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. All right. Our meeting is adjourned. Working for the city and county of San Francisco will immerse you in a vibrant and dynamic city thats on the forefront of economic growth, the arts, and social change. Our city has always been on the edge of progress and innovation. After all, were at the meeting of land and sea. Our city is famous for its iconic scenery, historic designs, and worldclass style. Its the birthplace of blue jeans, and where the rock holds court over the largest natural harbor on the west coast. Our 28,000 city and county employees play an Important Role in making San Francisco what it is today. We provide residents and visitors with a wide array of services, such as improving city streets and parks, keeping communities safe, and driving buses and cable cars. Our employees enjoy competitive salaries, as well as generous benefits programs. But most importantly, working for the city and county of San Francisco gives employees an opportunity to contribute their ideas, energy, and commitment to shape the citys future. Thank you for considering a career with the city and county of San Francisco. Good morning everybody. My name is aaron peskin and it is my privilege to serve as a supervisor representing the third district. For those of you who do not know, i have long served in another capacity as the president of an environmental nonprofit that for the past 20 years has worked to negotiate the purchase of land and water rights on behalf of native american tribes in the great basin nations in the United States. For those who dont know where that is, the great states of nevada, utah, parts of arizona and oregon. And before that i worked at the trust public land. And im happy to lead with london breed, malia cohen, our former supervisor who first championed this issue, in favor of the full divestment from fossil fuels. I want to start by thanking the Broad Coalition of environmental advocates, Public Health advocates, clean fuel transportation activists, Democratic Party officials, grassroots advocates and retirement Board Members and as of last night, the commission on the environment who have turned out today to demand that San FranciscoEmployee Retirement system divest now from fossil fuels and were getting to labor, were saving the best for last. And i mean that sincerely and it is in my notes. I want to start by saying that sciu 101 has been the wind at our backs. I cannot thank you enough. To the folks from dapo, i cannot thank you enough. Well hear from all of them. I want to start not with our president , not with our retirement board member but with our former supervisor. We have a lot of great speakers but this started with supervisor john ovolose who first issued the resolution unanimously adopted by the board five years ago that has not yet be heeded but perhaps with malia cohens leadership will be heeded today. Good morning. Its great to be here. But also kind of strange to be here. Five years after we had first voted unanimously to call upon sfers to divest from fossil fuels. Since that time im a retiree of the sitting council of San Francisco, so i depend on sfers to respond. What we have done in five years of analysis, we know fossil fuel investments is a bad investment. Were seeing the great volatility of fossil fuels while our sfers overall fund has grown from 19 billion in 2013 to 23 billion in 2018, our fossil fuel portfolio has only stayed about the same, meaning this is a really poor investment while we see growth elsewhere. We know why its a bad investment. We are seeing increasingly, the harm thats caused low income communities of color, to cities and towns along the waterfront are suffering from Sea Level Rise, from climate, from dramatic climate events, from hurricanes and typhoons and in california we have our fires. These are all signs that our economy founded on oil and fossil fuel is one that harms life on earth. And its way past time that we start moving our economy to renewable power, Renewable Energy generation. We have called upon sfers for five years to do this, take our money out of fossil fuels and put in renewables and they have dragged their feet almost all the way, like they have the Donald Trump Administration on the board to deny the fact that the world is becoming harmed every day as we continue to invest in fossil fuels. I want to thank supervisor peskin, supervisor london breed and Supervisor Malia Cohen to continue with the work to make sfers do their part to divest and today well see if theyre going to move this the way they have had to these five years. Its time to divest, divest now, sfers your time is up, thank you. Thank you. This has been a tough 24hours in this building, but president breed said something which is profoundly important, that our relationships have to transcend and that number one, its all about public policy. And with that, under president breeds leadership, we, again, unanimously adopted last year the same resolution that a different board adopted when john was on the board of supervisors. It is my pleasure to introduce on the same policy page, the president of the San Francisco board of supervisors, london breed. Thank you. Hi everybody. Im happy to join many of our environmental leaders and our Community Members and members of the board of supervisors and everyone who is here today, who is committed to a cleaner planet for f