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 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