> in addition to that, we're recommending the board approve

the four items. >> and strategy six. >> that is correct. items two through five are action items towards number six, the board approved in january. >> i still don't see the original number three and was wondering what is in the new five. i couldn't see that. maybe it's in there. >> in the recommended action items? >> we continue to proceed with strategy areas one through five as written in january. >> so recommended actions which are the continued collaboration and engagement. so if you look at your screen, we determined those didn't require additional action because those are next steps and so number three on theton --

continued collaboration are bullet points on what the plan is. >> i'm going vote against it because the lack of clarity. >> let's clear it up. what's your lack of clarity? >> i can't figure out how the five covered the six in the other changes. >> so in the summary of recommended actions, numbers two, three, four and five fulfill the directive under strategy six. it was to define the strategy. >> i can help with this. >> if we look at item six on page one of the memo, so not what's on screen, define an

approach to identify. what we're seeing is items two through five in the summary of recommended actions are the approach that we are going to take. >> that's six. execution. >> that's right. >> and no changes in two through five except two are not going hire another -- [laughter] >> i'll make the amendment to this motion. you're basically saying what staff's recommendations is your motion? between listed numbers one and two say to implement step six of the january 24 and tie them in that way it will be clear two, three, four, five refer to number six. >> that's fine. >> fair enough. >> i do not want the same clarity problems that occurred last.

>> that's a good addition. >> thank you. >> that was an amendment. >> if the maker will accept the amendment. >> i will accept it as a second. >> the motion passes. >> we have to vote. >> we to -- we do have to vote. >> as long as you accept the amendment. >> and i concur. >> we have a motion by commissioner paskin-jordan and a second by commissioner casciato and there was an agreement from the maker and any questions from the board as to what is in front of us? any questions from staff? any discussion on this item? okay. i will call for the motion in a moment. i just want to highlight one thing, i said this before.