>> good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors land use and economic investment committee. i am scott wiener the charment of the committee and to the right is splifr kim the vice chair. and david chu pr.

i want to thank sftv for the broadcasting. our clerk is lisa miller >> please make sure to silence any fiascos. items acted upon today will be on the board of supervisors agenda later unless otherwise stated >> must be of the public there are blue cards in the in front of the room if you could fill the card out and indicate the agenda. madam clerk can you please calming call activist one >> to prohibit the use of a license plate that is that has been alternated or mutilated and

wanting count ii is the author. >> colleagues that is a simple item pr everyone knows it that in many years there have been allegations of abuse and mathematical has expose restrictions that would prohibit or parking a vehicle that displays a special leadership if that plagued has been issued as stolen or if it's reported as from a popcorn who is deassessed i'd like to have brad to come up to talk about this item. >> thank you supervisor wiener

and chu and kim. it is indeed very simple. the only thing i can add to what supervisor chu said those recreations are codified and it allows the local ordinance to be updated. the transportation code to adopt exactly what's in the transportation code. any questions i'll be happy to answer them >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment occupy item number 1 please come forward. two minutes >> good afternoon supervisors my name is douglas. i'm in support of this item but i would also like to mention for

the record that this item should have been acted upon at least 5 to 10 years earlier. according to my interactions throughout the city it's a common joke about the use of those mrakdz. it's so ridiculous that it finally made it to a committee at city hall >> a little bit which a background recently from the newspapers there were 3 other items that should have been discussed at the city hall maybe in this committee or show a some other committee and is it resembles this situation like supervisor chu said it's simple.

for example, the school district situations and city college of san francisco. those are almost dental to this in it should have been resolved way before today >> thank you very much. any additional comments on item number one >> i have a quick question for the sftv. >> in the a pretty straightforward item. so what is currently the case if you're using a disability plagued that's stolen, cancelled etc., what happens that i currently there's a resolution passed in 1996 that prohibits

mrakdz from being used. this as all the other restrictions. my understanding is that right now brau because the vehicle code prohibits all the situations that supervisor chu mentioned that's a misdemeanor. and this is a parking violation as well and this allows you to make it a misdemeanor that was issued by which entity? i'm not inspirational sure i think it's the police department >> and my last question is how do you know if a mrakd is reported as lost or stolen how do your parking officers check for that. >> i'm not entirely sure by i

believe it's the dmv to the plaques are on file with the dmv and the city the lock little talk with the dmv. >> so if a car is parked on the street of one of those mrakdz how would the law enforcement officer know to ticket that car new. >> my understanding is that each mrakd has some sort of identifying number on it that can be checked. i don't know if that can be done on site but i can find out and get back to you >> if we don't have the capacity to enforce this i still

would approve this but we need to know how the law enforcement officer will locate that. >> thank you, colleagues any other comments. i'd like to entertain a motion to move it forward. so moved >> that will be the order. >> please call item 2. >> replacing the fire code portions of 2012 international fire code and amendment it to certain building to replace it with another system. >> and president chiu is the author. >> colleagues as you probably know every few years the fire department review our local fire deed to look at provisions that maybe outdated and this would

repeal the outdated coincides. this is an ordinance this is routine and the legislation has the co-sponsorship or mark farrell. the ordinance would remove a provision since 2004 requires building taller than 80 feet to replace is it with a different system. that issue is a complicated one i've asked the fire department to talk about that and we have our detective chief to make a presentation on behalf of the department. another person will come to this meeting and i'd like to postpone

this until we've heard from her and colleagues any questions >> thank you, president chiu there's another discussion point i i know i've been going back and forth on and that's section 5284 line 9 and this section has to do with pedestrian safety projects and how we accommodate the critical need within to approve pedestrian safety consistent with our code. colleagues as you know pedestrian safety is one of the most high priorities. no matter what neighborhood you go to one of the consistent

comments you hear is people wanting more walkable neighborhoods and people concerned with pedestrian safety in our city. last year nearly one thousand pedestrians were involved in vehicular accidents. while there are various elements of a improving the pedestrian safety is to make less risks particularly for people who are disability or otherwise aren't fast walkers and widening sidewalks are an essentially key to improving pedestrian safety. in fact, pedestrian bulb outs are called out in various policy

documents adopted by the board of supervisors and the mayor and the san franciscans. proposition b and the mayors recently releases pedestrian safety strategy. key is the physical changes like bulb outs. due to the passage of proposition b and thanks to the voters for passing it by 70 percent as well as significant development in san francisco we're finally seeing numerous projects moving forward. early this year i introduced a passage of pedestrian safety information for delivering the safety information and to update the roadblocks to approval and implementation of public safety

projects and to acquire a better streamline process important one of the pieces of legislation that i authored was as part of that package what a fire amendment. it said that the 20 foot minimum street clearance would include a bulb out or sidewalk extension as well as it was no taller than a certainty number of inches and no extensions such as a utility box or code. even under this code the fire marshall has the general authority to express the concerns of the safety of this or other appropriations. this amendment was completely

consistent with the fire desperation where the vehicles needed to go and also better pedestrian safety. this amendment was passed amaze by the board of supervisors in june of this year and on june 28th mayor lee signed the legislation into law. this amendment is a very important component of dlooifr safety you pedestrian projects without it is it becomes difficult to widened the sidewalks and the bulb you outs. since the passage of the amendment the fire department has expressed concern about the amendment they question whether the board has the authority to pass the amendment. the fire department has also expressed concern about several different pedestrian projects including the mission project

which was one of the first propose b projects to move forward. the fire commission when forwarding this amended and updated fire code deleted the fire code that this board passed in june. when we leerndz of the deletion it's since been reincluded in the current of the legislation pending before us today. i want to say that i and my actions have been consistent i'm a huge fan and supporter of our fire department. there have been way too. buyers in my district and there was arsons in my district and the fire department without expectation responded

beautifully and the rim fire response has been remarkable including the vice president's defense of cap motivator and thank you. i've been opted to brownouts and been a supporter of fire academy practices but sometimes even with your friends and allies i disagree and i disagree on this one i don't think those are two mutual exclusive goals. opposition to bulb outs and you can i'm concerned we could see more opposition to other efforts to improve pedestrian safety. we're on a collision course

articulated by the board of supervisors and the mayor and the voters. the mayor a few months ago related his pedestrian safety and noted 1 out of every 5 is a pedestrian hit by a vehicle. it states and this is a quote wide streets have the highest rates of collisions that cause injury or death to pedestrians. is it includes intersection are satisfactory and drivers yield to pedestrians. this includes several engineering techniques and narrowing or reducing lanes. the city agencies and stakeholders along with the mayor's office will work together.

proposition b pass by the voters specifically indicates that $50 million of the money will be used for streetscape and pedestrian improvements and specifically calls out sidewalk extensions which is what bulb outs are. walk first that was a document that was produced there a agency prognosticates san francisco is ranked by the california system safety having the highest number of rates of fatalities for pedestrians. every surface street in san francisco should be designed for generous safety pedestrian crossings and the plans specifically recommends bulb out to the maximum stent feasible. the plan repeatedly talks about

the importance of bulb outs and turning radius for vehicles to encourage slower turning and better visibility of pedestrians. so colleagues i wanted to flag that issue it's been an ongoing decision. the fire code amendment the board passed in june, i hope we'll again pass this to confirmor support for the critical need to take measures to produce safety for pedestrians in san francisco. thank you very much >> president chiu. >> so at this point, i want to ask the fire department to make a presentation on this issue of 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. >>