Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    September 9, 2013 9:00pm-9:31pm PDT

9:00 pm
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
9:01 pm
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
9:02 pm
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
9:03 pm
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.
9:04 pm
>> 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
9:05 pm
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
9:06 pm
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
9:07 pm
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
9:08 pm
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
9:09 pm
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
9:10 pm
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
9:11 pm
>> 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
9:12 pm
>> 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
9:13 pm
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.
9:14 pm
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
9:15 pm
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
9:16 pm
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
9:17 pm
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
9:18 pm
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.
9:19 pm
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
9:20 pm
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
9:21 pm
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 >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> hello, i'm dana and i'm here to speak on the half that supervisor wiener brought brought up. >> closer to the microphone point it at your myth. >> i spent the summer volunteering with commission market that is on - between 21 accounting and 22 accounting and seen the transformation. and safety wise i've seen - well
9:22 pm
before the market starts the block is covered with litter and we're responsible for cleaning up bio hazardous waste and a turn the space into a beautiful community area that's save for members to support local businesses and, you know, engage in community events. and during the market it's blocked - the street is blocked off specifically for pedestrians, children can play i know there's no concern about the cars speeding through the area that often happens once the market is closed. there will be cars waiting to speed through and, yes - so just to support the redesign design
9:23 pm
of bartlett street >> thank you very much. i'm also here to speak on the issue that supervisor wiener spoke about just to show my support for the pedestrian safety initiative and the redesign of bartlett street. we had a couple of other individuals that had to leave and i want to show my support for the sidewalk widening for pedestrian safety >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is ken and i've worked in the technical field primarily in the san francisco. i read the chronicle article this morning and i learned a lot. as a worker in technology i can
9:24 pm
tell you there's a really big concern like office space. the struggles are shared by the everyone from >> thank you. next speaker department to nonprofit small to big it's expensive to do business in the city and that's why i think it's so important for our city to take a hard look at the remittance we're encompassing on large building. certainty i and everyone cares about safety for workers and residents. really i would support something if it's likely to save lives regardless of costs but listening to the firefighters themselves they're not saying this is necessary. so why would we be driving up
9:25 pm
costs because a company is trying to cement a monopoly in our laws. san francisco is undergoing a lot of change and we can agree to do everything in our power to keep people save but also to control the cost of rents. and as small business in >> thank you. next speaker i know that people are moving into the downtown area but in my mind do you trust the people who are the heroes saving lives or the army of lobbyists trying to move forward their issues. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm harry and i'm a proud member of local 393 from san jose
9:26 pm
california. those systems are tested at 75 hundred psi the standards that were set by the san francisco fire department. and just a quick note under the previous fire chief we installed the system at the training tower and produced a videotape. those systems will work in an emergency. we installed a new system at the tower a few weeks ago. we had to test the air and fill the tanks at the right pressure and height of the building. with a few adjustments fill all the new tanks on the markets whether the pressure is higher than what's required at the moment. this is good work and wages and
9:27 pm
this money goes back to san francisco. those have numerous consequences if - this work has been contracted for is already bid and in the process and in the building price. this system will save lives like many things like airbag we install them b and we pray we never have to use them but if we do we'll have them. i don't know elevators but i know constructions and those elevators are more expensive and we'll save bucks but its policy in a city that has more buildings and skyscrapers
9:28 pm
>> thank you very much. next speaker. >> i'm chris brown. i'm a proud member of the pipe union. i've been working installing those systems for approximately a year now. alongside me are carpenters and tissues - others. the rescue air system as individual cut offices where if a part of the system is damaged the rest of the system can continue to supply air to the firefighters if they need it. unlike the elevators there's no automatic shut off system so your system will be usually and ready for operation.
9:29 pm
like that my coworker harry said we opposite moving buildings already under construction those are jobs we've budgeted for and this is how i plan on taking care of myself and my family. it makes no sense given the system works to remove it from believes. the primary purpose is to save firefighters lives. the firefighters as well as the people who make the inside of the building. but all of us pay insurance in addition buildings since 1989 the earthquake in san francisco we've been installing seismic systems that never get use but does that mean they're not going to be there? no.
9:30 pm
who asked those firefighters not to make those decisions if it saves one life >> may i ask a question have any of ice your unions taken a position. >> they have not. >> okay. next speaker. >> hello, i'm john means. spur supports the placement of the fire code it allows an exception to the air reaccomplishment system. pursuant to section 511.2 subject buildings that are equipped with the elevator and with the building code