Edwin M. Lee Joanne Hayes-white Mayor*

R1

1 . That by December 2015 the Chief develop a plan SFFD Chief of The recommendation has been The development of a plan and methodology was formalized in the fall of 2014 with Department and the methodology for bringing response times for both Department implemented (summary of how it was the formation of the City's ambulance work group, headed by the Mayor's Office with What Does the Future Code 2 and Code 3 calls to required levels, and that the implemented in next column) representatives from SFFD, DEM, Controller, Board of Supervisors, Fire Hold? Department achieve compliance with EOA standards by Commission and other relevant stakeholders. This work group and its various sub December 2016. groups were responsible for analyzing the issues facing the City's EMS system and developing recommendations to meet both response and EOA metrics for both the SFFD and private providers. A number of these recommendations have been implemented, including additional staffing for the Department, the purchase of new ambulances, and the staffing of a nurse at a DPH shelter. In addition, a number of recommendations have been funded in the new FY15-16 budget or are currently being implemented, such as restoration of the HOME team, per diem employees and other initiatives. There is on-going analysis done to staffing levels, work load. and call volume to regularly monitor the performance of the system, and all invested providers meet regularly to discuss issues and topics of relevance. 2014-15 San Francisco Fire SFFD Chief of

R2

3 That while Recommendations 2.1 and 2.2 are being SFFD Chief of The recommendation has been A request for funds has been submitted to Capital Planning for the construction Department explored, the Chief and the Fire Commission determine an |Department implemented (summary of how it was of a new training facility. The request continues to be deferred due to the large What Does the Future alternate site for the training center since, if an already City- implemented in next column) cost of the project. Given the economic and construction climate in the City Hold? owned site is not adequate to serve as a training center. currently, it is highly unlikely that the Department would find a suitable space purchase of a new site will be more than difficult in the large enough to accommodate the needs of the Training Facility. Moreover, the current real estate market. chances of passing an EIR with the Live Burn portion of the facility would likewise be slim. Even if that theoretical plot of land could be found and the Department would receive a favorable EIR, the acquisition costs would be astronomical. There were discussions many years ago about allocating a portion of the new Hunters Point development for a new facility, but it does not appear that this was included in the current plans for the shipyard. Figure F1.1: SFFD Ambulance Share 76.00% 75.00% 74.00% 73.00% 72.00% 71.00% 70.00% 69.00% 68.00% 67.00% 2015/02 2015/04 2015/05 2015/06 2015/07 2015/08 2015/01 2015/03 * . . . Figure F1.2.A: Emergency Ambulance Response By Battalion 17 15 13 90th Percentile (Minutes) 11 9 7 5 2015/08 2014/11 2015/01 2015/02 2015/03 2015/04 2015/05 2015/06 2015/07 2014/08 2014/09 2014/10 2014/12 ■ B01 ■ B02 ■ B03 ■ B04 ■ B05 ■ B06 ■ B07 ■ B08 ----B09 ------B10 Table F1.2.A: Ambulance Emergency Response (Minutes) - 90th Percentile By Battalion B07 B08 B09 B10 B04 B05 B06 YEAR B01 B02 B03 16.46 16.16 2014/08 13.07 14.34 11.42 14.85 16.62 16.38 13.90 12.08 14.18 13.54 2014/09 12.53 9.68 11.42 11.24 11.77 11.47 15.08 13.23 12.75 2014/10 9.17 11.85 13.34 10.41 12.23 14.62 14.22 11.99 11.51 13.13 14.52 13.59 13.42 2014/11 13.53 10.33 12.51 10.69 12.44 11.15 13.45 12.38 15.12 15.22 2014/12 12.42 10.68 12.77 12.18 12.68 13.73 13.26 12.08 11.57 13.65 13.77 2015/01 11.06 10.55 11.64 11.30 11.37 13.02 2015/02 11.88 10.65 10.65 10.81 14.95 14.83 12.57 10.20 14.48 12.60 12.68 2015/03 10.52 9.61 10.78 10.72 9.03 10.11 11.81 13.98 12.28 13.64 9.76 11.23 12.54 2015/04 12.30 9.27 10.69 10.48 12.01 12.72 12.04 10.98 9.43 10.85 12.16 9.69 13.35 12.60 12.83 2015/05 10.74 9.64 10.13 12.32 12.56 11.16 12.36 2015/06 12.19 9.55 10.03 10.07 10.53 11.32 2015/07 9.10 9.53 11.73 11.73 12.02 8.55 10.89 11.10 9.50 9.42 9.57 12.37 11.67 2015/08 10.95 8.36 9.06 10.07 Figure 1.2.B: SFFD Emergency Response 16 14 12 90th Percentile (Minutes) 10 8 6 4 2 0 2014/08 2014/09 2014/10 2014/11 2014/12 2015/01 2015/02 2015/03 2015/04 2015/05 2015/06 2015/07 2015/08 BLS → ALS → Transport Table F1.2.B: Percentage of Calls By Battalion B04 B05 B06 B07 B08 B09 B10 YEAR B01 B02 B03 7.04% 2014/08 9.51% 20.83% 20.68% 9.45% 7.07% 6.40% 4.16% 7.04% 7.82% 2014/09 8.23% 7.83% 6.45% 4.63% 7.94% 7.92% 8.32% 8.52% 21.47% 18.68% 7.47% 2014/10 8.90% 22.14% 19.27% 9.36% 7.47% 6.74% 4.63% 7.12% 6.90% 2014/11 19.09% 7.16% 6.37% 4.53% 7.28% 8.68% 9.50% 20.29% 9.00% 8.10% 7.25% 7.88% 7.65% 9.94% 6.06% 4.24% 7.83% 2014/12 9.89% 20.20% 19.06% 7.64% 2015/01 20.11% 18.29% 10.57% 7.54% 6.23% 4.84% 7.42% 7.97% 9.38% 5.29% 8.32% 8.21% 2015/02 8.44% 18.62% 19.79% 9.12% 7.41% 7.00% 7.79% 2015/03 9.42% 6.42% 4.71% 7.74% 7.27% 7.84% 21.33% 19.88% 8.44% 6.96% 2015/04 9.57% 20.43% 19.74% 9.15% 7.24% 6.22% 4.56% 7.46% 6.58% 9.04% 9.63% 20.83% 19.08% 8.93% 7.44% 6.19% 4.65% 7.00% 7.49% 8.77% 2015/05 7.55% 8.70% 2015/06 9.79% 21.05% 8.02% 6.19% 4.85% 7.36% 19.06% 7.42% 2015/07 7.06% 9.25% 10.08% 21.38% 19.30% 8.06% 7.09% 6.48% 4.46% 6.84% 2015/08 10.15% 20.89% 8.14% 5.41% 4.24% 6.89% 7.74% 8.59% 19.19% 8.75% Table F1.3: ALS Emergency Response Month Calls 90th Percentile (Minutes) 2014/08 3,691 7.10 2014/09 7.16 3,663 2014/10 3,888 7.04 2014/11 3,594 7.05 2014/12 7.25 4,003 2015/01 4,206 7.00 2015/02 3,591 6.93 2015/03 4,097 6.62 2015/04 6.88 3,842 2015/05 4,052 6.56 2015/06 3,872 6.35 2015/07 3,795 5.94 2015/08 3,951 5.90 . . . . . .