the firefighter remresht system. i'd like to visit up the fire marshall and detective to make a presentation and then we'll precede >> sftv if there's a way to show the power point that would

be great. >> there we go. good afternoon supervisors thank you for having us 80 here. let me just talk about how i got here. i'm the chief fire marshall and my colleague is the director of training. the 2013 san francisco fire code was presented for 3 meetings during may and june of this

year. the fire department comments were heard by the fire commission. the fire commission individual and amaze proofed the san francisco fire code as presented today. this slide shows the comparison between the fire access elevators. you can see the phil station and it's determined by the jurisdiction. every third floor after the fifth floor. the existing systems can only fill air bottles to 54 f s i. those elevators can deliver firefighter equipment and help

to evacuate the public. we have the bottles maximum capacity. there is additional seismic safety of the elevator shafts for buildings greater than 45 hundred feet in height. regarding firefighter air roishlt systems. the san francisco fire marshall does - we're to create a better building system health and safety code. on 5 jurisdictions in california has those systems san jose and north county which includes bay

city and pacific. the expectation is for the fire access elevators instead of the fire systems. redwood city on the other hand, removed the requirement for the air systems altogether from their fire code. now let's consider whether those options are reasonably necessary. for the firefighter rishts the san francisco fire department feels that in order to remain consistent the fire department in the morning believes it's necessary for the building code for the geographic or top graph conditions which is the health and safety code 898415.

those elevators are for taller than 120. 1 hundred and 20 feet. allowing them to be used for less than that it's he reasonable for the fire department remresht conditions. now let's consider the firefighter health and safety. using fire access elevators important the personnel and evacuation of policy allows the firefighters to reserve their energy. regardless of how the air bottles are used the firefighters need time to

reliquidate the air equipment. this allows them to not worry about constantly running out of air. this the for the fullly filled units. this slide shows the difference in the containment. on the left side is the unit that weeks ago close to 1 hundred ups and downs and expected to be carried up to the floor where the phil is to be done. on the right side is the - excuse me. only the right side is the fully ocean phil unit own the san francisco mobile truck. the blue bar oh, you can't see

it. the complainers there is a bar that closes the door and that closes the fully capping. in summary the board of supervisors has improved this and the firefighter health and safety is the uppermost important use of the firefighters service access elevators are advantageous because of the evaluation of the public and also helps the firefighters so use the bottles safely. thank you supervisors for your time and consideration in moving the proposed san francisco fire

code to the next meeting hopefully next tuesday. >> colleagues any questions for the fire marshall. >> you have a number of questions. thank you i'm not sure if i got the list from the firefighter fire department but in the interim one was mandate that was implemented the fire air remreshlt system and some or are the district i represent. i'm guessing more than half of them are residential. i have a lot of concerns about what you might be taking anti another tool for the firefighters and some of those at all residential buildings was it might mean. if you could go into the height explanation so i could get an

understanding for buildings 1 hundred and 20 feet and over. this fire code starts 75 feet and overcorrect and a yes, they require to have the firefighter air reaccomplishment system depending upon when a building permit is issued for a high-rise at 2 hundred feet an elevator was required after january 1st of 11 a single firefighter service access elevator was required and after 2013 two elevators will be required >> could you explain that if you're building is 75 feet or

higher what is it the requirement today. >> at this point the firefighter equipment - if it's over 1 hundred and 20. >> 75 to 120. >> just the firefighter reaccomplishment system. >> after that? >> you know i'm a layperson it is not in my area of the expertise so it make sense that a shorter building but my concern is the taller building. in the article that come out this morning some firefighters we've lost in buildings that were on the 30th floor >> yeah. this is la i believe. >> philadelphia 3 firefighters.

>> i know this was 20 years ago but i want to feel comfortable. >>right. >> with the decision we're making. i'm curious at what feet do we want to have thirty floors or 50 floors. today, we're building buildings taller than >> let me state for the record neither los angeles nor philadelphia have a fire system so even after losing firefighters in high-rise buildings they don't have a fire system. so again, the fire department's position is that we feel the elevator are multiple use tool that can help us with not only shelving our air bottles but

helping with the equipment that's also an issue for the fire department >> you know i get it. i would want to take the elevator there was some talk about the way we constrict stairwells how do we construct elevators. do they have the same save access >> no, the code says that the elevator lobby shall be directly accessible either through a corridor or directly to the stair enclosure. >> yeah, and the access is protected. >> and for someone who doesn't know a lot about construction

elevators they seem like not the safety place to be in an energy can you talk about why this elevator is different. >> i think perhaps during an earthquake they're not save because everything is shaking but the international code council adopted this in their international building code that was passed down to the california building code. with all the public comments that goes on in that process if there was an issue or concern around safety that it would have come up then and not been a requirement in the building code as it is today >> you had mentioned earthquakes so that's not something that happens in every part of this world but we know that fires come with earthquakes. so in the case where the

elevator is not the safety way for firefighters to get around buildings what would be plan b in that stance if we didn't have that in buildings >> so shuttle our bottles chief can speak it that. >> currently our policy is a significant fire in a building so after 35 firefighters we'll bring bottles already. the fact we also have a multiple unit that can carry a hose up to 25 stories so we can fill the station two. we plan for the worst and the worse case somewhere is humbling the bottles up the stairs and so we bring our own system and we carry that up the stairs with us

>> yes. >> okay. so maybe we can go a little bit into the history of why we mandated this what was the thinking? why wouldn't we want the additional layer of protection and safety? >> in 20034 when the san francisco fire department proposed this there wasn't a fire service access elevator ordinance available. that didn't come in effect until 2008 >> i see. >> so the technology for the elevators wasn't there yet. >> and since then i've read you've be able to increase the capacity of the tanks. >> exactly. >> yeah, we he got a grant for a hundred psi bottles so that's

in conflict which we only file 45 hundred. so that's recently happened in past year >> my los last two questions. i'm curious what happens to those 31 believes that has this reaccomplishment plan into place. the buildings will be required to maintain the system when they were installed so nothing changes for them. i think retrofitting the building for a fire service access elevator would be astronomical >> it's more affordable for them to keep the system then to change it. do you train the firefighters to use this system for the 31 buildings >> the building is not a single system in the city is the same.

the company that provides this system they put a mock system in the training tower but it's only training to know which systems so we have to bring our own system rather than trying to figure out which building has the same system we're training on. >> okay. so we have something in place that he might not been able to use? >> yeah, that's a concern we feel we don't need to us he feel your policies encourage the best systems and we train on that.

>> so we require the system we don't even train our firefighters to use. one of the argument i heard was there's one company it provides the system and they have a monopoly and their exporting large payments to put those systems in place. they provided different types of to every single building so we can't train our firefighters to utilize them >> when the ordinance came in 2004 originally they were suppose to have a cascade system where there were air slirndz attached to the piping system this loud the air quality to be certified by the people who

supply the air tanks and then also in 2004, it was required that they have a fully encased explosion containment system that were when the ordinance was changed in 2008 it allowed for the removal of the air cylinders hasten which would allow our mobile air truck to hook directly into the system and it went from the fully encased containment system to the open explosion containment system that the slide shows. it originally started that the air fill stations would start above the fifth floor for every third floor and in 2010 it switched to every other floor >> we made that change. >> you did.

there are multiple systems out there in those existing buildings. >> so then i'm worried about those 31 building won't be required to have this elevator system that you believe might be satisfactory and satisfactory for our residents and firefighters. so we have those 31 buildings that don't have the systems and we're not trained on those >> but the fire department has knowledge of those buildings and the battalion chiefs know so when they respond they know which building has what so it's not a matter of training because our mobile air truck knows how to hook into the system and also

it's a pretty standard connection that the firefighters use to connect the phil station or the filing hose to their air box. >> okay. so the firefighters aren't strained to ice the system but we have a truck in place so the training is not necessary is that what you're saying. >> we have a system we don't train it on a simple system the fire department don't need. >> i want to make sure that the 31 buildings. >> their maintained. >> how do we do the enforcement of the system. >> the buildings are supposed to keep on site records of their air quality testing and then

their supposed to forward those same certificates to the fire department. >> okay. >> and then our high-rise sprishg is as opposed to verify. >> what other major cities do you require the system philadelphia or los angeles does not what about new york city. >> the new york city twin towers have it and new york city declined to pit it in. han la doesn't require it >> this is my last question what is the cost of putting into

an elevator compared to an a i r s. >> sorry i don't know about construction. >> thank you. i appreciate all your answers and to follow-up before we get to president chiu. >> thank you for your explanation on the 31 buildings. following up on the questions of other cities to make it a little bit board eerie think one of the debates that seems to be occurring on the slices here what the trend is in around the country and in terms of code creating organizations and the statement made to me in october there's going to be an international meeting in atlanta city to make this a requirement

so if i could get our precipitation on what the trend is for lack of a better term in the industry what to require or not to require >> i think the trend is to put this system into an appendix of the fire code or building code just as it has been in the appendix of the uniform funding code. since 2006. and it's never been moved to the main body of the code which is xhoshl. as the appendix it remains there as a guideline and that's proposed for october to be the appendix to the fire code. i'm not sure if it is going to

make it by it's just a guideline >> by the difference between a requirement and guideline does that mean it would be considered acceptable and appropriate if someone choose to do it but not required. >> yes. >> in san francisco let's say it don't become a requirement and obviously your intakt with those construction folks does the department press views what is a less good way to go or are they discouraged from implementing the system even if it's technically allowable. >> my position would be if they either want to do it involuntarily or if it's an

requirement. if the california brings it into an appendix area and fits not adopted it's not xhoshl but it's still a requirement we'd look to the california fire code so we don't have to rewrite a guideline as a as a standard for us. and >> finally could you compliment on the situation in san jose. they removed it and it's going to be put back in >> it's not necessarily that they removed it but, however, they do have expectation to allow a firefighter service elevator to be installed. it's not technically removing it so if a building or developer

feels it's advantageous to put the fire system in that's fine and the elevator will kick in if it's at all enough. but if the developer or building owner decides to install the elevator at the 75 feet its not required >> thank you, president chiu. >> thanks. two days ago i met with some folks and they grateful a list of questions. we know this is a system that's been in place for 10 years that have not been used in fires and there's firefighters who don't trust the system particularly around bad air or maintenance. could you talk about the evidence of those issues i want to understand what is the

experience of the firefighters and the department and thinking about whether or not to use the system >> it's not that we feel it's bad air we feel this in our belief it's no longer necessary though have those systems in place considering the california law. so far as maintenance and that sort of thing we're not saying its poorly maintained but on a couple of site buildings we found no air certifies on site >> would you use the system or are there firefighters in the department that point to use the system and i have the chair of the committee to tell you about this and their position is no they wouldn't use it. it's a fixed system and the

protocols can put the system anywhere in the hose and that's depending upon on where the fire and is and whether we can bring in bottles we can and set up the fire stations of where they're in the building. my high-rise committee said no, they wouldn't choose it. the system >> so today, if we will have a fire in a high-rise you coincident u wouldn't use it. >> no. >> we have a rescue - 15 organizations that support this system could you it's been a little bit confusing what those organizations have or have not supported and people who are not

experts in the field could you explain where the organizations are. >> of the 15 organizations that were stated in the lass list those are professional organizations that i specifically scalding scalding asked to speak to someone. so i did this pole myself. of those 15 only 11 responded, 4 did not return my folks. of those 11 only one supported the fire system as a required system. there were i believe a couple that supported the position but not as a mandatory system >> so in other words, it's the all of the system we're talking about today. >> yes. >> supervisor kim. >> why