reaches every floor >> i have a question. >> could you just finish that one thing. >> could you ask you won question i said there are 80 jurisdictions. >> 80. >> that mandate this system. >> i believe so. we've asked for the list a number of times already and i'm not talking about an option i'm talking about mandate that's where a i've being been asking for and i've not received and i've knowledgeable people here today and that's why i wish you could have asked my colleague >> if i can finish that one statement. the slide says it goes to every single floor but you also heard testimony that they stop two

floors below the fire floor so if you're on floor 50 and you're trying to do evacuate it's by climbing not by an elevator >> actually, my apologizes. >> supervisor good to see you. the state fire marshall requires the use of those fire service elevators and i want to make sure i understood that companies are saying they're not building the elevators to the code that the fire marshall requires? that is >> no, in the fire department recommended that a new hardened elevator that was in the code in 2008 it required both systems

both the air and the elevator. so the question is fastest has gone up since building in 2008 but why are there no elevators. in 2010 and this was what the fire marshall morris was trying to say in 2010 as part of the world trade center amendments to the building code they mandated those new cease elevators that were designed to get firefighters up as fast as possible because of the disasters. now that nazi it's a in the building code since 2012

notwithstanding not one is in operation today in san francisco and probably only a handful today. but it begs a question which say we have both the fire chief is saying their all of the why are we being asked to choose between the two if they're both good like seat belts and other sadists no one is asking to choose between the two well, you have to ask do i have to make that choice and maybe you have to ask who asked us to make that choice >> the state requires the mandated elevator. >> so at 1 hundred and 20 feet up there's no either or.

at 1 hundred and 20 feet that's it and the city attorney confirmed that to you about that because that is important to know. it's not an option it's only if you - >> i understand thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is chuck and i'm with dish man's inspire. i'm a senior director in the production. we're here to support the san francisco fire commissioner. tissue man developed and owned high-rise buildings across the world. when we design those high-rise

buildings we hire engineers, architects, fire engineers across the board. we try to design the safety systems we can. in london and paris and shanghai and a hong kong all those different areas they've had firefighters elevators for decades. they've been in operation it's common practice for dejects. san francisco is the only city that we've been required to build a reaccomplishment air system in our buildings. the systems that have come into place are much more redundant and savor their fully sprinkled and the alarm systems are extremely sophisticated a complete different basketball game then 10 years ago.

as a building owner we also prefer the safety systems we can. we strongly believe that firefighters elevators are by far the most versatile tool and the safety option. we want to say that the elevators are more expensive to build than the air reaccomplishment system >> thank you supervisor kim. >> you're the person to ask this question what's the cost of building the elevator. >> it depends on when you design it in. i would say a premium and i mean this is a rough estimate would be probably 5 to 10 percent on your total elevator cost.

that would depends on, you know, how many elevators you have in the bank >> you stated yourself that you believe that this cost is higher than the f ar system so how much roughly is the f a system. >> percentage it really varies. >> of course, just a rough range you said 1 half to 10 percent for the service elevators? arrest i would say it would be this is variable. >> it's fine. >> perhaps 2 to 3 percent something like that. >> so this is a far more affordable option for property owners. >> yes. if you have a choice sure.

>> but right away right now as a property builder your required to do both. if you have a who's u choice would would you be selecting and we prefer a much more - as a developer and i owner bay we own 80 major facilities across the world as an owner and he developer we would prefer a firefighter elevator. it's on emergency power and got different alarm systems. you can operate it within the building and it's up to the fire department how it is operated >> do you have this service elevator in any of your

properties. to date no because we have major facilities going up that are going to have that >> you have a number of facilities going to have that. >> any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i noticed that chief hayes has arrived and i want to give the achieve a opportunity to commit. >> good afternoon president chiu and - >> if i could i want to publicly commend the department for its work around the rim fire. i was an incredible project so thank you >> it was a collective team

effort i'm proud of the thirty men and women to suppress the rim fire. you i'll for being late i had a pg&e meeting as you know it marks the anniversary of the pg&e explosion. but i know p you had a bunch of folks standing in. i'm happy to a answer any questions by to summarize. i i know you've heard a lot as we did in may and june. this issue was thoroughly vested over the course of 3 meetings. they were typically 60 to 90 minutes in length and they went on for 3 hours. i want to assure that or you this issue has been fully

vetted. this was legislation that was approved in 2003 i gave him the chief in 2004 and as any good leader of any department perilly i like to do the review and look at it best practices. i'm here today to stand behind what we're presented inform the fire commission and what was unanimously adopted and is setting before i. i want to thank supervisor farrell and chu. in your mind your full of a lot of information. i'm going to try to break it down briefly and answer any questions. this is a lively debate the bottom line is this decision does not come in a vacuum arrest

i've reached out to my colleagues the metro fir chief i'm personally friends with him. he feels that the air reaccomplishment system is an added tool to the firefighters kit. we're more in agreement with other folks but by no means do you have the most of expertise. i rely on my local fire chiefs and your local fire marshall's office are experts if the code and as well as the high-rise committee that has vetted this recently and put forward a recommendation. the bottom line is the men and women of the san francisco fire department and it's counter

intuitive that you have people coming to you that are not firefighter experts through i know former chief and the former fire marshall they have expertise. we feel that this issue before you today is the right one and it's the right thought to have an option to buildings between 75 and 1 hundred feet. personally a firefighter should be able to get up to 12 stories. we're conditioned and we practice all the time. so it's about 7 or 8 stories but basically we've looked at this and we feel that the fire service elevator officers for

flexibility and we feel to offer this between 75 and 120 is the way to go. the state code calls for that of 1 hundred and 80 feet. i'm happy to answer any questions that you have >> thank you chief. any questions. supervisor kim >> i have a question from public comment. is a question whether we have any of those service elevators in existence in the city >> i believe the twint i didn't plaza. >> it is the second tower so we have one. and that's the only building that has fallen under the state code since 2008 arrest >> yet but we have 8 to a dozen

more. >> so both the f t r and the fire service elevator. if we change that over the course of the next week's the buildings will opt out of the system >> if they so choose and a only comply with the state and i cc and a great thank you. >> and quickly a comment. it's not surprising that's the only one since 2008 since the market died >> thank you chief. >> just one follow-up question. chief since this is an ongoing discussion i believe your department will be monitoring this and what's your sense of

the appendix k internationally as well as we are e we believed expect. and your department will routinelyly revenue advances in the field can i give us a sense as you're asking us to make a decision >> there will be periodic reviews to look at best practices relating to strategy and tactics. the fire department is to save lives and property. i take this personally fifth floor safety. so i want to assure you if this is something that they would use i'd go endorsing that. i'll continue to look at this best practices and la and nokdz doesn't have those but those are

the city's that have the same construction as high-rise. i i know that only 5 jurisdictions in california have those systems now. my understanding is that this is not the case because it's in the appendix it will automatically bely go into code. i've been told that by fire marshall's past and present although the current fire marshall con depend on the appendix she doesn't intend to adopt this into the code >> great any other questions for the chief. >> okay chief. i also want to for the city attorney really >> i'm going to another meeting i heard some public comment and

i wanted to assure we've had some lively debates but i want to tell you that pedestrian and public safety it will be think ongoing revenues. >> now i want to give the city attorney the opportunity to commit on a comment that another individual had made about the letter. >> sure john city attorney. he was referring to the question whether the proposed code creates an either or option for developers. i think supervisor kim clarified earlier it's an either or option for the service elevator and over 1 hundred and 20 feet the

state requires an elevator and the developer could use the air replenisher system. so there's the proposal would create an either or option between 75 and 1 hundred feet. the city attorney has not written a letter to any of the involved parties about that issue. one detective city attorney in my office spoke with an lawyer representing this jazz client and i believe supervisor jacking in question can he was referring to a letter he wrote about that conversation >> president chiu are we discussing the matter now. >> so item 2 is in the hands of the committee, president chiu and a first of all, i want to thank all the members of the

public as well as the fire department in your diligence in answering a lot of questions. i've learned a lot about this topic. i i want to submit a letter from the president of the local 798 who was not able to come to the committee. i wanted to read this. the firefighters have lounge been stufrn advocates for the effort to include important options for safety in the high-rises. and the firefighters will have the necessary tools whether it's a fire resistant elevators. there's been a lot of voices but first, let me reference those who may lose or gain from the

decision if we choices to move forward. from any prospective given the voices on both sides it's not a relevant bunch of considerations for safety. i agreed to sponsor this with lengthy conversations with fire professionals who at the end of the day are focused on safety. and from my prospective if the fire chief or fire department doesn't want those systems if the rank and file firefighters don't increase safety this ought not to be a system in san francisco and that's my prospective today. i hope we can move it out of committee >> supervisor kim. >> so i actually came into this hearing which i asked a lot of questions and i appreciate the

fire department. to be honest, i feel uncomfortable being a layperson to vote on a policy change such as this one. we have to trust the fire commission and fire department as well in terms of what they deem is safe. for me it seems important to go above and beyond so i was initialing to keep what it was to keep the air that you are system for our high-rise building. i think that 75 feet is two low but 1 hundred and above is important to not have to carry our air pressure system up. new york may not have those

systems but it's helpful to understand what's happening internationally. i hope we talk about the case of an earthquake. i'm concerned when we have an earthquake in a building but when we are talking about a high-rise building i have concerned or concerns about carving up equipment. and just because some of the buildings and it was helpful to hear all the sides. we have the final goal is protect the highest level of safety for our firefighters and resident as well. but it seems like with this remedies i feel comfortable moving forward.

one thing i want to get clarification is one of the arguments i've heard we have an monopoly that is developing this f r system and their exporting a lot of our developers and charging high prices for the system but tishman said it's a more affordable issue so i was weighing the cost of this. i'm getting nonprofit e-mails everyday saying they're getting priced out of our city. is it more expensive or

affordable if this is more affordable then the service elevator i want more classification on. so i do want to have further discussion but i have at least enough information inform toss this out of committee >> thank you. i also will be supporting the fire code provision as is. i as i mentioned a little while ago i'm certainly willing to disagree with the fire department but the fire department has made a good case and i don't think a good case has been made on the other side. fundamentally when you have the actual firefighters the air is there for them to breathe and keep them safe and a alive and they're saying we don't want this but on balance i think that

the departments position is the correct one. i look forward to more dialog. it's okay to disagree. i'm cost it the departments position comes from a place president what's best for the safety of the city and so side the other side. i hope we can have very, very good dialog moving forward to moor we're protecting our pedestrians having good fire safety in the city and a moving forward with the plans better streets the mayor's office pedestrian and safety plan and sforthd that many people have worked hard. so colleagues if there's no more

discussion can we for the record this without objection >> madam clerk, please call item number 3 human resources. >> it's an ordinance of a map to create the shift use district and we actually have the sponsor of that legislation supervisor cowen to introduce this item. maybe we can give a moment for folks to exit the room >> thank you supervisor cowen. >> thank you very much don't leave everyone you thought that issue was interesting. >> i'm excited and this has been a long day. this establishes a new recycle active directed between williams and egging better avenues and it

requires an conditional use for any retail use in this area or any existing establishment that be seeking to expand or intensify it's use. it's not like your typical neighborhood commercial district in san francisco. the arrests are complex. their old industrial zoning and are governed by the baby development plan. this third street is it not zoned it's m-1. it's an important distinction because there's no formula retail establishments. i introduced this legislation in

response from a bunch of neighborhoods for the potential to locate a new establishment in the area. may it's changing fast and large is for the better but if there's anything that fresh and ease taught us it's greatly improved with the neighborhood have the opportunity to weigh in. and one vehicle this is that insures neighborhood participation. this this is an area in the city that's made investments. with the changes that are occurring in the area i felt it was important that the neighborhood and a city have the opportunity to review the input for any retail businesses or the relocation of new ones to make sure we're meeting the needs of the entire neighborhood.

right now the city is currently undergoing a large review from with the goal of speedizing them. the planning commission has recommended a number of changes to this ordnance that makes it consistent with the regulations. i'd like to bring up mr. star who can talk about the committees recommendations. >> thank you, very much. good afternoon supervisors aaron star prosecute the planning vice president. the ordinance would create the third street reformation between third street and paul street are i have a map up. i don't know if i can depreciate it on the board. so between williams avenue