understand we've met with 90 minutes with walk sf and we've on board with vision zero we're the first responders that show up to any medical emergency and we feel as operational experts in the fire department we need to kind of hold our ground i think i need to address before i ask the city engineer to come up those 2010 and the inner agency cooperation agreement i signed it there was nothing to drizzling on 20 or 26 feet it didn't take away the authority when the plan develops. >> and you see the development it needs to come back to the fire department for review. >> it speaks for itself i know that ocii confirms there were

street cross sections in the agreement so, you know, i don't think it was a written number and the street needs to be dealt with later. >> okay. i'm happy to answer questions but i think for everyone's sake if i could ask our city engineer to address you on the specification and deputy chief lombardy. >> we'll ask the department of public works to address us. >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm the city engineer and deputy director for public works.

we have a presentation to share with you but before we start i'm here with the engineers from our street design, mapping and the others and our a.d. coordinator and address concerns. thank you supervisor wiener for calling this hearing to discuss the very important issue of pedestrian safety. as chief joanne mentioned we had a good meeting involving mta and others. i want to start by saying we're all in agreement on is that public safety for everybody is of paramount importance to all us we want to make sure we have a sound policy.

as we review and approve new streets that will serve the residents of san francisco public works wants to make sure we have the flexibility to determine the best and safety street design. and that can be done on a case by case basis when building intensity and heights and geography and sidewalks and many factors are known to us that can and should be done a case by case basis. so i'll go over the prevention and some of the slides will be redundant taken from the, you know, project plan that was presented earlier. so as ocii mentioned earlier this is one of the largest

developments projects in san francisco about seven hundred and 80 acres and it is about 2 hundred and 88 acres and the hunters point shipyard about 5 hundred acres. hunters point shipyard is phase one is currently under construction been 75 acres and the alice griffith is in design we argued to the street width and it's about 10 acres from the total of seven hundred and 80 acres project. the project will continue in several phases between now and the years 20039 and this map you've seen it shows the entire area which includes candle stick and hunters point shipyard both phases one and two the area in red is the alice griffith which

is in design right now. many of the streets in the area have been approved with the 80 feet standard. so 10 thousand 5 hundred additional unites u unions and 3 hundred square footage of commercial and retail space and open space hundred of miles of infrastructure must support the neighborhood that is new roads and sidewalks and above and below the ground water and sewer and the recycle water and power gas and cable and traffic signals and and so forth and in addition the eco system - >> what is a w example is s. the axy supply system that will

supplement the fire xhalt facilities >> okay. >> just to be specific not all the streets within this development will have pipes for the a w ss system. this map shows the area for candle stick point project and the lines are the streets that are highlighted in red are the ones that have been approved as the streets with 20 feet width and the other for example, the yellow have street widths of less than 26 feet and the green within those have 26 feet width this has been worked out would the developer saw this the

detail project map your showing you has been agreed b upon with the developer >> yes. >> all the streets in the candle stick area were approved in the 2010 street plan for 20 feet streets. >> no actually and in the next few slides will describe this in detail. we picked some street sections from the 2010 >> we'll talk about that when we get there. >> let's go back to the power point presentation. so i've selected about two or three slow down from do 2010 that has been referred to several times in this hearing. as you can see it shows any street sections that have street widths much more than 20 feet as mentioned earlier thereof 72

cross sections that were included in the plan that, you know, show a different street width maybe a couple show 20 foot wide streets but others are between 26 and 34 and other square footage >> so next. next. so the infrastructure on the 20 plan provides the best practices and that's a guiding document >> so it skips over a few of the cross section there's a suggestion that there were no actual street cleaners specified in the plan that's not accurate so the ones you've skipped over there's a whole package of quote neighborhood residential street unquote not the major commercial

streets but it looks like those are in terms of the clearance street clearance defined as either 20 feet where they go above that when there's a bike lane forces greater clearance so and that's different than the major aerials. so that's been approved in the fire department and everyone signed off on with the unless there's a bike lane quote/unquote for the residential neighborhood streets >> the point i was trying to make the 2010 plan provided like a memo of different street sections. >> so you're saying the infrastructure plan contemplated what you're department has been advocating the lions share the

streets. >> it's not specifically stated what is the vigilant e width of the street by street but. >> it indicated the 20 feet clear flools unless there's a bike lane. >> yes. and many other factors you'll talk about. >> i don't think it's helpful to pretend there's no change but it's helpful not to say there was no change in the plan. >> if i may the plan states this is a general plan and not fireman and the specifics will be worked out and the exact street width street by street will be determined in this. >> i'm not going to go around

in cycles i'm sorry what were you saying. >> back to the presentation, please. so the infrastructure plan stated the streets shall be determined during the recommendations of the procures for granting the sections. also the fire department sense of the infrastructure clearly stated that it was not in any way or the plan in any way should not limit the authority of the fire department in this section. >> those charter sections are the general charter sections that create the fire department? >> i believe so i'll have the fire department present when

they talk about their portion. >> so this chart shows some of the major milestones for this project and as you can see starting with 2010 the general infrastructure plan and we continue to work on this this year to continue to work on this massive project between now and the year 20039. the infrastructure network must be engineers to meet the needs and safety of the, you know, most yours of the public right-of-way you such as pedestrians and people with disabled and bicyclists and traffic unloading and this is for persons with disabled and the utilities and emergency

phases given to obstruct and pga lanes and parking and other factors. this slide here was referred by my staff is shows how a truck with a wheel base of 40 feet can make the turn of 60 or 34 feet into a street that or 26 feet. next i'd like to i'm going to turn it over to ken lombardy from the fire department >> actually before we go to the fire department i have other questions. so you sent a letter i sent is a letter to the p u expressing concerns about the changes of the street clearance from to 20

to 26 feet and you sent me a letter back i have a few statements with questions. what is the anytime street clearance in san francisco? under our codes? the minimum street clearance is 26 feet and we'll access 20 feet based on a case by case basis after we understand all you know the perimeters involved like vertical cleaners and obstructions all those. >> so you're saying my understanding is our fire code is 80 feet is our minimum street clearance. >> it maybe acceptable under certain conditions. >> the fire code says the fire

apparatus street shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet the state fire code says we're adapted you're not saying our fire code provides the 26 code clearance. >> not 20 feet maybe acceptable based on conditions such as no history of obstructions within that 20 feet. >> so you're saying the fire code we have provides 26 feet as the minimum clearance. >> that's my understanding. >> okay. >> but as i said and i'll repeat 20 feet maybe approved subject to the review of all the conditions skoournd the street screen. >> i think that's inaccurate 20

feet is correct in san francisco. so there is also something called an appendix d to the fire code that provides for 26 feet are you familiar >> i'd like to refer this question to the experts if the fire department. >> you signed the letter you sent the letter. >> yes. that letter was in collaboration with the fire department. >> i'll ask the fire department when they come up about that. go ahead >> i would i'm going to turn it over to the fire department ken lombardy to continue this. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors

supervisors would you like clarification on that i have the fire marshall here >> absolutely. >> hello supervisor wiener and supervisors arrest title 19 is the state law that gives the fire department their authority over many of the fire department operations does specifically state the time is that 20, however, we is the center fire department with our approval have approved the san francisco fire code and in that fire code we've adapted portions that gives us the authority to go beyond the 20 feet when net for fire operations. i can get you the exact section i didn't bring it to the podium >> i appreciate that it soolz

you're saying the opposition it is 20 feet but you can go wider. >> the dpw representative that question should have been directed to myself. >> i asked him because he signed the letter. there's the appendix d to the state fire code that talks about 26 feet for the new subdivisions >> i'd like to have to refer back but for aerial operations yes. >> on appendix d this was sited in the letter requiring the 26 feet the appendix d actually states it only applies for the local jurisdiction has adapted it san francisco has never adapted the appendix. >> that's correct the letter or response back, you know, wasn't

directed through the fire department for a specific code compliance so the way i explained it to you, we get our power through title 19 and it states that 20 feet is the anytime and the board of supervisors has adapted the san francisco fire code recently and in that san francisco fire code we're given the authority to use the fire code not adopted which give us the authority to widened the streets for fire grounded operations. >> did the fire department every tell me the developers that 26 feet is the time clearance. >> we have when we're asked, however, we've been asked recently the infrastructure maps

for the candle stick point last round in october or september or 2013? and from my recognition that's itself fritter we've gotten something more form than a general plan with 72 cross sections of feet to where do they go and where are the buildings and building entrances that sort of thing and how tall >> how are the building being constructed. >> we have a handout that the fire department has given to one develop 501 street widths the san francisco fire code requires the time of 26 feet for new developments where the developments are greater than 35 feet so since we've never adapted the feet why is the fire

department telling people it's required. since it's not been electively adapted >> right so again with we go back to the international fire code where we get our authority through section - hold on a second - arrest 503.2.2 the authority the fire code officials shall require the access where it's inaccurate for fire or rescue operations. so the fact we're using appendix d to further clarify and help with our requirements for the authority i think is better because it is a standard and guideline that's widely known in the international fire code >> so it's the fire departments position even though san francisco has never adapted the

appendix the fire department has the power to impose it. >> no we're enclosing the authority to use whatever we need to justify the increased width and in appendix d is states that it can be used as a guideline and so we're going using appendix d as a guideline even though it's not adapted. >> okay. and know i understand the aren't it they've chosen not adapt it but the fire department adapts it saw the fire code we've adapted did international fire code and laws us the authority to have the increased width size if we are looking for

a guideline and using appendix d as a guideline that's sound judgment. >> okay. you can go on i'm sorry supervisor cowen. >> not quite yet san francisco has adapted the international guideline or standard? >> okay. so the local jurisdiction is able to. >> when you say the local jurisdiction you mean san francisco. >> of the board of supervisors yes. because the board of supervisors ultimately approves the fire code. >> right. >> so in the i think one point one point one of the fire code talks about the scope of the fire department fire code is adapts the california fire code has expressly in the san francisco fire code we're

starting with the state and anything expressing deleted from california we follow the san francisco. >> so how does that play into international. >> so the california fire code only adapts some of the parents international fire code didn't adapt chapter 5 that's our department access. >> so but in our san francisco fire code we say we adapt anything that the california hadn't adapted from the international. >> okay. >> so weigh getting the best of both worlds thing that san francisco has adapted and - so the san francisco fire department did you community on

that project sign off on this project. >> well 2011 chief joanne haynes-white did sign the ic a. >> what's that. >> (inaudible) agreement. >> in that verbiage there's no written language to the streets but it says that the san francisco fire department has jurisdiction to review the streets once they're becoming available that's now under this phasing we're loudly to comment on the street width. way back in 234r50 or needing we are were not told the streets size we were given a memo of 22 cross sections and today they

don't know where the building entrance are going to be. so that's why we worked so well together hammering out the new plan to get most of the streets at 26 to provide the rescue operation >> thank you. >> so i guess - we went through this some of the slides the gentleman skipped over in the presentation were the ones that said quote residential streets 80 foot clear for neighborhood streets except for the ones with the bike lanes it's not accurate i know the department is taking the position that even though

the chief signs the agreement containing the 20 feet clear i understand the fire department commends it is what it is but i think the suggestion we keep hearing there was somehow no dissension in the agreement about what the street clearance was so we're just starting fresh now four years after the approval the agreement i guess don't think that's accurate at all. >> i'm not an attorney so i don't know and i'm not aware thoughtful document so that's needed to be looked at at a higher level. >> okay. thank you. so chief lombardy >> i promise i'm not going to

talk about any codes. go back to the plan >> i wanted to address supervisor cowen's concern about what's actually being built there this is part of the problem with the fire departments interpretation and looking at this later we've been collaborating with the builder and dpw and the planning department in trying to come to an agreement and trying to keep the streets narrow to all parties can be happy to protect the building. they don't even know where the buildings phases are going to be just give us 26 feet in the front and dwo it on the side we're not even to a spot he think this is designed in concept is it but the city developers can't decide where the front is going to be so to

say we're going to do 26 in the front and 20 on the side we're going not arguing so how to inaccurately protect the building that's part of the dilemma. this map is kind of hard to read but all the streets that were mentions not one student is at 80 feet we've heard 21 maybe most of the streets were a couple of 3 story type 5 but this whole map that you're looking at this is candle stick and there's not one building under 40 feet everything is a multi unit like in supervisor cowen's area all the neighborhoods were single-family homes there's not one

single-family home the majority of the buildings are 65 feet and taller so you're talking about a big fire pal lodz when something gets burned recycle the mission bay building we saw burned all the buildings are going to be like that and a couple are 85 and 50 foot high-rises so technically you're in a residential air but this is like the new san francisco with high-rise residential areas there's a big pay load that would burn there's not small buildings and it's touch when your look at a colored map this doesn't speak the truth but a 3-d model would be more effective to see the