conjunction now when we do rezoning or if saying if we get to 815 and midterm evaluation, do the most aggressive rezoning. i also don't know what is meant by the most aggressive rezoning and anxious about creating language that various groups could come back and say you didn't do what we or judge will interpret as most aggressive rezoning, so we should absolutely be pursuing language and i think it is in here and if not we should say, that says our goal is at minimum the rena numbers and exceed them. but to go further and say the most aggressive rezoning i'm worried about lack of depnition what that means and coming back to haunt us. still struggling with that language unless others or city attorney has anything to say. >> i agree and think i have been persadeed by staff. (inaudible) >> try harder. if we have the general sense from staff that the language put satisfies them not sure we should go further because the document is not just accomplishing the rena goals but going further then that to 1.1.5 and we should use a combination of rezoning on the west side and removing constraints and trying to protect the priority geography area to accomplish that. and if we don't then there is a 815 trigger that tell us to do more. >> you have further comments commissioner diamond? not seeing anything else. staff, i wanted to come back to-again, i apologize it is a policy or action before us and just now i was having rereading it yesterday and this morning. the 1.3.3. so, i just want to make sure the second sentence and maybe i'm being nit-picky but because the concern around protecting inclusionary program is so heightened and i share the heightened sensitivity to it this says we do assessment but the changes made it is restricting or guiding how the changes are made. changes must do the following. i don't know what it means and says the changes-if there are changes they must improve maintain the affordable of inclusionary units. what does that mean? >> i think that is a good question. we need to refine it. >> what do you think we are trying to do? my interpretation of what we were trying to do with the language is trying to say we assess our tiers, look at it, we want to make sure that our requirements are not impeding the (inaudible) we want to reduce staff time needed for it. expertise. make it easier to do our inclusionary program. but we want to do any changes we find must improve maintain the current afford nlt of inclusionary units and don't know if that refers to the nexus or economic analysis done on the inclusionary program or what is that referring to? >> it is another action trat address that that talk about the work being done. this is just addressing (inaudible) the tiers get overly complicated because there are several tiers. it is-then there is different tiers for ownership and rental and state density bonus comes into play there is additional tiers so we will look to simplify that. tier structure and also overall not impact the overall target of affordability generally in the project. there are other actions that reinforce the tax role to look where the inclusionary rate as far as feasibility but this is just getting at the tiers. if we did restructuring of the tiers overall affordability in a project would remain the same. the general number of units remain the same. if we had 80 percent, 60 percent, hundred percent tiers we can probably go all 80 percent of the number and maintain the same level of affordable on a project and simplify- >> got it. >> the tiers which i will say are complex. >> i was not suggesting but having more looking to inclusionary tiers. again, it is-i think what director hillis is talking about and correct if i'm wrong is about averaging of affordability in the units or of the buildsing and that include different kinds of inclusionary tiers in the building itself. as of (inaudible) it is mostly very low income to low income and believe that is also with home ownership as well. >> maybe could change- >> home ownership is low income to middle income. >> there may be-imagine we expand the tiers to reach further and perhaps to have to figure- >> that was more legislative process. >> this [multiple speakers] >> partly because commissioner diamond said about the other not having language in here that gets to a court and they say what does this mean and it means something we are not intending and not sure the language right now addresses it but if folks feel they know what this says i'm okay, i just don't think it says what you described to me. >> maybe changing to average affordable of inclusion units and retain or expand the number of units to get at it broader issue. changes to inclusionary tiers and requirements must approve or maintain average afford bltd och inclusion ary units. >> that- >> expand the number of units. >> i think (inaudible) changes something next current to when this analysis is performed or? maybe changes current to average affordability of inclusionary units. >> saury sorry, we want to be able to show the actions we are discussing and-if - >> to get it in real time to accurately provide the language. >> that's great. >> so, we can edit as we go hopefully and capture it accurately. thank you sfgovtv for going to the computer. >> i will share 1.1.2 i'm okay withdrawing my suggestion based we are not sherbet the legal analysis and can include in the policy section so thank you for making the slide, but i think we'll leave it as is based on what we know today. i hope the board of supervisors it is in the policy section which is several page document. >> apologize, technical difficulties. >> that's alright. this is great. this is the last bullet to make sure those are affordable units. the targeted number and asked around income level. commissioner moore, did you want to add in? >> i just chted to say how difficult it is to speak about things without seeing the final verbiage in front of us. making changes all of them by listen to (inaudible) exact phrases being inserted. (inaudible) under 1.1.5 adding footnotes that reference commitment to public engagement. i want to also make sure that if 8.1.5 becomes necessary based on the assurances made, we sure we are clear on prioritizing affordable housing at that point. >> i think we-i don't know if you can see on your ends the staff created a powerpoint to show the language and go through it it. we will get to the 8.1.5 in a minute. >> (inaudible) because i'm sitting on a small screen and (inaudible) just what i see now 8.1.2 is barely readinable. >> commissioner moore, if you actually hover your cursor over that screen there is a option to move that to the stage and it will increase the size of it. >> thank you mr. ionin. doing that i see your name. that is the only thing i see. >> the other thing we can do is once we get through all this take a short break to e-mail to you to make sure you can read it at a proper size and come back and take our vote once we are settled. >> that would be very helpful. >> also have a break. 1.1.2, is i withdraw unless anyone else feels strongly about needing to have that included. >> my one question is, do quo know where it is in the document? (inaudible) having trouble finding it so want to make sure it is addressed. >> (inaudible) >> do we know where the prop i reference is in the policy document if in there? i know that we heard it is in there but having trouble locating it. >> i believe we'll come back somebody in staff can look for it while we go to the next one. >> perhaps add language and reference on policy. >> i note on 1.1.2 this says including regular general fund allocations. including such as real estate transfer tax but it is general fund revenue source. miriam is checking. >> thank you. why don't we go to the next one? revising to make sure it is clear we have numerical and income target as well. any questions or comments on this commissioners? okay. this is what we were just talking about the tiers program. just trying to make. that is-i maybe misinterpreted. i waents clear of afford nlt of the units for the affordability level of the units which is now what i am understanding versus the cost to rent them or the cost to build them. and so we are talking about the ami group right? >> right. >> i wonder- >> that is my understanding as well in the original regarding the ami level. >> change to inclusionary units and requirements. you had something you said. >> i think if you just change 1.3.3 change current to affordability keep the way it is written you get at the issue you are- >> maintain affordability of inclusionary housing units. >> average affordability. >> that is what it was average affordability. >> just note the board does have the ability to change the inclusionary rate affordability level targeted and controller is mandate today do a study every 3 year tuesday inform that process. i don'ts know we want to preclude the board from doing that. i dont know we are doing that but think we have to be careful. >> i think changing must to should makes more a suggestion that we like to maintain versus that the board must. we wouldn't to have a policy require general plan amendment because it is inconsistent with the housing element. changing to inclusionary tiers and requirement improve or maintain average affordability of inclusionary housing units. and then i do wundser changing number to fraction because it isn't typically a number, it is proportional system or maybe proportion of units. should maintain or expand the proportion of units required. >> are ree following along? >> comments or questions? >> i have a question. in the second part where we change to inclusionary tiers and must retain or expand the units required. since we just changed the must to should in the previous sentsance and this since is going to come out from the tac and board of supervisorsdition should that also be a should retain or expand? >> i would agree. >> yeah. >> i think we concur. >> any ort comments on this one? thank you staff this is really helpful. thes one i think also okay to rest and thank you commissioner diamond for rereading that paragraph many times as well to sigh say to we are not clear what they are referring to when they say aggressive so think we can let it go. >> let it go? >> yes. >> delete that one. >> we can just keep 7.1.1 as it is. and i think commissioner moore commissioner imperial this is addressing concerns you have related to tying the community planning in 4.2 to this action should it be needed. shall consider community engagement in alignment with area 4.2 and areas disproportionately impacted (inaudible) >> thank you. yes. >> any other comments or questions about this commissioners? >> this is breath of government constraints. this is new sentence added since our last meeting. questions? >> i want to make sure that this language isn't going to preclude the adoption and application at the objective design standard we are aiming to move to. it is a question for you director. >> no. >> okay. thank you. >> is this- >> got it commissioner. >> i guess my question, this is a very specific list of just three things. have we covered the full range of the constraints categories of constraints identified analysis. i don't remember if we have good coverage this way? >> to that point i suggest what we could do is instead of having it be the city impose requirement of blah blah it is at the new sentence at the end that says government constraint could be relate d to process, fees design or other aspects of city imposed-- >> you can also use the phrase, including but not limited to. >> there we go. >> someone who had been around the podium before. >> i think he has done this before. >> should we say impact the cost of development? anyhow. that is fine. constraint (inaudible) okay with this one? and thank you for adding that specificity. >> can you back for a second. i think you are missing a comma. the end of design you need a comma. >> absolutely. this would be basically requiring sites between 22-26 and it isn't enough or sufficient we try to boost that acquisition. 50 percent. above whatever we have acquired. any comments or questions? >> that was the end of the list of revisions. i think that covers everything that we spoke about. >> any other comments we didn't look at that commissioners had? i think that does cover everything. why don't we take-commissioner moore did you have something? >> i wanted to ask (inaudible) 8.1.5. shouldn't we spell out that we are prioritizing the production of affordable housing in this particular step? i asked for that but don't see it spelled out. i see reference to implementation program and (inaudible) but i do not see that at that point prioritization of affordable housing production. we are only committing to program goals. >> i think director hillis because it would be a analysis performed by affordsability if we are not performingen oaffordable that is where this focus but if we are not performing on all of them it touch all income levels. >> we look at the tiers so where we are producing if over producing or producing more on the market rate level this action would target affordable. we target where we are not producing. >> (inaudible) basically instilling that (inaudible) if you are under building on (inaudible) >> correct. >> right. >> before we take our break we were going to look where prop i is referenced or property transfer tax was referenced. were we able to identify that? >> yeah, i think we were able to identify it. >> deis it is the plan document if you have it open in section under ajective 4a, the objective is substantially expanding affordable housing for low moderate income house and there is a bullet list of potential funding list at top of page 47 thrird bullet describe the real estate transfer tax for properties 10 milliondler or higher. >> can you repeat the page? >> page 47. >> objective 4 and goes on to list include- >> page 200 of the packet submitted. (inaudible) >> which version- >> does that satisfy you commissioner braun? you can take a look if you found the page. >> if it is in there i'm satisfied. >> alright. let's take a-10 minute break. if you can send that-the slides to commissioner moore so she can take a look at them and vote oen the 3 actions >> during the break it was pointed to me that 1.3.3 could be a little clearer if it is talking about it tiers and if you look at 1.-the other items immediately above it which is about inclusionary. i wonder if it should say inclusionary tiers instead of requirements because that made me confused. it is about the tiers of affordability that is one aspect of the inclusionary program. to assess inclusionary tiers and strike and requirements to address and it remain the same and changes to inclusionary tiers requirements would be removed. it is in 3 places if this is intended to be about the tiers. is that in line with your understanding? >> this is about the tiers. you can say tiers requirement but think tiers is clear. 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 address inclusionary. >> that means we should remove the reference to percentage of units required since that is addressed in 1.3.1 and 1.3.2? [multiple speakers] >> the overall percentage might be addressed in the prior-- >> i think actually then what we should do is have it read, just have the second sentence changes to inclusionary tiers improve maintain a(inaudible) rent i added a second sentence and we can get rid of that. this is about affordability tier? >> can you read that one more time? >> the new language would read, in the first sentence of 1.3.3 it would say assess inclusionary tiers and word and requirements would be struck. >> alright. >> the second sentence say changes to inclusionary tiers and strike and requirements as well should say changes to inclusionary tiers should improve or maintain average affordsability of inclusionary housing units including consideration to rents purchase prices and hoa fees. >> that seem alright to everyone? okay. with this change then i think we are concluded. did you want to add something? >> yeah. maybe it is already covered but this is where i have a edit. with this assessment and analysis that overall this doesn't become a reduction in the number of units. if director hillis you feel we are addressing that in the other actions-- >> so, would leave in the changes to inclusionary tiers retain or expand number of units required. you are saying if it is 18 percent it is 18 percent. if we change the tiers it remains 18 percent. you may configure things. we are at 60, 80 and hundred, 18 percent is divided make everything 80 with 18 percent you maintain the tier. i think you can strike requirements again. change to inclusionary changes retain or expand the percentage of units required. >> got it. >> i agree too because 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 they don't reference specifically maintaining the percentage requirement. >> and then if you can strike the word number that would be great. expand the percentage, not number. great. okay. >> hold on. just to clarify, my understanding what director hillis is required tiers should be maintained so changes tiers-and requirements-i feel we should add that changes-i don't want to change-well, this will be legislative anyway, but changes inclusionary tiers and requirements should retain, because let's state density bonus there-and 5 or 10 percent low income, 5 percent middle income those are requirements of the inclusionary tiers so changes to inclusionary tiers and requirements. >> i think the problem because it is inclusionary tier requirement or broadly inclusionary requirements and all we are-if you look at 1.3.1 and 3.2 they are addressing the broader inclusionary but this just focuses on tiers. >> changing to inclusionary tiers and their requirements. >> that is fine. >> i think that would be better. >> change it again ms. tong. >> feel i'm in a classroom. >> alright. so, the suggesting and staff maybe we should read our changes back into the record because it is pretty significant moment we are in and making changes on the fly and then we could have a motion to make the changes or should the changes be read? >> i think they should be read into the record and motion made to reflect those amendments that were read into the record. >> great. >> could you read them slowly? i printed them out because i came in as powerpoint and want to make sure i catch everything you are saying. >> certainly. you want me to read it or staff read it? >> i'm sorry. >> we can read it. so, for 1.1.2 we decided we will not change this one. we can move on. 1.2.6 we add affordable. the city will target 500-2,000 affordable units in the rhna planning period and revisit strategies as appropriate. 1.3.3, it will now say, assess inclusionary tiers to address financial feasibility to of housing development to increase (inaudible) housing project inclusionary requirements do fot impede or undermine state density law and reduce staff time and need for specific expertise. changes to inclusionary tiers should improve or maintain average affordability of inclusionary housing units. changes to inclusionary tiers and requiremented retain or expand the percent age of units required including with consideration to rents purchase prices and hoa fees. we decided we are not changing 7.1.1. and for 8.1.5 we are revising the last bullet to say shall consider community engagement in alignment with implementing program area 4.2 and areas that may be disproportionately impacted with displacement risk beyond priority equity geography. 8.1.6, will say in alignment with provisions and purpose of the housing crisis act of 2019 government code 66300 any city adopted rezoning or development control shall not impose to constraints to developmentf of (inaudible) a new governmental constraint is city imposed requirement including but not limited to process fees or design that increases the cost of development not in effect january 31, 2023. requirement adopted to specifically protect against a threat to health or safety. and this is last one, 8.1.10. the second bullet we are changing to increase the land banking strategy to accommodate 50 percent more affordable housing units then the capacity of the site acquired from 2022-2026. >> thank you staff. >> thank you very much for tracking all that. >> commissioner koppel. >> thank you to everyone involved. especially our little dream team of instantly getting our edits up on a presentable format. great job everybody. i got 3 decision to make. i can make them in one motion though? let's do this, i move to adopt ceqa findings, mmrp and general plan consistency findings, also approve the recommendation to adopt housing element 2022 update and amendment to the general plan. as amended. >> one very small correction to the last one that we were looking at. if we could get sfgovtv to put screen up again. so, it says by january 2026 the interagency housing element implementing committee and at the end it says the period that are looking at is sites acquired from 2022 to 2026 implying it would go through 2026 so do we want to say to beginning of 2026 or through 2025? a period that allow a committee meeting in early 2026 to be responding to the right period of time is what we are trying to correct. >> i don't know the answer to the question but i think the answer is yes. [laughter] >> can you clarify your question is for the interagency housing element implementing committee shall meet january 2025? >> i think suggesting just the change made in the last bullet. to change the time period they are looking at to be through 2025. and therefore they meet in 2026 and look at what happened over the preceding 4 years. >> that is sensible. >> understood. >> i think that is what commissioner koppel meant when he ampd mended rchlt >> hundred percent. three, approve the initiation to make further amendments to the general plan. >> second. >> if no further deliberation, i think we landed on a motion that would adopt ceqa findings and mitigation monitoring and reporting program, adopt a resolution adopting the housing element 2022 update as amended and read into the record by staff and conforming general plan amendments. and then initiating possible amendments in the future. on that motion- >> before we vote, i want to-before we vote because i want to recognize staff that have put in many cases years into this effort. miriam is online because she is sick today and has a broken leg and kind of got to this point where we are at but james and malena who have been there from beginning (inaudible) not here but started this effort, josh and lisa chin from our city wide division, wade, nep, deborah and liz white, reanna and liz (inaudible) (inaudible) who is not here and shelly (inaudible) and our wonderful city attorney andrea and audrey. >> let's break protocol and give everyone a round of applause. [applause] >> any other comments? >> no. >> (inaudible) >> on the motion- [roll call] >> so moved commissioners, motion passes unanimously 6-0. congratulations aeb everyone. [applause] >> this will place under the discretionary review calendar forim 9, case 2022-003765drp. for property at 110 32 avenue. discretionary review that close out the 2022 hearing schedule. >> good evening. david winslow. the item is public request for discretionary review. to construct third story horizontal addition to 3 story single family dwelling. the dr requester-sanford gar finkal the adjacent neighbor to the north is concerned the proposal will significantly impact light and privacy. the pr posed alternatives are separate the west facing roof deck from northeast facing area with short wall or parapet attached. to condition the northeast portion of the roof as on ocpayable roof deck. three, elil name doors to this portion of the roof and four use glass on the lower floor new windows. the department has received no letters in support or in opposition to this proposal. staff confirms support for this as it not only complies with the planning code but also residential design guideline articulate building to minimize impact to light and air. the project propose s a 200 square foot rear extension to third story setback 8 feet 4 inches from the property line over existing roof deck. the remaining portion of the northeast roof deck at third floor is minimally visible by proposed addition. new guardraid proposed to be glass with distance between the edge of the deck and rear wall of the requester being approximately 20 feet. adequate to insure access to light. and the deck location and distance do not also seem to pose undo burden therefore staff recommend not taking discretionary review and approving. thank you. >> thank you. >> dr reest requester. >> thank you commissioners for the opportunity to listen to my request for discretionary review. my name is sandy garfinkal and been in my residents for 49 years, and my connection rear yard connects to the applicants, so the back of my house, my bedroom kitchen dining room is 20-my windows are 20 feet from the north elevation of their house. talking about 3 windows, but to get in perspective, what i'm talking about is correcting their building application. their building application states that the buildsing application expired and the planning department asked them to do a new application so they referred to the new application referred to the approved permit application numbers--the approved application numbers say replacement of all windows in kind. there 3 windows 20 feet away that face me that are fixed absecure glass. all i'm asking is stay with these building permits, no changes, nothing extraordinary, just keep the three windows the way they are. they want to change the location or the size that's fine. but, the new application does not say that they were replaced in kind. we have a dilemma. i tried to resolve it with the owners and their architect. i hired a consultant, a frnd of mine to talk to them. she walked through with them. the architect and he seemed receptive and now they shut me down and won't discuss it. so, all i'm asking for is the status quo. the application they referred to says replace the windows in kind. there is 3 windows that face me. that is all i'm asking for. do you have any questions about anything or-? oh, the planning department mr. winslow said that they don't enforce any private agreements between neighbors. that's fine, but the permit says replace in kind, not anything interaction and reasons why. it is permit says replace in kind. that's all i'm asking is to replace them in kind the three windows. the other stuff they can do what they want. please ask me any questions any reason why not or why. >> you have a minute left and we'll ask questions when we are have our time. thank you. >> very good. product sponsor you have a 5 minute presentation if you need it. >> good evening. members of the commission, sam call the architect in the represent the project sponsor. this project started maybe 3 years ago before pandemic and it was a permit to add the sularium to the top of the roof and it was approved and due to the covid and everything construction didn't start until beginning of this year. and then there is a neighbor that filed a complaint and inspector came and said your permit is expired so you need to renew this entire permit. basically we resubmitted the same design as we did before and went through the whole process of doing neighborhood notice and getting a preapp meeting with the neighbors, so we come to planner saying everything is okay accept now our neighbor decide to file a discretionary review saying that he's losing his light and shadow casting on his property, but in the package that i prepared for the commissioners, i have studied the shadow during all times of the year and i think that the planning staff sees that there is really very little impact to [no audio] >> if you are calling in or online you need to raise your hand or press star 3. seeing no request to speak commissioners, public comment is closed. you have a 2 minute rebuttal. >> i don't understand--i asked the architect to discus it. i'm not talking about anything accept 3 windows that the original permit said would be replaced in kind and i did hear him answer that question--was i wrong? shadows the window-anything else they want to do is fine, but the original permit said replace the windows in kind and they can do anything they want but i think there are 3 windows involved and i want them replaced in kind. he can change the location and change the configuration but i want what's on the permit. that's all. i didn't hear him address any of that. thank you. >> project sponsor you have 2 minute rebuttal. >> members of commission, sam cong. i just want to say that the project sponsor application on the dr was very clear about all the issues that were brought up regarding shadow and privacy and all this. now he is changing his argument on just windows. why spend a lot of time addressing those issues that he specifically brought up and i think that you are here to make a determination if the requester argument is justified or move on with the project so appreciate your consideration. thank you. >> thank you. mr. winslow i want to make sure i understand correctly. there is renovation to the house. you can see it is substantial. that includes sularium and also includes replacement of additional windows given the look of everything and the dr requester you are saying you replacing windows with absecure windows or not? hearing different things and not sure-i want to make sure that-maybe ask the sponsor are you replacing the absecure windows or not >> the windows would be replaced whatever was there before, so if it is clear window it is clear window absecure window it is absecure window and we made some concession in our design to eliminate some glass rail balcony that overlooked the neighbor's property, so that he will maintain more privacy. >> i did note that. mr. winslow sounds like for the dr requesting part of the concern the way the building permit described it didn't include the specific language around like for like window replacement even though it sounds that is the intention. am i understanding that right? >> looking at the permit history there was a permit number 2021 that was probably referred to as original permit that indicated replacement of windows in kind. that might been the permit that was expired before the work was done. you reapplied for a second permit that is 2022-o32911 whatever it is we are talking about here. that might have changed those windows from that original permit which is well within the right of somebody to apply for a new permit so the permit we are talking about is the current one regardless of the 20- >> my question does this permit-in the packet where it says the project response he says will install absecured glass and he said he intends to do like for like but it is just the permit doesn't have the same language, is that what--? >> if i look at the drawing on this permit it appears there is replacement of windows not in kind and you can clar ify this. i'm looking at sheet- existing windows becoming enlarged. >> let me clarify. the original permit which expired was for the sularium addition only and subsequent to that we took out permits to do interior alterations and then we also took out permit to do the facade renovation and also replacement of all the old windows with new claded windows so it was a new permit that includes this new work with the window replacement. the original permit didn't have window replacement. >> okay. that is part of the confusion. there is multiple permits and some permits have different items on it the others. i wanted to make sure what we-what we are talking about today. any other comments questions or motions from commissioners on this item? commissioner diamond. >> is there disagreement here? >> it sounds like they are disagreeing it sounds like one of the one permits does not state the windows will be replaced in kind but we just heard testimony that is the plan. >> you want 3 windows that currently have clouded glass or absecured glass replaced with absecured glass, is that your plan? >> architect-didn't catch yourf name if you can respond you intend to replace absecure windows- >> what we intend to do is whatever the glass that is on the existing windows if it is clear glass we replace with clear fwlass, absecured glass we replace with absecured glass. >> are the windows going in the same place? >> most are in the same location. >> i still not understand what the disagreement is. >> i think it is written for like for like. >> i guess a bigger question, are there exceptional extraordinary instances that make this a dr eligibility action in the first place? i'm not seeing--they privately agree to do this but don't see this as (inaudible) >> privacy and shadow and light were for issues of the dr. is that correct? >> that is correct. that was the- >> that is reason for the dr. other questions came up and while (inaudible) the dr requested stated he could accept everything else other then clarification on the windows. he shifted the question but question was answered so if we feel there is no issue with shadow or privacy as the department actually opined on then i think we are ready to make a motion which i'm prepared to do and that is, do not take dr and approve as proposed. >> second. >> no more further deliberation there is motion seconded to not take dr and approve the project as proposed. on that motion- [roll call] so moved commissioners, motion passes 7-0. congratulate on a productive year and look forward to our recess and seeing you in the new year. >> happy new year and happy holiday. we are adjourned. [meeting adjourned] good morning, command evercommand staff am chief of the department. them is the san francisco fire commission meeting december 14, upon 2022 and the time is 9 o'clock. this meeting is held in person as authorized by california gentleman goad 54953e and the mayor's 45th supplement to february 25, 2020 emergency proclamation it is possible that some members of the san francisco fire commission may attend this meeting remote they will participate and vote by video. members of the public miattend the meeting to observe and provide public comment at the physical meeting election or online at the link on the posted agenda you may access looking on to the fire commission website and watch live at sfgov.org. to participate during public comment dial 415-655-0001 use access code: 2491 323 1483 ## members will have opportunity to participate during public comment the public is asked if wait for the agenda item before commenting on that item. comments addressed in the order received. when the moderator announces the commission is take public comment. members can raise their hand by press being star 3 you will be queued. callers hear silence when waiting to speak. operator will unmute you. when prompted callers have the standard 3 minutes to provide comment. ensure you speak clearly and turn off tv's or radios around you. >> item one, roll call. president feinstein. >> madam president might be an issue with the president's volume or able to hear us. i'm indicated that might be an issue. >> can you hear us president feinstein. >> she cannot she texted me she cannot. i don't see her on screen, madam secretary is that an issue. we will go back to her. vice president nakajo. >> present. >> commissioner morgan. >> present. >> commissioner fraser. >> upon present. >> commissioner collins. >> present and chief jeanine nicholson. >> present. president upon feinstein, can you hear us? vice president nakajo would you like to read the land acknowledgment? or wait? ramaytush ohlone land acknowledgement the san francisco fire commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land, and in acc ramaytush ohlone land acknowledgement the san francisco fire commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. ordance with thank you very much. item 3. resolution 2022-16 adoption of resolution setting forth findings to allow teleconferenced meeting under california government code. how wouldly like to proceed are we awaiting the president and if we are >> she logged back on. president feinstein, can you hear us? should we go off line to get a hold of the president? >> we can. >> take a recess. can we do that for a minute or so while we. >> hello! >> there we are. >> okay. my apologies. i thinked not get volume i apologize i know there is a need to move our meeting along this morning. forgive me >> okay i called resolution 2022-16, adoption of resolution setting forth find happenings to allow telekwfrnsed meetings under california code section 54953e. >> and may i ask was the vice president able to take care of the land acknowledgment. >> thank you, mr. violent. much appreciated. >> you are welcome. so -- do we have public comment on resolution 2022-16? item 3. >> i don't see anybody in raised their hand. il give them one miles an hour chance to press star 3. nobody raised their hand. i'm going to go ahead unless you have comments and move that we adopt resolution. >> i second. >> second. >> thank you, is this commissioner morgan? >> yes, ma'am. >> good morning, sir! [laughter] good morning. >> and vice president nakajo? >> affirmative to accept. >> commissioner fraser. >> vote to accept. >> and commissioner collins. vote to accept. >> the motion is unanimousful item 4. general public comment. members of the public may address the commission up to 3 minuteos the matter in the jurisdiction that does not appear on the upon agenda. speakers shall address remarks to the commission as a whole and not individuals or department personnel. commissioners are admit to enter in debate or discussion with the speaker the lack of response by the commissioners or personnel does in the constitute agreement with or support of statements made during public comment of do we have public comment madam secretary? >> i don't see hands raised. >> anybody present in the hearing room that wishes to make public comment. why nobody has stepped forward to comment. >> all right. public comment will be closed. >> item 5 approval of the admissibility everminutes discussion and possible action to approve 3 meeting minutes the first is a special meeting on september 29th, 2022. >> all right, do we have public comment on those meeting minutes? >> there is nobody on the public comment line with hand raised or nobody approached the podium. >> all right. i am gog go ahead unless there is comments by the commissioners. and -- move that we adopt the special meeting minutes from december 29th. is well a second or a desire finding of the commissioners to make any comment >> this is commissionering morgan i'm going to abstain i was not present at that meeting. so. all right. thank you, sir. and i was not on the commissionil abstain as well. this is paula collins. >> of thank you. commissioner collins. according to the city attorney's office the commission needs a motion to excuse them from the vote >> something new and different that's good to know. thank you to our deputy city attorney. always on the job. okay. can it be done like okay we can combine them. to excuse commissioner morgan and commissioner collins. >> all right. i will so move if there is a second? il second it. >> all right this is commissioner fraser. thank you, commissionering fraser. and -- i think we need that vice president nakajo >> vice president to weigh in. >> affirmative. >> motion is unanimous. commissioner morgan and collins have been excused from voting on the september 29, 2022 minutes. we have still have a motion by president feinstein. we need a second. >> approval of the minutes. >> yes. >> so moved. >> and vice president nakajo? affirmative. the motion pass. >> we have admissibilities from a special meeting on october 19, 2022. >> all right. and do we does anybody need to be excuse friday this meeting? yes, i do. >> you do, you are right >> motion to excuse. >> commissioner collins from the vote. gi will so move. >> second. thank you. >> vice president nakajo? >> yes. >> and commissioner fraser? >> yes. the motions passes. do we have a motion to adopt the minutes. >> madam president, motion to adopt >> thank you mr. vice president. and i'm going to second your motion. commissioner morgan? >> i vote, yes to adopt >> and commissioner fraser? >> the motion pass. >> and approve the minutes of the regular meeting on november 9 of 2022. all right. and do we have any public comment on those minute sns >> no, we do not. >> okay. >> so public comment will be closed. and is anybody does anybody need to excuse themselves or seek to be excused. >> hearing nothing. >> any questions or discussion by the commissioners? none? i move we adopt the regular meeting upon minutes of november 9 of 2022. >> i was not here for that meeting. >> ah-hah. okay. i know you are there. jot regular meeting? >> yes. this is a new the regular? understand but [inaudible]. yes, there is >> same thing a notion recuse >> do we have a motion to excuse commissioner fraser from the vote? i move. >> second. >> thank you, commissioner morgan. and there is no public comment? that's correct. okay. public comment on that is closed. and let's make a vote on excusing commissioner fraser. >> vice president nakajo? >> yes. >> commissioner collins? >> i vote, yes. the motion passes. >> all right. then we need to vote on adopting the minutes. >> madam president, i move >> thank you mr. vice president. i will second your motion. >> commissioner morgan >> yes >> commissioner collins >> yes to adopt. >> motion passes. item 6 chief of department's reportful report from chief from jeanine nicholson on issues and events went department since the meeting on november 9 of 22 including budget, academy, special upon event, communication and out reach to other government agencies and the public and report from department chief o connor on the divisions facility status and updates finance other support services and home land security. >> greetings and salutations to all. chief jeanine nicholson. hello madam president and vice president. commissioners maureen. i just like to acknowledge that we lost michael this week a former fire commissioner. and familiar we could close the meet nothing honor of him at the ends that would be great. his service is today at 11. and i know some of my command staff will be attending. i went to the wake last night the service last night. and as we did last night we'll have an engine and truck there at the service. with firefighters. on a happier note like to introduce 2 newark cystant chiefs sean from diversity and inclusion and we have a new [inaudible] chief earthquake, safety and emergency response bond darius. welcome to them to the command staff am and they can say a few words next time as i know we are a little time constrained now. but welcome them to the command staff. >> since previous meeting we had the 130th graduation. on the 18th of november. we now have 45 new members in the field. which is good for over time. and we also this week had a city emt graduation 18 young people graduated and they will next be put nothing to do intern shps on our ambulances >> and too many events to talk about in terms of thanksgiving and christmas. but we have been attending many events glide, self help for elderly, salvation army, et cetera, et cetera . and tree lightings and the like. and so -- in addition i met with supervisor elect joel enguard >> from district 4 i think he will being a supporter of us and public safety. also met with the director of the hotel council alex sebastian a supporter of public safety am i believe tom chief o. connor will likely speak about the gallery cancer testing for our members. is this correct? i not go over that. and we'll getting budget instructions from the mayor's office tomorrow at a meeting of department heads and they will be asking for cuts. it is a, there is quite a deficit over the next 2 years. and so. the one thing that is good for us is that out of our budgetary prop f money is removed from the budget before they take the cuts that only leaves us with 60 million dollars or so to have a percentage taken out of that. but more to follow on nain the coming weeks. and that concludes my report for today. >> thank you. chief, very much. first is there public comment? >> there are no hands raised let me announce if you want to make comment on the chief's report please, press star 3 now. nobody raised their hands or came to the podium. public comment is closed. do commission members have questions or comments for the chief of the department? madam president? >> yes, mr. vice president. >> please. >> just a point of clarification in terms of information. thank you very much, chief nicholson for your report i wanted to congratulate chief beaufort in terms of his prosxhoegz position and again for clarity's sake what is that i want to say it wrong division of racial equity >> diversity, equity and inclusion, dei. and i also understand that there has been employment by battalion 2 chief and this unit as well? >> yes. julie mau will work with chief beaufort. i want to congratulate both of them. thank you, congratulations. and in terms of i wanted make sure i say his name. darius luttropp? or one p. >> 2p's. >> congratulate him as well. welcome to the department in terms of the command staff and chief, the title for. >> the assistant deputy chief over seeing theiser bond. emergency earthquake safety and emergency response bond interfacing with public works and over seeing the training facility build out, et cetera . >> that's what i wanted get clarity on in term was training center. is this unit this responsibility housed out of support services? or >> no. it is we are working with support service but separate due to the size of the project. and the importance of the project. and the training facility. it was just it way too much oversight and work for support service. >> okay. skwoo just as a point of clarity would that fall under chief of administration? jury yes >> thank you for that clarity. thank you very much, madam president, thank you >> thank you mr. vice president any further comments. >> i would like to i want to thank you, chief for your report and piggyback on what the vice president said congratulate assistant deputy chief beaufort on his new position i'm sure he doll a great job and julie and department chief. and -- and that's all i have to say. thank you for your report. those were nice comments. thank you. commissioner morgan. >> and i know echoed by all. >> any further comments or questions for the chief of the department? shall we move on to department chief o connor? >> good morning. >> handy assistant. >> [laughter]. good morning president feinstein, and vice president nakajo. commissioners morgan, fraser and collins, chief nicholson and fire secretary maureen. department chief tom oshg con30 is my report for october and november of 2022. october was breast cancer awareness month members wore pink shirts to heighten the awareness for october. you see nerve pink shirts. all proceeds went to charity and the firefighter cancer prevention foundation. >> its not up yet. >> can we get the screen up? i'm will happy that i'm not the own one having these troubles today. why i'm with you. sfgovtv has it up >> back one slide. there we are rocking the pink all of the members. and under our home land security aircraft brown we had a busy month. fleet week october 4-10. kicked off boy a press conference with the mayor and partners in the m. ems ride alongs partnering with brothers and sisters in branchs of the armed service. air to ground communication exercise. you see on the far left chief cannon from the comcenter who did work making sure all communications were in tact. we had initial problems from an earlier delay came up with solutions on the ground. we had our k-9 heros you see lieutenant mc gibes and catherine mill are with their search and rescue dogs. sfd and military urban search and rescue exercise truck 14 in treasure island and the most vibrant groups the san francisco veteran's association provide lunch for member who is participated. at the human tearian village ems and nert getting more members. on october 12 active shooter drill at city hall with home land security. that was theidate fire commission meeting had an actual call at washington high school thankfully was a false alarm. but all of us up and running that dame november 12, search k-9s complete final exams for fema certification. you see her with her dog barn and he bosko they passed with flying colors. >> and there are diversity, equity and he inclusion decision with sean beaufort we want to welcome him. continues his strong work in out reach recruit and want lieutenant julie helping and updated our career section of the website and including a new qr code. for those of us president feinstein that are technology challenged they scan this with the phone to get information they need to join the fire department. october and november saw a significant number of upon events for out reach and development the castro street firearm expo the academic school career fair. city college health care fair and sierra collins upon veteran's job fair. nert we had a light month after the october 19th drill and focused on equity response going to the bayview senior center and helling them with safety lessons in the communities upon under health safety wellness with matt bal we had our biggest month. october and november dedicated toward planning. this week the part nerd with the cancer foundation and sponsored the gallery multicancer early detection tests. we tested 1171 members with dna sequencing test that identified 50 cancer at early stage there is is an am amount of effort you see on the far left chief nicholson was the first to volunteer and the right is captain stefani with 2 hand some chiefs under the tent. and right now we are conduct our testing at headquarters at the airport and station 49 to make sure we get all members. but -- the largest part of this was fund by the diseased he was the former [inaudible] left his family fortune to charities in the firefighter the cancer foundation that funded the majority of this testing. we are excited get the result and probably leave leading in cancer research and testing. this is again your san francisco fire department and the cancer prevention found anticipation getting ahead of everyone in the fire service by ensuring and looking after the health of our members. under the office of employee health, we had approximate 10 return on duty exams and prosecute motional exams and probation exams. candidate screenings for the firefighter akamm cad me. october 6 talked about this last time the [inaudible] breast health seminar [inaudible]. finally back on track with tb. a cal ocea mandate we are having a hard time now testing all of the members for the mobile van. [speaking very fast] kroef covid numbers are [inaudible]. and our december news letter sdrnlted to the field. we had the office of employee health partner at the gallery cancer screening and did a know your numbers seminar the blood pressure, pulse and stat levels and waist -- under our investigative service bureau with the captain we had all breath livesers recertified returned to the field. change over to monitor portal 99% complete we're live and you wanted making sure all members are licensed drivers. we attentived the 400 training dints command system 400 and background investigations for 131st classes. . the monthful october we had 165 requests for service and 149 service orders completed. november 120 service requested with 110 completed. and asip mentioned my previous upon upon reports having supply chain issues getting out ahead to get clothing and equipment ordered and successful so far. the part we are lagging is dress jackets everything else conduct introduce for department plumb and waiting for interviews for an electricification as well. this is the big deal previous they repairs were done by dpw with expense and now we will cut down on costs. we had our meetings condition to the new training facility and commissioner nakajo if you questions about the chief i tell you the chief the save the bay we had hours of meetings with the new training facility. we started out doing a target hazzard survey every rolfe of every engine take 5 pictures of hazards in the district and send it to architects to show the hazards we face in san francisco and ajs of the study and had a workshop on the building where we nailed down how many classrooms and offices and computers and plugs and outlets and had a meeting with props and train fag sillity and the apparatus and shop's building. we are investing millions of dollars in the fire department for project that wills will last us 50 to 75 dwroers is critical we have this new place to over see and make sure that every dollar allocated by the voters is spent wisely. this was going to drain from support services and myself of half of our time. we are up and running with the new training facility. on to our ranldzom photo section. new gators at station 43. small vehicles for special events. we had congratulations to our members recognized by the san francisco police fire post 456. officer and firefighter of the year awards. we honored anderson and [inaudible]. and october fourth we weekend physician who is visited sudden fran to see our trauma centers. you see them there with various stations they got a tour of our various facilities station 49 and the fire how muches station 9. and 11, 9910 sxae graduates completed the division training the next is spending 500 hours on the fire department balance. the 9910 is a civil service classification a public safety training we take the community train and pay them for hours of training on the upon ambulance t. is our best programs we have a pipeline from the community into public safety t. is a fantastic program and we are proud behalf we have done you see the graduates with the team of instructors. on thanksgiving we had the mayor and chief nic lon and many vol tires the salvation army community center serving toed to the community. the day before we had a give away with the mayor, chief scott and the command staff for thanksgiving day give away on the 22nd. thoo that day supervisor safai, myself distributing socks to those in need. here is a great picture the 130th class pt training and next picture is them at the graduation dame in what will some notable about this graduation is that the influx of new people is getting us back to full staffing that with sick leave policy we had a notable drop in over time and manualed tormey over time. these new men and women could not come at a better time and welcomed out in the field and lastly local hero's night. at the chasten center on december second. i think you click on the picture of the chief we see her ringing the b. in action. [laughter] all right that is my report, commissioners for october and november. thank you. >> thank you. is there public comment. there are no members with hand raised on the public comment line and nobody approached the podium. >> all right. public comment will be closed k. and do we have any commissioners who might have questions to chief o connor? or comments. questions or comments? >> commissioner fraser? >> i have a couple questions. >> thank you, chief for your report. couple things i have a question about the gallery cancer screening. is this participation of our members part of a clinical trial the company is doing? or how did does this fit had with the corporation gallery? i'm not sure if is part of a clinical trial there was a partner kevin road the chief of staff and working with the company and we have worked together in the past am gallery gave a presentation to the occurrence foundation and did a few takes of the tires and talked to other cities. our conference false positives we did not want somebody go in a tail spin and the rate was less than 1 to 2% for false positives felt it was okay. i'm not sure if it is part of their over all. >> okay. >> my question is may be we can finds this out. what they will do with the dast after our members. ownership of it? what their publication plans are? you know i have a background in this work and i'm curious hatheir plans are with the private health dast after our members. and, how the results are going to be delivered to members. designated a physician to work with the team and will call members with result fist there are positives. >> so people members who test negative on this gallery get a letter. >> get a letter. >> correct. >> and individual member who is test positive will get a phone call from upon a doctor. >> department this we designateed work with gallery. cancer prevention foundation chose a doctor to work with the company. >> okay hum. >> okay. now i than they said that i know we are in a hurry. i'm sorry. i thank you is important to know and understand can how our members private health care data will be handled. and who owns it. >> i think this would be good to dig in to if possible. >> sure. may be that has been done and we don't know. if it is part of the trial or published all that thing. and i say that because in the paper this morning there is an anything article about pfizer raising the cost of price of charge people for the vaccine and a lot in a big way this is a gateway for pharma companies to get data, publish and make a lot of money. that's okay but i'd like to know what is happening with this if possible. >> and then -- i didn't see and may be it did not get mentioned or may be i blacked out, is the behavioral health unit participation i'm still curious about what is happening. seems like it was a busy couple months congratulations on that. community events and other fist there is information you can share about that? with us? >> i don't have anything but we have catherine who is on modified duty assisting with the behavioral health unit worked with the team in the past am she is organizing the unit and looking to develop a group of refef loov counsel cellars to work on days off to help with the case load we areerning the data on contacts we have the variety of contacts. our big concern mou is key we have 2 members addressing all of the behavioral health issues and believe we need more. how we thread that going forward with budget cuts will be the challenge we have one working with matt al ba. i hope in january we will have a report for you >> agreement i'm wondering wlat level participation is of the members for take those service. thank you for your report and the fun pictures. >> all right. any further questions or comments for chief oshg connor? >> madam president, 2 comments. >> please. mr. vice president. >> thank you very much. thank you very much, chief for your comprehensive report i want to acknowledge i sought title change to office of employee health. and i wanted acknowledge that. i think it it is appropriate in terms of what we are dealing with and in terms of your comments with forgive me if i say your name wrong. chief. >> i could not hear you. gimented make [inaudible] in terms of the diversity the new position and comments with the bond and oversight. the chief's name again? darius luttropp. >> i continuing is important you put the comments out there and all of the projects for me, the coordination with all of the city departments and with dpw and our d. i wanted to acknowledge that as well. welcome and appreciate the oversight and work. thank you. >> chief am thank you. >> thank you mr. vice president. chief issue don't go away, chief. don't go away. i had a couple quick comments. comment and a question. and first is i want to commends you and chief certon's for obtaining independence plumbing services to make some needs of our houses and station houses and other facilities. i think that is over due and will really -- something that needs to happen that can be discussed greater detail. at another meeting. so, thank you for doing that. of my other -- is -- more a question than combchlg you did mention that we are acquiring new like -- uniforms and -- dress uniforms, class a uniforms. i'm still a little bit fixated on the and i will remain so, on the turn out. i want to know if we made any progress in being able to -- to acquire what we believe to be both protective and safe turn out gear for will our firefighters and those others entering dangerous situations. >> we, acquired the healthiest turn outs in the nation there is one layer of protection that does have chemicals but not directly in contact with skin mem brains we're as close as we can get and hopeful low the next generation will be free. but our turn outs other healthiest in the nation for our members >> and how many members have that new turn on the equipment. >> we probably have to date, just shy of 100 the last 2 classes and rolling out for the rest of the members. this will if we torch do this for the entire department the minutes of dollars out of the gate we have a dill time getting 1400 sets of new turn outs. what is the intent. when am the members who don't have it get it? what is the plan. the spln to get everyone their second set of turn outs to be free overnight next 3 years if we can. it is we are hostage to the budget and the supply chain, i can't answer with certainty. if i could whistle a wand i would. but i don't vice president that ability and especially going to such economic dire times in the next 2 years. >> okay. i thank you for that and perhaps we need to have further discussion on our budget priorities because. will you know having be been to the station and of course i can't remember the number and not in order the station where there was sauna and the bicycle and the shower and you know understanding what the danger of being in a fire is. and to think just of that alone you combine it with. the what the protective gear that our members are wearing perhaps or may be or definitely carsin gentis, that's a frightening thing. enemy my book that is really an important thing we address. we owe that to our members. and the city owe its to the members. so -- we'll take it from there. okay. >> thank you very much, chief >> thank you, commissioner. item 7. fire department administrative bulletins 2022. discussion and possible action to adopt the fire department administrative bulletins 2022 as presented >> all right. and do we have any public comment yet? >> there is yes, we do. caller would you like to make comment on item 7? caller? hi. . this is jeanine connor i'm ready to make public comment. your time starts now. thank you very much. thank you. for giving us the opportunity to speak on proposed bulletin 5.12. my company [inaudible] local owned solar and battery storage contracting company this is the work we do most work is in san francisco. and this -- bulletin cuts to the heart of when we do. battery storage solar battery energy storage is a pillar of the federal were and state and the local climate action plans. and in fact in front of the puc is the proposed decision that is anticipated to be finalized tomorrow which changes the market across california to incentivize solar paired bat row energy storage. timing of this could not being more mission critical. for san francisco addressing the issues that are most relevant. to battery energy storage and solar -- so -- one of what our request would be is that this bulletin not be adopted by the commission and instead that the commission move to have a summit meeting in which the manufactures and installers and trade organizations and members of [inaudible] committee have an opportunity to understand what sf fire's concerns are. there are a lot of provisions this deviate from the california fire code. and would like to have the opportunity to understand and work with the department to craft workable solutions that address the safety occurrence as well as the practical realities of installing the system in the city and county of san francisco. thank you. is there further public comment. would you like to make public comment? >> yes, good morning members of the fire commission. my snail is tessa sanchez speaking on behalf of tel asmarca. i'm tile nothing to provide tesla on the administrative bulletin 5.12 [inaudible]. the manufacture and installer of battery energy storage system including residential product [inaudible]. tesla installed more than 400,000 power walls across the globe in san francisco 189 power walls since 2017. all without incident. that is because the power wall design and manufactured to meet and exceed strict safety standards. the state fire codes developed through consensus know drip process with the fee and national fire service and take years to develop the code enables the installation of batteries and allows for you to install batteries at volume to limit the threat of climate change the result in code includes the requirements that are necessary from safety customers and purchasers alike. from when we can tell administrative bulletin was not developed through consensus or evidence backed process. we have several concerns with 1, 2 and 4 [inaudible] occupancies put construction that have no requirements under requirement for fire resistance readings at the time they were built. issues with 2 the language related quantities long with the new definition of energy storage system. under minds the intent of the code and guidance from the office of the state fire marshall on interpretation of aggregate capacity. and lastly take issue with clause 8 allows for e viv 11sy ask and not a substitution as a substantiation for reduced spacing. [inaudible]. have been established on which to base the reductions and should be accepted for review. >> tesla recommends the commission table this and direct the fire department to work with stake holders to clarify the spfblgs of the code language. thank you. your 3 minutes is up. >> thank you. that is all public comment. >> i like to -- sorry. well is somebody here. local sf contractor working in battery energy storage spachls i appreciate what s footwork fire done in the bulletin providing guidance on battery energy storage. however there are portions of bulletin 502 that go beyond guidance and amount to additional requirements above and beyond the california fire code. my ask is that bulletin 512 not adoptd and the requirements contained pursued through a code amendment process with appropriate stake holder feedback. >> thank you. >> thank you. i don't see anybody else approaching the podium. >> all right. then there will be no further comment and we will turn to the fire marshall. good morning. >> good morning vice president nakajo, commissioner morgan, colence and chief of departmentful fire marshall of san francisco. so the bulletin is our last piece of the codes. yesterday the fire code was passed by the board of supervisors. and i will give you an understanding about what they are it is the fire department is authorizeed issue bulletins establish or clarify requirements under this code. provide interpretations of the code and set policies and procedures of the bureau of fire prevention and we posted them on our website and had a public hearing on december 8 at fire department headquarters which was posted. i believe the first comments came to that and brought up occurrence regarding bulletin 512 and another bulletin. so i want to let you know, for this code cycle we added 4 bulletins and removed 3 there is about 50 bulletins. these bulletins really they are meant to clarify. you know upon given presentations regarding the inter~ national fire code. california fire code and local fire code and we have standards in how things meet. as they grab things out of the codes and come together for a job it is easier we make an attempt to write a bulletin to gift public understanding about how we interpret the code. we interpret things very concern because san francisco does in the match anywhere else with california. we have more concern and cha tha is address in the this 512. some is ratings and walls. because we don't have that 5 to 15 feet between the neighbors. i did take submit first person who called in, some comments locked deeper in the code and seen there was interpretations from the state fire marshall we wanted add in the code and put that actually bulletin inspect temperature the really intent of 512 seems to be the elephant in the room was that the state fire marshall requested a heat alarm for the garage. if you put the power walls in the garage, required heat detection. they have not made a certain requirement. they did not made one yet. until sthl device will be made the rest of it in the bulletin explains how we interpret it. one of the other conference that the aggregate totals. how much puryou can have in the homes and provide wayed bulletin this did not know existed an superstition 'll interpretation from march of 22. states how many power walls can you have throughout the home and we adjust today. i don't have concern if we hold 512 buzz we can hear it at the next hearing and i can work with additional stake holders i wish they would have been at the hearing and gave me that. there was only one person. who came and i think i'm fine with wing on it longer. so if you are okay with that i like to with draw 512