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 didn't we make it an

option for 75 to 1 hundred feet to pick between the elevator or the system. >> for the current code cycle or are you talking about history. >> i understand that the state level at 1 hundred and 20 feet our required to do the sir, elevator below 120 there's no state code why didn't we decide to give them the option of picking between the systems. >> >> thank you. next speaker if the building wants to put in the fire system they can; right? >> but it would be on top of the elevator. >>right. >> i thought you said in san jose they can pick between the two. >> it's basically, the same so at that 75 feet you're required

to put in a fire system but if you want to do the expectation for the elevator then the fire system goes way; right? >> right but you can't put in the fire system and not put in the elevator. >> he can. >>right. >> either 75 or 120? >> right it all depended on on the building. >> i know that anyone can install this on top of our requirements but it's a chris's choice between one or the other. >> i would say it's a choice it's a requirement of 1 hundred - >> i'm sorry. i'm asking about the code amendments before us today my understanding is that we're now putting a new

requirement which the the fire service elevator and a no, it's an exception. if you don't want to put in the fire system the expectation allows the fire service access >> so it's an either or? so if we pass the code change tomorrow it goes in effect the next day a developer can build a development and put into either the fire system or the elevator >> correct and in the future. my last concern is if firefighters don't trust the system and they're not using it i have a concern to make property owners to pay for something you guys are not going to utilize >> yes. and that's the decision the board will have to make because the fire commission

has amaze approved it with the vest it's been done and presented today. >> so we're still allowing them to pick the fire system over the elevator under 1 hundred and 20 feet. >> absolutely (laughter). >> so you understand my concerns then why even allow them as an option if you don't train or like the system why allow that as an option. >> originally when we started this code cycle review the fire marshall then requested that the ordinance be deleted. through public comments and everything else the fire commission came up with this compromise of allowing this

expectation which follows san jose >> i worry about a compromise where one of the optioned is your neither trained for or will use. it's problematic if we know we don't like the system tell everyone to get the fire service elevator >> unfortunately - >> i wouldn't say not willing to use for an onyx i have optioned so i'll bring my bottles first and if i have another choice i'll use the system. i'll go to option a and b before c >> just one question i know i know the question. what's the fundamental purchase to the air reaccomplishment

>> so for the purpose of having the air available. >> to be able to fight the fire without going up. we have protocols set up the cash bottles so when we come down to fight the fires and sometimes, we don't use the systems to put the fire out but to come back and take a breather and have the next firefighters go up and change the bottles >> it's a safety issue. >> i want to take a break from my rehab those fires are contained fires and it takes a long time to fight and maybe the

sprinkleers were out so we have the health and safety of the firefighters to take a breather and check their vial signs and go back to work. >> any other questions or comments. is the presentation complete? >> yes. >> thank you very much for all that information. >> president chiu. >> i want to thank for your presentation i know there's a presentation from rescue air and we may i call you back to talk about that again and we're expecting the chief here in about 20 minutes. >> actually we're going to hear from the presentation. >> public comment? >> okay.

>> so we have a handful of public comment cards and i will call public comment for 2 minutes unless there's questions from the committee. (calling names) >> i'm good. how are you. >> good. >> i'm rue been i have 3 seven

years in the fire services and 15 years as the fire chief in the city of paling to and then director of calfire. during my time there we started up one firefighter system so i had the installation and training and ongoing maintenance of a system as far backing back as the 1990s. i had a positive experience and my firefighters had a positive experience with the installing of the installation. during my time at calfire director systems were in state occupied building sworn testimony. there were 10 believes that had air remresht systems.

and that was at the cal epa building and at the state attorney general's office while i was the director at cal. i want to talk about the process having gone through the international co- councils process of daumgsz. it was mentioned this was supported by the organization of the largest firefighter by cal professional firefighters the second largest union in the state and by california fire you chiefs operations and fire prevention officers. and i participated in the fire marshall's committee in which the firefighters went into the process and no point during that

conversation was it as given at a coefficients >> i have a few questions i'd ask this question to the department about the trend in terms of codes and specifically it requiring this as opposed to making it on option. could you compliment on that and where respect to the proposed change international code i guess it was appendix k could i comment on that and the department indicated if it's an appendix it's optional not required >> when an item is an appendix item it's not in place until it's adopted but once adopted it is in place if it's not adopted

it's a recognized standard that has been used. it wasn't a requirement in the code so you have two optioned one is you adopt it for law or you don't adopt it. the trends is the opposite direction that san francisco is going. your leaders in the development of system you phoenix and a few other sections have pushed the system in the direction of a appendix so it's a standard listed phoenix had their own so it's a national standard and i would bet that organizations like i f f or ic f f where firefighters are going to be pushing for jurisdictions like

new york city or san jose. >> are you talking about it being an option or a required. >> i think you're going to see the adoption making that a requirement. i spoke to the key person at i f f he wanted it to be a requirement he settled as of of it as an appendix. the international fire chiefs wanted to be to a as an appendix >> just to be clear an appendix is different from a requirement. >> that's no different if you adopt it in your jurisdiction and a if they say they want it you seem to be distinctly that

they settled forbidding for an addiction rather than a requirement. >> jurisdictions at the time they adopt the code and they adopt the code you have 1 hundred and 80 days after the fire code marshall, local jurisdictions have 180 days to make changes that are more restrictive so if you adopt any of those appendix including that it would be a law in our jurisdiction. if there's an appendix you don't adopt they don't become law but still are recognized as a standard >> how many cities or towns in the u.s. require the system as

opposed to making it an option. >> the appendix it was a multiple year process in which all those experts had input into the process and it was just recognized e recommended from dallas and finalized in atlanta city. it passed with the elements of the city so it's on the recommendation calendar in atlanta city >> once you say it stays in as an appendix in the international fire code at some point would it be maybe in a year or two it will go in california through a process in sacramento and then ultimately to the - and to the fire standards commission it's the marshall who has the

responsibility for adopting the code in california. i've responsive with chief hoover and she'll take to throw the same process. normally there are committees that for example, on the high-rise committees she'll get with the committees and at some point prior to adoption of the next code make a recommendation to the state fire marshall the fire marshall had propose the standards and then it will go into law in california. >> and ultimately we'll be back here in 3 years having a hearing over exporting the state fire code into our - the international code into our local code. >> it's been quite the opposite

that jurisdictions don't wait, in fact, san francisco on ma many provision they adopt the code that haven't been adopted. the state fire marshall hadn't adopted you'll eliminate a third of your code >> okay. and going back to the question about the number of jurisdictions that are exposing e imposing this i think phoenix requires it but i don't have a comprehensive list - let me just finish my question the talented cities in the u.s. that require it. obviously there are more in the future but i'm interested in now because a lot of board

statements are being made so today happen to know that >> i don't know how many have adopted into the ordinance as part of their code. i know the city of sunny vail doesn't have it but are imputing a lot of systems. sometimes with the developer you may require something in lieu of something else so there's a number of systems being installed around the country >> supervisor kim and you had mentioned about a third of our code is not mandated by the state. could you give us an example of something you think is quite necessary important that's not currently required by the state >> there are lots of provisions.

>> some examples. >> probably turn rad. >> with the fire lanes, fire code requirements for water supply >> a number of those things. >> uh-huh. okay >> thank you, president chiu. >> thank you and chief i appreciate you being here to help us figure this out. as i mentioned before this was a list of 15 organized suggesting that we needed a requirement and i asked the fire marshall to look at that and if i could go through those and others could provided different information. from what i gather is the national association of fire marshall's and the society the fire marshall's don't have any information on this to suggest the opposite.

the california firefighter chief association and the cal northern portion of the fire prevention officers. those are all organizations that might support the alternative but who won't support it if it's mandatory. then the plumbing code supported it as an appendix only something that's not a requirement this suggests that - to the approach we're taking is a bit of a compromise is the one that make sense tell me what am i missing >> all of those 15 organizations supported the adoption. >> the appendix is not

mandatory it's helpful guidance until we take the extra step it's not something that is part of our local rules. >> it's a tell you tool that's given to the local government. >> again helpful guidance. >> yes. . and again i'll say to you from talking to you f f, two other orchestras the people i've spoken to have said to me they'd like to see it go further than a appendix by will settlement at this time >> the organized themselves have taken - >> the people who were proposing it in dallas. >> in one case it was the proponent of the co- change for the international service of

co- chiefs and another one was with the organization of the firefighters who was a member on the committee. >> i guess another that fundamental question i have. there's been a lot of activities open both sides to influence you but at the end of the day i generally need to rely on our rank and file firefighters to give us suggestions whether it's monopoly and putting the money issues aside. the fundamental question that has led me to what co- changes might make sense is those who are protecting us from fires are telling you to move forward with this proposal today why should i not listens listen to our fire department >> i'm not here to criticize

the fire department or her i'm here to give my opinion on the issue. i will say in the previous commission meeting i was representing mission air but i've separated microfilm from them. quite frankly i've been in the fire service for over thirty years. in fact, when i became fire marshall i took a $70,000 pay to lead the local fire department's for 3 seven years i've figure out for the firefighters. i personally believe this is a firefighter safety issue >> thank you. thank you very much. next speaker >> supervisors good afternoon

i've mario i'm with - i retired from the fire department. i'm basically here to give you a little bit of information. about 20034 rescue air the company that was providing this service approached san francisco fire department and presented their product to us and the officer were charged with reviewing the merits of system and while we felt as a tool it had merit in certain circumstances our unanimous remedies was that this was something we didn't feel was necessary in new high-rise buildings. there was a massive change in the code. we had specific new requirements

for smoke control removal and all new high-rises there were going to be strirnld so our recommendation was it that wasn't needed. in most high-rise fire to date as the chief mentioned they don't have the need for this type of system and, in fact, the fire department doesn't need all those bottles. not to say they don't use them but the system we felt is unnecessary. we recommended it to be installed in the exciting high-rise buildings that would never be sprind because their historic and we felt there was more of a need in the system

then the buildings we're talking about today. that was ignored i'm not sure why the politics at the time >> thank you. next speaker. >> i've got 3 more cards then we'll get to the next speaker and a go ahead. >> thank you for another up to this point to talk about important legislation. i'm yolanda jones with the construction. i read the chronicle article this morning. every woman who owns a construction company here in san francisco it's difficult to have your work criticized and attacked. reading about the rescue caring air and all those folks

attacking our fire chef and marshall i wanted to back up them. how many people have getting paid by rescue companies. anyway, we may not all agree on policy but nobody can question the departments commitment or motivates. i run a construction company and i know the reputation of this rescue air. you should schism whether they use union labor and don't you think you'd see all the i'm not sorry out if there were good practice. we care about the safety of the projects we build. don't let this company with their army of lobbyists come in

to protect their company with a system we don't need. none of the people know what we need. don't let them come in and tell you what we need. i'm a babe bay view resident of 53 years and i stand for the my own people and union work. thank you thank you very much. next speaker >> let's have everyone line up on one side over on the door side of the - thank you. go ahead >> first i'd like to say thank you for that wonderful presentation that was educational. thank you supervisors and operator for giving me the time

to speak to you guys. i run a program that is a non-violence program it's a youth organization that reaches youth. we're on the south of market. we're also the neighborhood where so much development is being built here in san francisco. when you talk about the policies we're the folks who will be entangled. we're on violence protection and one of the things we want access to housing and it's skyrocketed. it's crediblely important to keep the cost of new believes as loss as possible. it allows us to have more affordable housing thanks to the good work on inclusionary work policies but there's another

reason to move supervisor chu's legislation. creating the option forefirefighters and the elevator helps us to evaluate elderly or sick members and to remove them from our buildings. finally this company has an army of lobbyists and lawyers as the chronicle said early this morning. all those people who are being paid to help prevent you to drive up the costs of housing and nothing to protect our families and firefighters. so in conclusion, i want to move supervisor chu's legislation today and protect the firefighters and families >>