Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/07/2009, B3 - COMMERCIAL FIRE ZONE FIRE SPRINKLER EXEMPTION J council M mgD° 7/7/09 j acEnba Repom �H CITY OF SAN LU I S O B 1 S P 0 FROM: John Callahan, Fire Chiefmj'ce Prepared By: Rodger Maggio, Fire Marsh SUBJECT: COMMERCIAL FIRE ZONE FIRE SPRINKLER EXEMPTION RECOMMENDATION Deny the request to exempt the installation of fire sprinklers from the buildings located at 1014 and 1020 Palm Street. DISCUSSION Background During public comment at the March 17, 2009 Council Meeting, Mr. Don Ernst addressed the Council with a request that he not be required to install fire sprinklers in his building (1020 Palm Street) as directed by City Ordinance. He also requested exemption for the neighboring building at 1014 Palm Street, as he is representing the owner in this matter. Mr. Ernst requested the Council provide him an opportunity to be heard and that is why this item is before Council. A copy of his written request can be found on Attachment 1. This report contains information to help the Council better understand the City's regulations regarding fire sprinklers and how they apply in Mr. Ernst's situation. Ever since there have been buildings, there have been fires in buildings. In our country's early history, fires often burned entire towns and even major cities such as Boston and New York. In 1871 Chicago was destroyed by fire and we commemorate this disaster annually in October with the observation of National Fire Prevention Week. Fire sprinklers have been around since the mid-19th century. The first automatic opening fire sprinkler was invented in 1874 and the first nationally recognized standard for the installation of automatic fire sprinklers was adopted in 1896 by the National Fire Protection Association. The loss of 146 women in a fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York City in 1911 prompted New York City Officials to adopt one of the nation's first fire sprinkler ordinances. City Fire Sprinkler Ordinance In 1983, the City adopted its first fire sprinkler ordinance which required sprinklers in structures over 4,500 square feet or over 35 feet in height that were not owner-occupied residential structures. The Et Cetera Fire in Downtown March 1989 showed just how vulnerable our older downtown buildings were to destruction by fire. That building, which had stood for over 100 years, was consumed by fire in less than 15 minutes, even though a fire station was less than one r Commercial Fire Zone Fire Sprinkler Exemption Page 2 mile away. In response, the City passed a comprehensive fire sprinkler ordinance in 1990. One of the provisions in this ordinance was a requirement to retro-fit buildings in the downtown core (as defined by this vicinity map) or"Commercial Fire Zone" by January 1, 2000 (See Attachment 6). When a fire sprinkler ordinance was first introduced in 1990, staff studied two possible existing defined areas to comprise the new "Commercial Fire Zone". The first proposal was to adopt the "Historical Fire Zone One" which was established during the 1950s. The second option was to utilize the established Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) area. The Historical Fire Zone One did not include the 1000 block of Palm Street that is in question, but had an additional finger that covered the buildings on both sides of Monterey Street from Santa Rosa to Pepper Street. After months of debate and public input, a slightly modified BID zone, that eliminated areas that were residential, was recommended. This zone included the office buildings in the 1000 block of Palm Street, and it was included in the 1990 ordinance that was adopted as part of the City's Fire Code. In order to initiate a City-sponsored Underground Fire Lateral Program, and after a substantial public outreach campaign, a subsequent ordinance was passed in 1998. This ordinance extended the earlier sprinkler deadline, requiring that the property owners of buildings in the Commercial Fire Zone install fire sprinklers within two years of the installation of the new water laterals to their property. Thus, the 1998 ordinance granted property owners additional time to install the fire sprinklers. Fire Department staff sent letters to Mr. Don Ernst and Mr. George O'Neill, by way of certified mail, on July 9, 2007 requiring the installation of fire sprinklers in their respective buildings within 24 months (see Attachment 2). In the case of 1014 Palm and 1020 Palm Street this effectively meant an extension of the deadline for fire sprinklers from January 1, 2000 to July 13, 2009, a nine year extension. Application of Fire Sprinkler Ordinance to 1014 and 1020 Palm Street Water laterals were installed in Palm Street in April 2003. This would have required that these buildings have fire sprinklers installed by April 2005. However, due to a miscommunication within the City, the Fire Department staff did not send letters to the owners of 1014 and 1020 Palm Street until 2007. Letters were sent to Mr. Don Ernst and Mr. George O'Neill, by certified mail on July 9, 2007 requiring the installation of fire sprinklers in their respective buildings within 24 months. In his updated written communication to the Council on March 17, 2009, Mr. Ernst stated that he is also representing the interest of Mr. O'Neill in this matter. Shortly after receiving the July 9, 2007 letter from the Fire Marshal, Mr. Ernst sent a letter to staff requesting exemption from the fire sprinkler requirement. The Fire Marshal met with Mr. Ernst at his office and explained why the ordinance was in place and why it applied to Mr. Ernst's property. Now, two years later, Mr. Ernst requests that he should not be required to install fire sprinklers in his building, as directed by the City, for the following reasons: 1. No notice was given to the property owners on Palm Street that they would be required to install fire sprinklers when the water line was replaced in 2003. 2. No notice was given that the owner may need fire sprinklers when building permits were processed in the 1990s. Commercial Fire Zone Fire Sprinkler Exemption Page 3 3. The buildings are historical landmarks that are impossible to sprinkler while preserving the integrity of the historical nature of the buildings. 4. Cost of installing fire sprinklers is too high. 5. Safety of the occupants of the building is not at risk. 6. Safety of the community is not at risk because of the location of the properties, 7. The buildings on Palm Street should not be included in the core downtown area. Below are staff's responses to each of the reasons offered by Mr. Ernst to support an exemption: 1. No notice was given to the property owners when the waterline was replaced When the City's first Fire Sprinkler Ordinance was adopted in 1990, the agenda report to Council stated the Fire and Building Departments held 11 public meetings with community and special interest groups. The City does not retain records of notices sent to property owners from this period, as it is so far back in time, and pursuant to the City's records retention policy, certain older records may be disposed of. It should be noted that the map adopted as part of the 1990 ordinance included the block of Palm Street in question today. In 1998, the Fire Sprinkler Ordinance was amended to extend the time for property owners to comply. In 1998 notice was provided to all affected property owners, and a copy of a sample notice is attached (see Attachment 3). Also, the April 21, 1998 agenda report to the City Council specifically stated there was "considerable input from downtown property owners," and there was involvement by the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Association. Ordinance No. 1336, passed to print on April 21, 1998, and its accompanying agenda report are attached (see Attachment 4). Under state law and the City Charter, the notice required in conjunction with adoption of the 1990 and 1998 ordinances was to: place the matter on the agenda, publish in the newspaper notice of the hearing regarding intention to adopt the uniform fire code, and publish in the newspaper a summary of the proposed ordinance prior to its final adoption. All of these requirements were met. There was, and is, no legal requirement to provide notice to individual property owners regarding the adoption of a general public health and safety measure. Mr. Ernst was sent a letter on July 9, 2007 advising him that fire sprinklers would be required in his building within 24 months, i.e. by July 13, 2009 (see Attachment 2). Please note that the return receipt for the notice was signed for by someone at the 1020 Palm Street address, as it was sent via certified mail return receipt. Again, records at the Fire Department indicate that there was extensive public input on the original fire sprinkler retrofit ordinance in 1990, and again in 1998 when the fire sprinkler deadlines were extended to coincide with the City's water main replacement schedule. Z No notice was given that fire sprinklers would be required when building permits were processed City records show that Mr. Ernst remodeled his building prior to 1990, and then again in 1995 when a re-roofing permit was obtained. Under the fire sprinkler ordinance, installation of sprinklers is triggered prior to the deadline only if there is an addition of 1,000 square feet Commercial Fire Zone Fire Sprinkler Exemption Page 4 or more, or there is a change in occupancies (type of use) in the structure. The Fire Department typically does not review plans for simple remodels. Again, the City's data base indicates that only one building permit was obtained for 1020 Palm Street in the 1990s, and that was for a roofing permit in 1995. As the 1995 re-roofing permit did not trigger review by the Fire Department, it would not have advised of the fire sprinkler requirements. There is no legal requirement that those seeking permits be advised of requirements that will apply in the future. Still, the extensive public outreach in 1998 sought to bring the issue of fire sprinkler requirements to again (there was extensive public outreach previously in 1990) the attention of downtown property owners, especially as the deadline for compliance was specifically extended. I . 3. Buildings are historical landmarks. Most of the buildings in the Commercial Fire Zone subject to fire sprinkler retro-fit are historically significant. Of special note is the Teass House located at 1008 Palm Street, immediately adjacent to 1014 Palm Street. This building was designed by the renowned architect Julia Morgan and underwent a fire sprinkler retro-fit in 2008. Thus, fire sprinklers can be installed in historic structures in a way that doesn't detract from the integrity of their historic appearance, as illustrated by other structures in this same neighborhood and block. The buildings at 1014 and 1020 Palm Street are only five feet from a property line, instead of the 20 feet that was required for commercial buildings at the time that they were converted from residential to office use. The buildings on this block are only 10 feet apart. Consequently, a fire in an unsprinklered building has the potential to severely damage the surrounding structures from radiant heat and flame impingement were one to occur. There are a number of choices in fire sprinklers that would not detract from the historical significance or aesthetics of these buildings, such as the sidewall sprinklers used in the Teass House. Other options in use in the City include concealed sprinklers where the only visible sign is a round disk flush with the ceiling (see Attachment 5). The fact that these are historic structures in close proximity to one another makes the need for installation of fire sprinklers more urgent. 4. Cost of fire sprinklers. The cost of fire sprinklers for the owners of these two buildings is similar to the cost that the other building owners in the commercial fire zone and on this particular block have paid. The City has already borne the significant cost of providing the water laterals to these properties. Although prices for fire sprinkler installation vary, depending on the contractor and difficulty of installation, some retro-fits are under $3.00/ square foot. If there is considerable compartmentalization and wall and ceiling repair required due to the piping installation, these costs may be considerably more. In addition, there would be additional costs for a backflow device and some underground piping to the building riser. Without a formal bid it is difficult to estimate the costs of retrofit for these two buildings. S. Safety of the occupants of the building are not at risk. The occupants of these buildings face similar risks as the occupants of all the other business occupancies in the Commercial Fire Zone. However, as noted above, that is not the primary reason for the retrofit ordinance; it was established so that a fire in one building would not 1 Commercial Fire Zone Fire Sprinkler Exemption Page 5 threaten other surrounding buildings, and potentially, entire blocks of the downtown should fire suppression resources become overwhelmed. 6. Safety of the community is not at risk. Again, the community is at a greater risk when buildings, especially those of combustible construction such as these two wood frame buildings, have minimal distance between them. Not only is community safety affected, but our historical buildings, once burned, cannot be replaced. Since fire sprinklers are designed to control fres while they are still small, firefighters are at greatest risk battling blazes in unsprinklered buildings. Loss of business occupancies due to fire has a net negative impact on our local economy. Statistics show that almost 50% of small businesses that suffer a catastrophic fire never reopen for business. 7. Buildings on Palm Street should not have been included in the downtown core. There was extensive debate on the boundaries of the commercial fire zone when the original ordinance was passed in 1990. It seems inappropriate to redraw the boundaries after every other property owner on this block subject to this ordinance has already complied. In addition, re-designating the Commercial Fire Zone would only serve to set a precedent and allow other property owners to also claim that their buildings should not be in the zone. It serves the City well to look forward to completing the goals of this long term plan in order to provide for preservation of historic resources, continuity of economic activity in this area and the safety of its citizens. Conclusion 1. Fire Department records indicate there was substantial public input in the decision on the final boundaries of the Commercial Fire Zone formed as part of the 1990 ordinance. Staff also has records indicating that letters were sent to the affected property owners and public meetings were held on the changes to the ordinance in 1998. There are not copies of actual notices sent to every property owner, but it is clear notices were sent to affected property owners in 1998. Each of these two property owners was sent a letter, via certified mail, in July of 2007 requiring the retro-fit by July 2009. Mr. Ernst received a personal informational visit from the Fire Marshal in September 2007 when he first requested an exemption. 2. Owners of historical buildings in the Commercial Fire Zone have already successfully had fire sprinklers installed in their buildings, as have all other building owners on the 1000 block of Palm Street who are subject to this ordinance. There are many fire sprinkler products available that do not significantly detract from the historic architecture of these buildings. 3. These two buildings pose a threat to the buildings on either side whose owners have already made an investment to protect their buildings from the menace of uncontrolled fire. Due to the close proximity of these buildings to the property lines, combustible construction and unprotected openings, a fire in these non-sprinklered buildings could cause severe damage to the buildings on neighboring properties. Additionally, a fire in these non-sprinklered buildings would increase the risk of injury to responding firefighters, pollute the air from the products of combustion, threaten the watershed from run-off of contaminated fire suppression water, and threaten the nature of our historic downtown. ��r Commercial Fire Zone Fire Sprinkler Exemption \J Page 6 4. Allowing this exemption would also open the door to other property owners in the Commercial Fire Zone to question why their properties were included in the district. CONCURRENCES Community Development concurs with this recommendation. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. ATTACHMENTS 1. March 17, 2009 Request from Mr. Don Ernst 2. July 9, 2007 Letter to Mr. Don Ernst, 1020 Palm Street 3. February 27, 1998 Letter to Property Owners 4. April 21, 1998 Council Agenda Report—Revision to Sprinkler Ordinance 5. Pictures of Sprinkler Types 6. May 15, 1990 Council Agenda Report with 1988 Uniform Fire Code Adoption T:\Council Agenda ReportsTire CAR\CAR sprinklerexemption.doc ATTACHM 'T 1 Request for Exemption This is a request to be relieved of the City imposed obligation to fire sprinkler the houses on Palm Street, particularly at 1020 Palm Street and 1014 Palm Street. The fire sprinkler requirements for the private buildings on Palm Street between Santa Rosa and Osos Streets were imposed by letter in 2007 to be completed by July of 2009. The authorization to require sprinklers in existing buildings was based upon a 1998 City enactment for which there was no notice given to the property owners that were to be involved. This authorization was thereafter enforced.by a 2,004 enactment for which again there was no notice that I ani aware of. The new sprinkler requirement was contingent upon the placement of a new water main on Palm Street in 2006. Before this date, there was no city requirement that buildings on Palm Street have sprinklers. This request is based upon six factors: 1. Notice was never given to the property owners in question on Palm Street that their property would be required to have sprinklers when the main water line was replaced on Palm street in 2006. 2. Notice was never given to the owner at 1020 Palm Street during the processing of two prior building permits in the `90s that sprinklers might ever be required. The owner has twice remodeled the building with no indication that sprinklers might ever be required. 3. The buildings are historical landmarks that are impossible to sprinkler while preserving the integrity of the historical nature of the buildings, not to mention the horrendous cost of sprinklers to a building that has served as an office since 1979. 4. The safety of the occupants of the buildings are not at risk during the day when the buildings are occupied. The building has been used as a law office since 1979. 5. The safety of the community is not at risk because of the location of the properties. 6. The buildings on Palm Street should not be included in the core downtown area. Attached to this petition are photos of the properties in question, the city documentation demonstrating inadequate notice when the city passed the sprinkler requirement in 1998, and maps of the downtown core area showing the expansive location and definitions of the "downtown core." The downtown core as it relates to fire (and the BIA) should be redefined.. It is respectfully requested the Council grant a hearing to the property owners located at 1020 Palm Street and 1014 Palm Street to consider petitioner's request to be exempt from the city imposed fire sprinkler requirement. Don Ernst, 1020 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805 541 0300 ATTACHMENT - Exhibit A 1 v 3 2 v _A A > N C > T 2 T y N A con > N ffl BEACH t P OMO SS v o � N1Pon T o 1 1 uQ o900 r 0 > S3 0 Z N 3 q BROAD ❑0❑ j r e EJ' 0 ROAD ST. 99 GARDE ST. 0 Ga m Ga Bo CHORRI AnI rcHORRO ST. 0 I? w MORRO I MORRO ST.�i ® m �0� L_—J0® OSOS ST. 13001U. 700 OSOS ST. v p I e ' b q LSANTAROSH - - SANTA ROSA p W 0 0 0 0 TORO ST. r _ o ool'v pH uFZ, 700 P PPER ST. I ImmS P R R i 3NNN > H y • y N � H 5-15-90 ATTACH' 'NT 2 ��I��II�IIIIII�IIIIIII������� �IIIIIIIIIII� a o san luis OBISPO - FIRE DEPARTMENT 2160 Santa Barbara Avenue•San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-5240.8051781-7380 "Courtesy &Service" July 9, 2007 Certified Mail Don Ernst 1020 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Assessor Parcel Number 002-323-014 1020 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA Fire Sprinkler System Installation Requirements Dear Mr. Ernst: Our records indicate that you are the owner of the building located at 1020 Palm Street in San Luis Obispo. The City of San Luis Obispo requires the installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system in all buildings within the downtown core. Our records indicate that this building is within the downtown core and is not constructed of unreinforced masonry. All buildings meeting these two criteria are required to install an automatic fire sprinkler system within 24 months of a water lateral dedicated for fire sprinkler service being installed to the property. Our records indicate that a water lateral dedicated for fire sprinkler service has been installed by the City to your property line. In accordance with Municipal Code Sec. 1003.2.2.1 we are notifying you in writing that an automatic fire sprinkler system is required to be installed in your building. Plans for the sprinkler system must be prepared and submitted to the City Building Division, the necessary permit must be obtained, and the installation must be completed by July 13, 2009. In the event you no longer own this building or have any questions regarding these automatic fire sprinkler system requirements, please contact Molly Brown of the San Luis Obispo City Fire Department at (805) 781-7560. Sincerely, James Tringham Fire Marshal !� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. V Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. ATTACHMENT c'�\ MPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE rHIS SECTION ON DELIVERy a Complete items ems 1.2,an kern 4 if Restricted Dd 3.Also complete A. r9liaWre an is desired. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse X Agent so that we can return the card to you. Ad ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, B. Received by(printed/yarns) dresses or on the front if space permits, of IV I. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different from item 7 0 Yes I If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑No 1 A`LuA,5 D 6 Sip) cjq 3. Service Type n [' �Cenitled Mail 0'Express Mall l 3 T 6 f 0 Registered %Retum Receipt for Merchandise 0 Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted DellverO(Extra Fee) Article Number ❑y� (Transfer from.servlce labeq 7004 1350 0003 9830 9789 Form 3871,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-WI540, r a o , r pp�� 7 U — o tri ' Postage Si `r7 —i0 -07 Cer ifled Fee fed M�iputire� Postmark RestricHere I (Endorsement nt Req Fee I�(Endorsement Required) Toml Postage&Fees $ r o --------�.� Erns or4 Apt No.;!_ _____________ _ or Fb Box No. O t ----------------------- is 930 IL- 10 ATTACHMENT ;. I►�Illllllllllllillllllllllll������� �IIIIII�IIIII 111111 III CIty Of SAn !uIS OBISPO STI", I�,�I�Iry,iltNt��• ,tu�pyq� IyS FIRE DEPARTMENT IIS, L:'.. IAC 2160 Santa Barbara Avenue San Luis Obispo,CA 934015240.80517817380 "Courtesy &Service" February 27, 199S Dear Property Owner: You may recall that we wrote to you in December, 1997 and invited you to attend a series of meetings where we would review our downtown Fire-Sprinkler Ordinance. The meetings were well attended and based on the input we are suggesting the following changes to the existing ordinance. • Lateral Program. The City is proposing initiating a new Underground Lateral Program (water service main to property line). We propose a systematic-phased approach for the installation of all required laterals in the sprinkler-zone, free of charge to the property owners. We would then require each property owner to complete fire-sprinkler installation 24 months after the lateral is installed. As a practical matter an official 24-months' notice will be given to all property owners when.the work is completed. .We expect this entire project to take ten years. • Underground Rebate Program. Welproposc to continue the existing Underground Rebate Program for those property owners who might require laterals before the City completes the installation. In addition, we will be revising the program to make the cost re-imbursement more equitable to property owners. • Extended deadline where laterals already exist. For property owners within the downtown fire- sprinkler zone who already have laterals available to them (this includes many of the properties along Marsh Street where laterals were installed by the City as part of the recent Marsh Street improvement project), we propose extending the deadline by two years, from January 1, 2000 to January 2, 2002. 5e'Ci I T -) n- J • Possibility of assessment district financing. We arc currently exploring the feasibility of forming an assessment district to assist property owners in financing URM improvements. This approach could also be used to help property owners in financing fire-sprinkler improvements. Should enough interest be shown, and a district is formed, financing for fire sprinklers could be included with this district. As previously committed, all URM buildings will have sprinkler requirements that run concurrent with the revised URM Ordinance which requires full compliance by the year 2017. IVItere to front here? We are having another meeting in the City Council Chambers at City Hall on Wednesday, March 18"', at 7:00 p.m7 to discuss our proposed changes. We look forward to seeing you there. - _ .Sin er I Robert F. Neumann I Fire Cliief- 6The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, pro9-aws and activities. 6. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf MORI 7R1-7410 ATTACHMI r 4 council Do. 4/21/98 j acEn0A REpoat ,..N .. CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM`. Robert F. Neumann,Fire Chief (� SUBJECT: Revision to the Sprinkler Ordinance CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Introduce an ordinance to print amending Municipal Code Title 15, Chapter 15.08, Section 15.08.170 to extend .time requirements for the mandatory installation of automatic fire- sprinkler systems in the commercial fire zone. 2. Adopt a resolution modifying the compensation of property owners in the "commercial fire zone" for underground waterline connections that are required for fire-sprinkler retro-fit. REPORT IN BRIEF After taking considerable input from downtown property owners, staff is recommending a number of revisions to the existing ordinance. The proposed changes realign the ordinance to the new URM ordinance passed in May of 1997 and tailor it more closely to downtown's current situation. Proposed changes include: • A systematic approach to the installation, by the City of required laterals in the "commercial fire zone"by linking this program to the downtown infrastructure master plan. • Extending deadlines as follows: 1. Where laterals have been installed the deadline will be extended from January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2002 5e,^J 2. Where laterals have.yet to be installed two years after installation, but no sooner than January 1, 2002. • Improving the existing rebate program, making it more equitable for property owners who need to install laterals before the City can complete it. There are no significant fiscal impacts associated to the revisions. DISCUSSION Introduction Automatic fire-sprinkler systems have over a 100-year history of providing the highest level of fire protection available. They are the most efficient and cost-effective fire-protection A ;ACHMENI �I Council Agenda Report-Revision to the Sprinkler Ordinance Page 2 systems ever designed. When compared with other fire-protection systems such as improved building codes, water systems and fire-alarm systems, only sprinklers actually extinguish the fire where it starts. Each of the other fire-protection methods tries to manage the fire once it starts and history has shown that many times this is not possible. Additional sprinkler benefits include: • Not only do sprinklers reduce risk to life and property, but in commercial and industrial occupancies, they can have an economic benefit. Insurance rates are reduced, construction costs may be reduced, architectural flexibility and design freedom is increased, and tenant space becomes more desirable and may produce higher revenues. • Fire sprinklers conserve water and fire department resources. Fires in sprinklered buildings require one tenth the amount of water: Compared to fires in buildings without sprinklers, fires in sprinklered buildings cause much less property and water damage (nine to 10 times less). • A fire in a commercial occupancy can have a significant financial impact for the City, adjacent properties and the business itself. Historically, of the businesses that have a major fire, less than 20% ever reopen, and of those that do reopen, half fail in less than six months. This can mean a loss of tax revenues and a loss of employment for the employees. If the fire spreads to other businesses,which is likely in the downtown area, the impact is multiplied. Background/History Our first ordinance, passed in 1983, required fire sprinklers in structures larger than 4,500 square feet, excluding single-family -dwellings, This still left many buildings without fire-sprinkler coverage. Two fires in 1989, the Et Cetera Store fire and the Homestead Motel fire, clearly demonstrated the disastrous potential of this lack of coverage. Fire destroyed the Et Cetera building in less than 15 minutes, and three firefighters were nearly caught inside when it exploded into flames. After this fire, Councilmembers suggested the Fire Department develop a more comprehensive fire-sprinkler ordinance resulting in the creation of Ordinance No. 1170. Passed in 1990, this ordinance required that all new structures and all existing buildings in the "commercial fire zone" have an automatic sprinkler-system installed and operational by January 12 2000. The "commercial fire zone" encompasses an area of approximately 26 square blocks in the central downtown core (Attachment 1) and includes 179 structures required to have sprinkler retrofits in place by January 1, 2000. At the time, this was also the proposed deadline when unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings in the downtown core would be required to be strengthened. To assist property owners, Council directed staff at the 1990 meeting to bring back a capital improvement program to offset costs of extending laterals from the water main to the property line. This program provided reimbursements for piping installed in the City right-of-way of approximately $61,000 per year over a nine-year period (a total of$550,000). Council felt that downtown property owners would be sharing with the City the costs of protecting the downtown . 1�1 � 13 ArfA -q Council Agenda Report-Revision to the Sprinkler Ordinance . Page 3 core against fire and loss of life. In the long-term this would minimize the fire protection costs so the Cityagreed to help pay for this program. This program was placed in-service in November of 1991 and was amended in May of 1993. It currently authorizes compensation to property owners of$150 per foot for underground waterline connections from the property line to the point of connection with the City's water system. An annual adjustment for inflation is allowed. This program has been used only eight times since its inception. Relation to Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Ordinance From their very inceptions, these two ordinances were closely linked. In fact on April 21, 1992, City Council amended City Ordinance No. 1170 (1990 Series) to link time requirements for sprinkler retrofit of URM buildings in the commercial fire-zone to the deadline established for URM strengthening. The size and scope of the URM problem in San Luis Obispo is dramatic. After a very collaborative effort from a variety of groups, this ordinance was revised in May of 1997. A new . series of deadlines were established based on the building type, and URM requirements. A final deadline was set as January 1, 2017 although the program is structured to encourage early compliance. During the negotiations to establish the URM ordinance, staff received considerable input from a number of sources that both the fire sprinkler and the underground lateral program needed to be updated. Current Situation Passed in 1983, our first sprinkler ordinance was considered to be quite progressive and since that time we have continued to improve it. At the same time over 200 United States communities to-date have enacted similar sprinkler requirements. Roughly 100 of these are in California. In downtown Fresno, for example, there has been fire damage of only $42,000 during a 10-year period in which its sprinklerirg law has been effect. The following summarizes buildings in our downtown by their fire sprinkler status: F.'- .9� Numbef § Prercenta_`e Buildings with Sprinklers 59 24% Buildings without Sprinklers 176 76% AN M 9MAR Buildings with Laterals Installed 102 43% Buildings that Need Laterals 133 57% ATTACHMENT Council Agenda Report- Revision to the Sprinkler Ordinance Page 4 er-;� errenage. Buildings with Sprinklers 59 58% Buildings without Sprinklers 43 42% IT URM Offes !,VePVM'awgAeV;1 Buildings with Sprinklers 7 9% Buildings without Sprinklers 69 91% 3 WWWW5 Q�m Buildings with Laterals Installed 26 34% Buildings Needing Laterals 50 66% =76=; Also note that of the 176 buildings requiring sprinklers, 76 of these are URM structures. (Please note the total number of URM structures is 84. Several are located on the same lot with only one lateral required). For these 76 structures, the deadline for installing sprinklers is tied to the URM Ordinance. This means these.76 structures are not required to install fire sprinklers until 2017. The time extension provided in this revision only applies to 100 non-URM structures. Of interest is the high number of laterals that the City has already installed. This is primarily due to the Marsh Street project whereby the laterals were installed while the street was under construction so as to prevent future disruption. With the completion of the URM ordinance, and prior to any sprinkler-ordinance changes, staff realized it was important to go back to the downtown property owners and gather information. After notifying each individual property owner, staff held a series of meetings in early December at Headquarters Fire Station to gather input. These meetings were fairly well attended (approximately 45-50 property owners) and staff was impressed at the overall level of support for fire sprinklers. However, property owners expressed that there were some equity issues with the lateral program that should be reviewed. The deadlines were quickly approaching and needed to be made more realistic. After these meetings staff developed a series of recommendations. Again, staff mailed each property owner a letter (Attachment 2) outlining our recommendations and requesting attendance at another meeting held March 18, 1998 for final input. This meeting was attended by only three properly owners, who were supportive of the proposed changes. In addition, staff received one letter recommending all deadlines be extended to the year 2017. We received only two phone calls requesting clarification on details. ATTACHMENT Council Agenda Report- Revision to the Sprinkler Ordinance Page 5 Recommended Changes In order to realign the ordinance to both the URM and tailor it more closely to our current situation, staff is recommend the following changes: • Lateral Program - Staff proposes a systematic approach for the installation of all required laterals in the sprinkler-zone, free of charge to the property owners. After the year 2000, staff would then require each property owner to complete fire-sprinkler installation within 24 months following the completion of the City lateral. As a practical matter, an official 24- month notice will be given to each property owner when the work is completed. It is estimated the lateral program will be ongoing and could take up to ten years to complete. The program is directly linked to the downtown infrastructure master.plan which should be coming to the Council in the summer of 1998. • Extended Deadline Where Laterals Exist - For property owners within the downtown sprinkler zone who already have laterals available to them (this includes many of the properties along Marsh Street where laterals were installed by the City as part of the recent Marsh Street improvement project), we propose extending the deadline by two years, from January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2002. The City may make lateral installations between now and the year 2000. The 2002 deadline would also apply to any of these properties. • Underground Rebate Program - Staff proposes to continue the existing Underground Rebate Program with minor modifications for those property owners who might require a water lateral before the City completes lateral installation. The modifications make the cost reimbursement program more equitable to property owners. A more thorough description follows. During the community meetings held in December, concerns were raised that the current reimbursement method used by the City was not equitable to all property owners. The original intent was to provide for a reasonable reimbursement of the costs associated with the installation of the waterline lateral from the City's main in the street to the owners property line. The current method reimburses up to $150 per foot of the actual costs incurred by the property owner. While this methodology is simple to explain and administer, there have been cases where this has not provided equitable reimbursement for property owners. The specific issue arises when the water line is located on the same side of the street and relatively close to the building. In this case, the property owner may only need to install 15 feet of pipeline to connect to the main and therefore would be reimbursed $2,250 (15 x $150). The actual expenses incurred by the owner may be significantly more than this. The main item that impacts the costs, in this situation, is the connection to the City's water main. The connection to the City's waterline requires a "hot tap" which doesn't require shutting down the waterline but is costly to install. Depending on the size of the watermain, this can add $2,000 to $5,000 to the cost of the construction work. ATTACHMENT 4 Council Agenda Report-Revision to the Sprinkler Ordinance Page 6 Staff would recommend that a separate Water Main Size Cost Reimbursement reimbursement item be established for the 4"& 6" $2,000 connection to the City waterline to more g" $2,500 equitably reimburse property owners. The 10" $3,500 City would reimburse the property owner 12" $5,000 for actual costs, np to the amount shown in the table to the right, based on the size of the City waterline. In addition, for the existing eight properties that have already installed laterals, staff would recommend this reimbursement apply. Since the adoption of the original reimbursement method,the costs for installing waterlines in the downtown have increased due to inflation and other factors. With the addition of the lump sum amount relative to the "hot tap" connection, the $150 per-foot figure should provide a reasonable reimbursement for the property owners costs for the remainder of the construction work within City right-of-way. It should be noted staff does not expect property owners to request reimbursement as most will opt for the City to provide the lateral. • Possibility of Assessment District - We are currently exploring the feasibility of forming an assessment district to assist property owners in financing both URM and sprinkler improvements. Should enough interest be shown, and a district is formed, we would recommend allowing the extension of deadlines concurrent with the district's requirements. CONCURRENCES The Utilities Department has worked with Fire Department staff in developing these changes. All affected property owners have been notified about the proposed changes. The Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Business Association have been thoroughly briefed on staff's recommendations and invited to all public meetings. In early April all property owners were again notified of this particular Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT There are no significant fiscal impacts associated with these revisions. The only potential direct costs to the City are lateral installations;compared to the current program, the proposed changes Are likely to be less expensive than the current one. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 - Map Attachment 2 - Letter to Property Owners Attachment 3 - Resolution Attachment 4 - Ordinance Atttehmeitt 5 - Legi.6tati-ve Dnabt -0 —I� ATTACHMENT 'n LU r r; t- to rn Z I r - �~ IN I � J L Z v - GC tl H d S �..� '1S H9dd�=J N _ 0 4;,NOsti / o min 0 '^ I , n I Cl *is 0801 0' P9 o Cy oo c 0 1 _ _ r0 — -- �60 vSOa VVIY; P VSOU Vl�IVS FF- S3II �'-- 23 'ls SOSO o0[ �O6b u orr ootl >s Soso ei 1S MOW oHe0.1 C� '1S ODUGHD OOL_ I .006_--- CD W—Ri ---I '15 OvOtl - -�ul I - �� u� J— 0vodI N O i I J O ` ----;a 0 CD . dQ�S wo d III d N ,n W = LL I< c _ < a ATTACHMENT �III�II����II IIII���������� �DII IIIIIIII� • ILII IIIII city of san tins OBISPO FIRE DEPARTMENT IIC�WIWII 2160 Santa Barbara Avenue•San Luis Obispo,CA 93401.5240•605/781"7380 "Colntesy &Service" February 27, 1998 Dear Property Owner: You may recall that we wrote to you in December, 1997 and invited you to attend a series of meetings where we would review our downtown Fire-Sprinkler Ordinance. The meetings were well attended and based on the input we are suggesting the following changes to the existing ordinance. • Lateral Program. The City is proposing initiating anew Underground Lateral Program (water. service main to property line). We propose a systematic-phased approach for the installation of all required laterals in the sprinkler-zone, free of charge to the property owners. We would then require each property owner to complete fire-sprinkler installation 24 months after the lateral is installed. As a practical matter an official 24-months' notice will be given to all property owners when_-the work is completed. We expect this entire project to take ten years. • Underground Rebate Program. We propose to continue the existing Underground Rebate Program for those property owners who might require laterals before the City completes the installation. In addition, we will be revising the program to make the cost re-imbursement more equitable to property owners. • Extended deadline where laterals already exist. For property owners within the downtown fire- sprinkler -none who already have laterals available to them (this includes many of the properties along Marsh Street where laterals were installed by the City as part of the recent Marsh Street improvement project), we propose cxtencling the deadline by two years, front January 1, 2000 to .lanuary 2, 2002. Se S�tee . . J • Possibility of assessment district financing. We are currently exploring the feasibility of forming an assessment district to assist property owners in financing URM improvements. This approach could also be used to help property owners in financing fire-sprinkler improvements. Should enough interest be shown, and a district is forted, financing for fire sprinklers Could be included with this district. As previously committed, all URM buildings will have sprinkler requirements that run concurrent with the revised URM Ordinance which requires full compliance by the year 2017. 111tere to fi•oue here? We are having another meeting in the City Council Chambers at City Hall on Wednesday, March 18'1', at 7:00 p.m. to discuss our.proposed chancres. We look forward to seeingyou there. _ .Sin er 1 Robert F. Neumann Fire Chief The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. ff_311�ff'4 il. Tel.,. ..niratinnc naviro fnr Iha nP.Af tA051 781-7410. IQW ATTACHMENT �F ORDINANCE NO. 1336 (1998 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,AMENDING TITLE 15, CHAPTER 15.08,SECTIONS 15.08.170 AND 15.08.190 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE EXTENDING TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMS WHEREAS, staff took considerable input from downtown property owners when revising the URM ordinance;and WHEREAS,it was established that both the fire sprinkler and the underground Iateral program needed to be updated; and BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Subsection 15.08.170(4)is hereby amended as follows: "15.08.170 Section 1003.2.2 amended-Automatic fire-extinguishing systems" "4. a. Existing buildings that are in the commercial fire-zone as established in Section 1115.1 of the Uniform Fire Code as amended by the City of San Luis Obispo shall have an approved automatic fire-sprinkler system installed and operational throughout by January 1,2002 if they are served by a water lateral dedicated for sprinkler service. "b. As an aItemative to Paragraph 4(a)after placement of an underground fire sprinkler laterals by the City,the property owner will,after receiving official notice,have 24 months to complete an approved automatic fire-sprinkler system. For lateral installations provided between April.21, 1998 and January 1,2000 the deadline of January 1,2002 shall also apply. "EXCEPTION: Buildings of unreinforced masonry construction shall have an automatic sprinkler system installed and operational by the deadline set forth in the Building Code for compliance with seismic retrofit standards." SECTION 2. Section 15.08.190 is hereby amended as follows: "15.08.190 Section 1003.2.3 amended-Automatic fire-extinguishing systems- 0 1336 ATTACHMENT'-4 Ordinance No. 1336 (1998 Series) Page 2 `Notification. Whenever the fire department determines by inspection, that a building does not conform to the minimum requirements of 1003.2.2 of this section,it shall prepare a fireA fe-safety notice in writing that an automatic fire-sprinkler system be installed in the building. "f he notice shall specify in what manner the building fails to meet the minimum requirements of 1003.2.2 of this section.It shall direct that plans be submitted, and that necessary permits be obtained by the specified date. The fire department shall serve the notice, either personally or by certified or registered mail,upon the owner as shown on the last-equalized assessment roll and upon the person,if any,in real or apparent charge or control of the building. "EXCEPTION: Buildings of unreinforced masonry construction shall submit plans and obtain necessary permits no later than one year prior to the date set forth by the Building Code for compliance with seismic retrofit standards.Automatic fire-sprinkler systems shall be installed no later than the date set forth in the Building Code for compliance with the seismic retro-fit standards." SECTION 3. A synopsis of this ordinance,approved by the City Attorney,together with the names of the Council members voting for and against,shall be published at least five days prior to its final passage,in the Telegram-Tribane,a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty(30)days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at a meeting held on the 21 day of April 1998,on motion of Mayor Settle seconded by Council Member Romero and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Mayor settle, Council Member Romero, Smith, Roalman, Williams NOES: None ABSENT:None -a b� ATTACHMENTI Ordinance No. 1336 (1998 Series) Page 3 MAYOR ALLEN K. SETTLE ATTEST: ✓ry ity Clerk Bop&e Ga APPROVED: o y Je ey Vorgebsen ' ATTACHMENT Ordinance No. 1336(1998 Series) FINALLY PASSED this 5th day of May, 1998, on motion of Council Member Smith, seconded by Council Member Romero, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Smith, Romero, Williams, Roalman, and Mayor Settle NOES: None ABSENT: None Mayor Allen . Setde ATTEST: Clerk Bo a LAWtl 3 -a3 ATTACHMENT 01 � I Z W i U Q F- _ � H C � � 3 � -v E vv� �O�qq \Y c O O 1 t • \ A. / � ATTACHMENT 6 MEETING DATE: City or' Sart Luis OBISpO - — - May 15, 1990 i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEM NUMEIEFt: FROM Michael Dolder, Fire Chief ,`Prepared by: Erwin Willis, Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Adoption of the 1988 Uniform Fire Code including amendments, one of which is a comprehensive fire sprinkler amendment requiring installation of fire sprinklers in new construction, major remodels, and retroactive installation in downtown "core" buildings. CAO RECOMMENDATION: #1 Introduce an ordinance to print, amending the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 15 Section 15.08. 010, adopting the 1988 Uniform Fire Code and repealing and replacing Sections 15. 08 . 040 through 15. 08 . 350 . #2 By motion direct staff to bring back a Capital Improvement Program request for a yearly allocation of $61, 000 over a nine year period for water line connections in the downtown core for buildings requiring a retro-fit fire-sprinkler system, by the code 'adoption. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: In 1976 the City of San Luis Obispo adopted the first Uniform Fire Code (UFC) . This code is updated and republished every three years. With the exception of 1985 the City has adopted each of these updates. The fire code is part of the Uniform Code Series and is designed to work in conjunction with the Uniform Building Code. To keep these two codes consistent the Building and Fire Departments have worked closely together in developing the amendments to these codes. A complete evaluation on the changes in the 1988 UFC and proposed amendments is contained in Attachments 11 and #2.. The proposed adoption of the 1988 UFC includes 19 amendments which is less than the 30 amendments in the 1982 UFC, the most important of which is a comprehensive fire-sprinkler amendment. The proposed fire-sprinkler amendment will require automatic fire-sprinkler systems in: • All new construction except small detached garages for single- family dwellings • Major remodels • Change in use or occupancy to a more hazardous use or occupancy • Retro-fit installation in downtown "core" buildings, by January 1, 2000 clty of san lues oBlspo l4's ACHMENT COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT UPC Adoption/Pig--e2 Currently, the City has a fire-sprinkler amendment that requires fire sprinklers in new structures that are larger than 4 , 500 square feet excluding owner-occupied single-family dwellings. This amendment, while more comprehensive than the Uniform Fire and Building Codes, still leaves many buildings without fire sprinkler coverage. Both the March 9, 1989 Et Cetera Store and the recent Homestead Motel fires have shown how disastrous this lack of coveraae Can be- Fire destroyed the Et Cetera builld` n^ + haa uilu Illy In less 1..11Q 11 15 minutes and three Firefighters were nearly caught inside the building when it exploded in flaryes. After the fire, the Fire Department started researching the types of fire-sprinkler ordinances used in other cities that would help prevent this type of loss in the future. Since the City will benefit by the installation of sprinkler systems, the Chamber of Commerce and the BIA suggest, and staff supports, that the City consider defraying some of the costs of the retro-fit installation of fire-sprinkler systems in the downtown "core" buildings. The cost of this assistance is estimated to be $550, 000. Because this retro-fit will take place over a nine and one half year period the cost to the City will be approximately $61, 000 per year. Additional changes to the 1988 UFC include the following: an amendment recommended by the Citizens Advisory Committee to completely prohibit wood roofs in the City; a new article on fire alarm systems; and, increased requirements for businesses that store or use hazardous materials. During the development of this code-adoption package; the Fire and Building Departments held 11 public meetings with community and special interest groups we felt would be affected by the adoption of this code. Most of the comments and concerns expressed by these groups have been incorporated into staff's recommendation. DISCUSSION: The Uniform Fire Code (UFC) was developed by the California Fire Chiefs Association and is published by the International Conference of Building Officials and the Western Fire Chiefs Association. The -first edition of the UFC was published in 1971 and revised editions are published every three years. Suggested changes are reviewed by experts in the field of fire and life-safety and are approved at annual meetings of the Western Fire Chiefs Association. The first edition of the Uniform Fire Code adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo was the 1976 edition. Subsequently, the City has adopted the 1979 and 1982 editions. The entire code including the appendices is adopted under an ordinance amending section 15.08.010 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. The local enhancements to the code are adopted by amending Section 15.08.040 of the Municipal Code. ATTACHMENT city Of San lues OBISPO COUNCIL. AGENDA REPORT UFC Adoption/Page 3 The UFC has 46 articles and 19 appendices. Thirteen of the appendices are proposed for adoption. The appendices provide detailed safety requirements for existing buildings, environmental hazards, fire protection and also provide information supplemental to articles in the body of the code. They are located in the appendix to allow cities to adopt the body of the code and selected appendices depending on the needs of the community. The UFC provides the following kinds of detailed fire-protection requirements for new construction: water supplies for firefighting; access for Fire DFepartment apparatus; fire extinguishing systems; and also, specific standards regarding hazardous processes and uses, such as: flammable liquids; compressed gases; hazardous materials; etc. In addition, the Fire Code is intended to be a maintenance code to ensure that buildings remain safe once built and occupied. The UFC is intended to be one part of a package. of model codes including the Uniform Building Code (UBC) , Uniform Mechanical Code (UMC) , and Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) . In an effort to keep the Fire and Building Codes compatible the Fire and Building Departments have worked closely together to coordinate all changes and amendments in both codes. For the first time both codes contain the same amendments. Approximately 115 changes have occurred from the 1982 to the 1988 edition. The changes vary from revised wording of sections to entire new articles and complete revisions of existing articles. The changes which will have a significant impact on owners, developers and occupants of buildings or properties are identified in Attachment ,#1. The two most important changes are in Article 14 which is a new article and Article 80. Article 14 requires fire alarm systems in many existing buildings such as hotels and motels. Article 80 is the hazardous materials article and has been greatly expanded due to public concern over hazardous materials. This article will require many new safety features to be installed in businesses that store or use hazardous materials. As an example, the City's sewer and water treatment plants, and swimming pool will be required to upgrade their storage of chlorine. In addition to adopting the UFC and its appendices, most jurisdictions make amendments to the code. In the 1982 UFC the City adopted 30 amendments. In the code being presented, staff has reduced the revisions to 19 amendments, most of which are carry overs from the past code. Most of the deleted amendments have been incorporated into the body of the code and are no longer necessary. All of the amendments and their justifications are listed in Attachment #2. There are two important new amendments. The first is a change in the wood-roof amendment. The Citizens Advisory Committee recommended that the exception which allowed existing wood roofs to be reroofed with shakes or shingles should be deleted. The Architects and Contractors Associations disagreed with this. Staff 3S-a-7 ATTACHMENT6 11111111%JlWfl city of San Luis OBispo WiS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT UFC Adoption/Page 4 has developed a compromise that should meet both groups concerns. The second and most important amendment is a fire sprinkler amendment that will require fire sprinklers to be installed in the following buildings: • All new construction except small detached garages for single- family dwellings Ma,-r remodels e Change in use or occupancy to a more hazardous use or occupancy o Retro-fit installation in dpwntown "core" buildings, by January 1, 2000 Since this sprinkler amendment is the most important and will probably have the most public input, the remainder of this Discussion Section will cover this topic in more detail. This discussion is presented in a question/answer format. Does San Luis Obispo have a serious enough fire problem to warrant consideration of a fire-sprinkler ordinance? The United States experiences the highest number of fires, fire deaths, and property loss per capita of any industrialized nation in the world. California, while below the national average for fire losses, still has an appalling number of fires and fire deaths. The number of fires that occur in San Luis Obispo City are proportionate with the majority of the State. In the past year, May 1, 1988, to May 1, 1989, the Fire Department responded to 338 reported fires, 113 of which involved structures. The largest of these fires were the Et Cetera store fire in March 1989 , and the Homestead Motel in July 1989. How did this fire problem develop in the United States? In the early 1900 's the insurance industry started promoting improved building codes and water systems, automatic fire-detection and fire-sprinkler systems, and larger fire departments to protect their investments against fire loss. These improvements were successful in all but eliminating the disastrous conflagrations that had plagued the nation's cities, but fire losses continued to climb. Other than fire sprinklers, which extinguish the fire where it starts, each of these systems has a limit as to how effective it can be at slowing or preventing fires. As an example, improvements in building codes have helped reduce how fast a fire moves from one building or part of the building to the next. Newer buildings, however, have not prevented people from starting fires, and building codes do not regulate the contents of the buildings; which provide the main source of fuel for the fire. Also, building occupants modify, disable or remove many of the fire protection features built into the buildings. For instance; a recent study found that 41.12$ of fire doors had problems that would `�3-ag ATTACHMENT6 ���1 �VIfII�IpP���ll city of san WIS osispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT UPC Adoption/page 5 keep them from functioning properly in a fire. These doors are the main barriers to fire spreading to other parts of the building. Additionally, actual fire situations have shown that occupants frequently ignore fire alarms, and the very young, elderly, and those physically limited are frequently unable to exit the building. Can't we increase our fire prevention efforts and thereby solve the l fire problem-'> Fire prevention programs have proven effective in reducing the number of fires that start, thereby reducing the overall fire loss and fire deaths. Realizing this, the City Fire Department has been inspecting each business in the City once per year for the last eight years. As a result of these inspections we have seen a reduction in the number and severity of fires in the City. These programs, however, have a finite limit on their effectiveness. As an example, inspection programs do not reach into residential structures where 80% of the fire deaths now occur, and they do not have an effect on arson fires or fires caused by equipment malfunction or accidents. How do most cities handle their fire problem? Increasingly, cities are changing their fire-protection path. Today 80% of the cities in California have passed fire-sprinkler ordinances that are more comprehensive than the Uniform Fire and Building Codes. In the past most jurisdictions tried to control the fire problem by increasing the size of the local fire department and the city's water system. These increases reduce the risk of conflagrations and reduce overall fire losses, but have little effect on life loss or the number of fires. This is because a typical structure fire develops at a rate which produces unsurvivable atmospheres and destruction of property in the room of fire origin within 3-4 minutes usually before the fire is discovered. The most critical stage of a structure fire is known as "flashover" which can occur within 5-6 minutes after the fire starts. Flashover is the point where the unburned gases given off by the fire reach their ignition temperature and ignite with explosive force. After a flashover the entire floor or building is usually lost. The Et Cetera store fire is a recent example of quickness that fire reaches flashover and its destructive effect.. Additionally, cities are also finding that water systems and fire- suppression forces consume a large number of tax dollars relative to their effect on the fire problem. Will fire sprinklers be any better than. other fire protection measures at stopping fire losses? In comparison to stricter building codes, fire prevention programs, and larger fire departments and water systems, sprinklers are almost 100% (99.6%) effective in stopping fires where they start. When ATTACHMENT jv iluuqqgwlj� city of San Luis osIspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT UFC Adoption/Page 6 they do not work, it is either because they were turned off, they were frozen, or there was an explosion which destroyed the sprinkler system. Sprinkler system malfunctions are extremely unlikely in San Luis Obispo as we require alarms on the sprinkler system turn off valve, and we do not have the extreme freezing temperatures to freeze a sprinkler system. Unlike building codes, which try to limit the size of the fire, or alarm systems that notify the n cn i i occunants that a fire s occurrnrinklers extinguish the fire rv. -r--'-"- in its infancy. To date there has never been .a:multi-life-loss fire in a fully-sprinklered building,; and property losses in these buildings are minuscule compared with similar unsprinklered buildings. What are the economic impacts of fire sprinklers? Not only do sprinklers reduce risk to life and property, but in commercial and industrial occupancies, they can have a significant economic benefit. Insurance rates are reduced, construction costs may be reduced, architectural flexibility is increased, and tenant space becomes more desirable and may produce higher revenues. A fire in a commercial occupancy can have a significant financial impact for the City, adjacent properties and the business itself . Historically, of the businesses that have a major fire, less than 20% ever reopen, and of those that do reopen, half fail in less than. six months. This can mean a loss of tax revenues and a loss of employment for the employees. If the fire spreads to other businesses, which is likely in the downtown area, this impact is multiplied. Are fire sprinklers needed in all buildings including residences? Yes, to really reduce fire and life losses fire-sprinklers should be installed in all buildings especially residences. Fire-sprinkler systems have already greatly reduced the fire losses in large. commercial and industrial occupancies. However, significant property and life losses continue to occur in other occupancies. These losses are now concentrated mostly in residential occupancies. Smoke detectors have helped reduce the life loss in residential occupancies. Today, seventy-five percent. of the dwellings in the United States have smoke detectors installed. Due to these smoke detectors the death rate in homes has dropped 50% in the past 15 years. Unfortunately, a recent study found that 50% of the smoke detectors over 5 years old are no longer working. The number of properly-functioning smoke detectors may actually be dropping and as would be expected, the drop in the numbers of residential deaths has flattened and is now starting to rise. For the first time in 9 years, 1988, showed a dramatic 9.2% increase in residential fire deaths. Sprinkler systems do not have the maintenance failure problems that fire-alarm systems are plagued with. 3 - 36 ATTACHMENT � i �illlllll�l� ��lll city or San Luis OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT UFC Adoption/Page 7 what affect will a fire-sprinkler ordinance have on the City' s water shortage? Fire sprinklers have the virtue of providing considerable water savings compared with conventional manual fire-suppression: Sprinkler heads flow approximately 20 gallons of water per minute (GPM) , while Fire Department hose lines use 200 GPM to 1, 000 GPM. nT ly STC spri.^.kler !:mad is needed tv `v�i�r...± ,U ... , - F /GG G4\ �..ing,ui. ., auvuv ircS Three or fewer sprinkler heads extinguish over 90% of all fires. An electronic sprinkler-alarm system immediately notifies the Fire Department when a sprinkler head activates (residential occupancies use an outside bell to keep costs low) . Calculating the worst case scenario for water usage from a sprinkler system we would use three sprinkler heads activating, which would be 60 GPM of water flowing. With a maximum response time for the Fire Department of five minutes and another 3 minutes to shut the sprinkler system down, 480 gallons of water would be used. Contrast this to the Et Cetera store fire where over 500, 000 gallons of water were used to extinguish the fire. Can specific examples be given showing the difference between sprinklered and non-sprinklered buildings. Yes, comparing our last two large fires illustrates how fire sprinklers can save water and economic assets. The Et Cetera fire required over 500, 000 gallons of water for firefighting. The building was destroyed and to date has not been rebuilt. In addition two adjoining businesses were also damaged and closed for an extended period. Conversely, a fire in August 1989, at Studio Video in the Laguna Village Shopping Center had comparatively little impact. The late night fire occurred when the store was closed, and all of its walls were lined with plastic video boxes. This combination would normally spell disaster for all three businesses in the building. But a single sprinkler head came on notifying the Fire Department, and the system was shut down in less than 10 minutes. Less than 6 square feet of the main counter sustained damage and less than 200 gallons of water were used. The store opened for business the next day and the adjoining business were unaffected. The second seriously destructive fire occurred on July 24, 1989, in the laundry room of the Homestead Motel on Olive Street. It quickly spread to a seven-unit motel building of the Homestead and the Travelodge South next door. The Homestead building required thousands of gallons of water to extinguish the fire and the building was destroyed. In contrast, the fire in the adjacent Travelodge was extinguished by one sprinkler head with less than 200 gallons of water and all the rooms, except three, were rented that night. Of the three rooms, only one sustained any fire damage. The other two were rentable the next night after the cleaning and drying of their carpets. ATTACHMENT � Q41111p$MljjU city Of SAn LUIS OBISPO ONGs COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT UFC Adoption/Page 8 Is now the time to be considering a fire-sprinkler amendment that requires retro-fitting in the downtown? Yes, now is the best opportunity that this City will ever have to install fire sprinklers in the downtown area. Under State law the City must mitigate the earthquake hazard of the unreinforced masonry buildings by January 1, 2000. This will require upgrading 98 of the buildings in the downtown. n rcncntly completed stL`dr' ^.f the downtown water system by John Wallace and Associates (Attachment #4) shows that average fire flow available in the downtown is 1100 gallons per minute (GPM) and one area only has a capacity 160 GPM. The recommended fire flow for any commercial area is 5000 GPM. This is a serious deficiency which puts much of the downtown in peril of being lost in a fire. To correct this deficiency many of the downtown water lines will need to be replaced. Both of these programs must be completed with or without the fire sprinkler amendment. In fact, without the fire sprinklers it is even more critical to replace the downtown water mains. Incorporating fire sprinklers into the other two programs gives the City a unique opportunity to protect the downtown from future fire loss with minimal additional cost and disruption. Truly, it would not make sense to go through all of the disruption that will occur with the other two programs and not install the fire sprinklers. Additionally, the City is in the process of developing a Downtown Master Plan. All of these programs can and should be coordinated into a cohesive plan for securing a viable and safe downtown for generations to come. The last question that should be asked about timing would be; "if we don't do it now then when will we do it?" At what point have enough buildings burned or people died to make it the right time? Do we wait until we lose the Mission, or the Andrews Building, or the Fremont Theater meets the same fate as the Obispo Theater? Would it not be better to be proactive and install the sprinklers now before any other buildings burn? If so, what better time than when many of the streets and buildings are being disrupted for the other upgrades? BACKGROUND: New Construction and Remodels In 1983, the City passed a sprinkler ordinance that required sprinklers in structures over 4,500 square feet or over 35 feet in height that are not owner-occupied residential structures. This ordinance, while more stringent than the Uniform Fire and Building Codes, still allows catastrophic fires. First, it does not cover owner-occupied single-family residences. Of the 43,795 structure ATTACHMENT � 4*111111@11111I city Of san tuts OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT UFC Adoption/Page 9 fires in California and 6,000 fire deaths in the United States each year 75% are in residential structures. Next, the existing city Ordinance does not cover buildings smaller than 4, 500 square feet; but the Et Cetera Store and Homestead Motel fires show that buildings smaller than 4, 500 square feet are as susceptible to destruction by fire as are larger buildings. Com unities ::hick have implewented comprehensive fire-sprinklCr programs have all demonstrated significant reductions in fire loss such as: Fresno, CA; San Clemente, CA; Scottsdale, AZ, and Disney World, FL. Additionally, fire sprinklers help communities control the cost of delivering fire-protection services. This is especially true in new construction or during major remodels. As noted previously, over 80% of California cities have adopted some type of sprinkler ordinance which covers more buildings than the Uniform Fire or Building Codes. The number of cities that adopt comprehensive fire-sprinkler ordinances which cover all buildings is growing monthly. The most recent cities to implement this type of ordinance were Napa, Anaheim, Dana Point, Stanton, Seal Beach, Placentia, Beverly Hills, Glendale, and Claremont. Although adopting a sprinkler ordinance will not reduce the current size of the Fire Department, it will reduce the future need for additional fire suppression forces. Additional money may be saved by reducing the water main sizes and number of fire hydrants in areas where all buildings have fire sprinklers. Retroactive installation of fire sprinklers in downtown "core" buildings The Et Cetera Fire in March 1989 showed how vulnerable the older downtown buildings are to destruction by fire. That building, which had stood for almost 100 years, was destroyed by fire in less than 15 minutes. This occurred even though the building was occupied at the time the fire started and the closest fire station was only three blocks away. All of the older buildings in this City are subject to this same fate. If we look at the pictures that adorn the walls of City Hall, we can see numerous buildings in the City that have succumbed to fire. As an example, many of us remember the Obispo Theater building which contained six businesses that burned not too many years ago. Retroactive installation of sprinklers in downtown buildings provides a means to stop this tragic loss. This is not 'a new concept. Many cities such as Fresno, Salt Lake and Park City, Utah have retroactively installed sprinklers in downtown or in historic buildings to prevent their loss by fire. A recent study of California cities found that 40.7% had some type of retro-fit fire- sprinkler ordinance. Without the addition of fire sprinklers, our downtown buildings will continue to be lost one by one until someday none of the older buildings will be left. � -3� ATTACHMENT � city of San LUIS OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT OFC Adoption/Page 10 One of the key questions in deciding on a retro-fit amendment is which buildings will be required to install the sprinkler systems. The purpose of the retro-fit is two-fold; 1) to preserve the historic downtown buildings and; 2) to prevent the loss of multiple buildings in downtown where buildings are not built to current fire- resistive standards and are constructed with zero lot line separations. Staff has studied two possible existing defined areas. The first is the historical "Fire Zone One" which was established during the 1950 's, and was intended to define the highest fire hazard in the City. The second is the established BIA area. Staff initially suggested using the historical Fire Zone One. However, after meeting with the effected groups and careful study, staff is now recommending an area that is essentially the same as the BIA area. The recommended area is slightly modified from the BIA area to eliminate areas that are residential, and to follow City streets as boundaries. The suggested map is attached as Exhibit A, and the old Fire Zone One map is included for reference as Exhibit B. City Participation Since the City will benefit by the installation of sprinkler systems, the Chamber of Commerce and the BIA have recommended and Staff concurs, that the City should help defray some of the costs of retro-fitting fire-sprinkler systems in the downtown buildings. There are several ways this could be accomplished. First, the ordinance gives until January 1, 2000 for the fire sprinklers to be installed. This is recommended as a way to spread out the economic impact and make it possible to install the sprinklers during a planned remodel or in conjunction with seismic safety upgrades that are mandated by the State to be completed by the same date. Next, in commercial sprinkler systems the cost of installing sprinkler systems inside a building is only one-half to two-thirds the total cost. The remaining cost is for the underground piping which connects the City water main to the sprinkler system. The City could install this piping as part of water-line upgrades in the downtown area or before streets are repaved. This would be much less costly than having each business hire a contractor to install one line at a time out in the street and connecting to the City main. In addition, this program would reduce the number of pavement and sidewalk cuts and could be coordinated with sidewalk replacement and street paving. A recently completed study of the downtown water system (excerpts are in Attachment 4) shows that most of the water system is extremely deficient in its capacity to provide adequate water for fire protection. Thus, improvements will be needed with or without the fire-sprinkler retro-fit. However, at the time these w r �di���N►�II�I���h��► �� city or San Luis OBISPO ATTACHMENT NNIZeCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT UFC Adoption/Page 11 lines are being replaced extending fire-sprinkler laterals to the buildings will be relatively easy and less expensive for the City. To date, these water line up grades have not been scheduled. Lastly, it has been suggested that the City could set up an assessment district and secure loans to install the fire-sprinkler systems. An assessment district spreads the installation cost over a long peri-- -f ----- reducing the economic impact of the retro- fit program. Staff has contacted the City's bond funding consultant, Jones-Hall-Hill and jdhite, who 's preliminary findings are that since the improvements are on and to private property, that a assessment district may not be used as a funding source. They will provide staff with a more definitive answer after further research which will take approximately one month. Staff will continue to research other forms of low interest finance for installation of the sprinkler systems.. Code Adoption Time Line The process of adopting the new codes takes approximately two months from the first reading until the codes actually go into effect. Since the plan-check process for new buildings usually takes four to six weeks, all plans that were submitted before the first reading of the new codes should have completed the plan-check process and receive a building permit before the new codes will go into effect. Once a permit has been issued the building will be built under the code that was in force at the time of the issuance of the permit. Additionally, during the past two months the Fire and Building Department's have notified most of the groups that the new codes will affect, letting them know that we anticipate the new codes going into effect by approximately July 1, 1990. These notifications and the ordinance passage time lines should give ample notifications for buildings now being developed. CITIZEN'S PARTICIPATION: The Fire Department has received input at the following meetings held during the past two months:. • B. Z.A. , Board of Directors • B. I.A. , Town Hall Meeting • Chamber of Commerce, Legislative, Economic Action Committee • Chamber of Commerce, Special Sprinkler Committee • SLO County Contractors Association, • Central Coast Chapter of the American Institute of Architects • San Luis Obispo Citizens' Advisory Committee • Local Alarm Companies �35 ATTACHMENT � d�� iilllll(I�I�° �Nlll city Of san tuts OBISPO ONGs COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT UPC Adoption/Page 12 Written comments from these groups and one citizen, Howard Carroll, are included in Attachment #3 . The following is a summary of comments received from each of these groups. Chamber of Commerce i The Chamber of Commerce recommends the adoption of the 1988 UFCI and the e rn-rn-rn-senri amendments TJ h fC'.lr g�11 . _ tod changes. These mes 77 •• recommended changes are as follows: 1. The definition of a major remodel be 500 of the property valuation or addition of at least 1, 000 square feet, but in no case less than 10% of the property value. Also no retro-fit will be triggered simply by the sale of the property. Staff response. The Citizen Advisory Committee had the same concern about the sales of property triggering a retro-fit requirement. Therefore, this requirements has been removed. Staff does not agree with the property value being used as the criteria for a remodel. To use property value an appraiser would be required to determine each property's value. Hiring independent appraisers would be a time-consuming and expensive system. The system staff recommends is currently used by the Building Department. The system uses standard building values that are published bi-monthly by the International Conference of Building Officials. Staff 's recommendation is a simpler and more efficient system. Staff agrees with the 1, 000 square feet and 50% triggering thresholds. 2 . The City should install the new water mains where necessary to provide adequate water flows and install the sprinkler laterals for the .sprinkler systems. Staff response. Staff concurs with this recommendation, but funds are not allocated in the current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) . If the proposed amendment is approved staff will return with a CIP request of $61,000 per year beginning in Fy 1991-92 . Additional CIP appropriations will be required for each of the subsequent years through the year 2000. 3. The sprinkler retro-fit should be coordinated with the Downtown Master Plan and the seismic safety upgrades. The Chamber recommends a time frame of 10 years after the Downtown Master Plan is completed, but not sooner than the required seismic upgrades, and no sooner- than the City is able to provide the water line required for the sprinkler systems. Staff response. Staff agrees with integrating the sprinkler retro-fit and the seismic safety upgrade, Downtown Master Plan and water system upgrades. The problem with this recommendation is the time frame of 10 years after the Downtown Master Plan does not match the seismic safety upgrade deadlin ATTACHMENT � 111m l ill lime Iii city or San luI s OBI SPO A� COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT UFC Adoption/Page 13 which the State has set as January 1, 2000- Staff 's original sprinkler proposal required retro-fitting of the downtown within six years. Based on both the Chamber and BIA recommendations staff have changed this time frame to coincide with the State-mandated seismic safety upgrade deadline of i January 1, 2000. This will give approximately 10 years to retroactively install the sprinkler systems. Staff also agrees that the City needs to have the water lines installed before requiring building owners to install sprinkler systems. This I will need to be coordinated and implemented by the utilities Department. 4. The City should provide low-interest loans or other financial assistance for the downtown businesses required to install fire sprinklers and/or seismic upgrades. Staff response. Staff is researching the possibility of providing some type of financing for these systems. The Consultant that the City has retained for the seismic upgrades has been directed to research all possible funding sources as well. Staff, however, does not believe this should be a requirement for passage of this ordinance. Downtown San Luis Obispo Business Improvement Association The BIA expressed the same basic concerns (time frame, water line connections, and low interest loans) as the Chamber of Commerce (see above) . In addition, they recommended a sprinkler retro-fit cost cap of $1.75 per square foot. Staff response. The $1.75 cap amount came from a misprint on a chart in the original sprinkler proposal circulated for comments. In the body of the text the retro-fit costs were estimated to be $1.25 to $2.50 if the City provides the underground water connections. In the last month we have received three bids on major downtown buildings. These bids range from $1.50 to $2.50 per square foot. Staff, therefore, feels the $1.25 to $2 .50 cost range is correct for the year 1990. However, a sprinkler system installed 10 years from now may cost more. We, therefore, do not feel the City can put a "cap" on the cost of these systems. San Luis Obispo Citizens' Advisory Committee The Citizens Advisory Committee recommended the adoption of the 1988 UFC and the proposed amendments with two changes. They are: 1. Delete amendment 10.306(c) 2 which requires a person who purchases a building in the downtown to install fire sprinklers within 12 months (this same concern was expressed by the Chamber) . Ea -y1 ATTACHMENT augilinip city of San LUIS osIspo WMeZa COUNCIL- AGENDA REPORT UFC Adoption/Page 14 Staff response. Staff concurs and has deleted this part of the amendment. 2 . Delete the exception to amendment 10. 502, which prohibits wood roofs. The exception currently allows a person to reroof an existing wood-shake or shingle roof with the same materials. The CAC' s concern is that with this exception the Citv' s problem with wood roofs will continue forever, making a Las Pilitas fire scenario possible in the future_ Staff response. Staff shares the CAC's concern and agrees with the future elimination of wood roofs. We feel, though, that an out-right ban is too severe. Staff, therefore, recommends accepting the AIA' s recommendation on this item (below) . California Central Coast Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) This group agrees with the proposed adoption of the 1988 UFC, including the fire sprinkler amendment. However, the Architects Association disagrees with the Citizens ' Advisory Committee's recommendation of deleting the exception of amendment 10. 502 that allows a person to reroof using wood shakes or wood shingles. The Architects Association recommends allowing remodels or additions to existing wood-roofed building using fire-retardant treated wood roofs. This would be allowed as long as the addition or remodel did not exceed 50% of the original roof area. Staff response. Staff believes this is a good compromise. This will allow for additions to existing buildings without having to reroof the entire structure but as the entire wood roof becomes aged (about 25 to 30 years) the roof will be replaced with a fire-proof roof. San Luis Obispo County Contractors Association The contractors Association has three concerns as follows: the downtown retro-fit deadline should be delayed until January 1, 2000 to coordinate the seismic safety upgrade; fire retardant treated wood roofs should be allowed on additions of up to 50% of the original roof area; alarm contractors should be given one year to comply with the new U.L. listing requirements. Staff response. Staff concurs with all of these items and has incorporated their suggestions into the staff recommendation. Local Alarm Companies Members of local alarm companies who attended the meeting agreed with the proposed 1988 UFC adoption, with amendments. �-38� ATTACHMENT b Q11Q18I W1jj�1 city of San tuts OBISPO WINZe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ukc Adoption/Page 15 They requested amendment 14 . 105 (a) be changed to allow their companies one year to become Underwriters Laboratories Listed. Staff response. This change has been incorporated into this amendment. CONCURRENCE: The Planning, Building, Utilities and Finance Departments concur with the staff recommendation. The impact on other City departments is negligible. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of the 1988 UFC adoption will primarily be in the area of the fire-sprinkler amendment, but there will also be a fiscal impact to businesses that handle or use hazardous materials or are required to install a fire-alarm system. The costs for the fire-sprinkler amendment can be broken into the categories of new construction, remodel installation and retroactive installation. These areas are further divided into the costs that will be experienced by the City and those that will be experienced by the developers. These areas are discussed_ below and summarized in a table that follows. NEW CONSTRUCTION - COST TO DEVELOPERS Residential fire=sprinkler systems add approximately $2, 000 to the cost of the average home. In the City, the average cost of a home is $260, 000. Therefore, this fire sprinkler ordinance will add approximately 0.8% to the cost of a new home. In commercial structures the cost of installing fire sprinklers range from $1.25 to $3 . 50 per square foot. Commercial sprinkler systems cost more because of the additional water line connection costs. As an example, of current commercial sprinkler costs, the developers of French Pavilion are estimating that the sprinkler system for the building will cost approximately $2.25 per square foot including theunderground connection. The costs of fire-sprinkler systems are offset by savings in insurance premiums.. The commercial sprinkler system is usually paid for by the insurance savings in 3 to 10 years. In residential occupancies, the pay-back time is 10 to 15 years since half of the premiums of a "Home Owners" policy pays for liability and theft coverage. Additionally, both the Building and Fire Codes contain proposed amendments that will reduce construction costs to help offset some or all of the additional cost of the fire sprinkler system. s3�l3� ATTACHMENT �O '' ►�HIIIII�I►j�lll city of San Luis OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT UFC Adoption/Page 16 NEW CONSTRUCTION — COST TO THE CITY The only cost the City will incur from the passage of a fire- sprinkler ordinance for new construction will be the cost of installing sprinklers in its own new construction. Since most City projects are larger than 4, 500 sq. ft. , City projects would have sprinklers installed with or without this ordinance. Therefore, the City should experience no additional cost for 11G.. VV1156..r Y1.1.1 V1a• With the passage of this orpinance, the City will save money on future fire-protection costs. The exact amount of savings that the City will realize is difficult to estimate. However, the Edna/Islay development gives a good example of the types of savings that can occur. The Edna/Islay development is comprised of approximately 1, 200 homes of which 80% are beyond the City' s four-minute Fire Department response line. Because of the number of homes outside the standard response zone, a new fire station would normally be required.. The developers realized this from past projects in other cities and offered to donate the land and build this new station. The donation of the land and the construction of the station would have cost the developers approximately $400, 000 . The annual cost to the City for the personnel and the equipment that would be required for the station would have been $750, 000 per year, forever. Instead of using this traditional fire-protection model the Fire Department took a new approach and required that all houses in this tract beyond the four minute response line have fire sprinklers installed. This "built-in" fire protection cost the developers approximately $1,200 per home, for a total of $1,200,000, or $800, 000 more than the fire station option. By using fire sprinklers to provide the initial fire protection instead of Firefighters, the tax payers of the City are now saving $750, 000 every year. The savings through 1989 are $3,0001000. As the City grows, similar demands for more Firefighters and more fire stations will continue. Staff estimates, that with a growth rate of 1% per year, one additional Firefighter will be needed in each fire station by 1995. This would require 12 new positions with a current cost of $600,000 per year. If additional areas are annexed into the City a new fire station would be required at a cost of $750, 000 per year. This is not to say that after adopting this ordinance the City will never need to hire another Firefighter or build another fire station, for there are other programs such as Emergency Medical Services and Hazardous Materials that will require additional personnel in the future. But, the rate of hiring ��'�C) _ ATTACHMENT Ilp �l�li city of San LUIS OBISp0 IMMIGs COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT UFC Adoption/Page 1.7 new Firefighters will be reduced by the adoption of a comprehensive fire sprinkler ordinance as proposed. REMODEL - COST TO DEVELOPERS Retro-fit installation will usually run 50% higher than the cost of installing sprinklers in new buildings. However, costs ) vary with the extent of the remodel that is being done. If an extensive remodel is being_ done the cost will be the same as new construction. REMODEL - COST TO THE CITY The City will incur an additional cost of approximately $2. 50 per sq. ft. when extensive remodels are performed on City buildings. As with new construction, the City will save money and water by requiring sprinkler systems. RETROACTIVE INSTALLATION OF FIRE SPRINKLERS IN DOWNTOWN "CORE" BUILDINGS - COST TO DEVELOPERS/BUILDING OWNERS/BUSINESS OWNERS The downtown core area, Exhibit A, has approximately 860,000 square feet of floor area of which one-half is already sprinklered. This leaves 470, 000 square feet to be sprinklered in 183 buildings. The cost for retro-fitting these remaining buildings with fire sprinklers is estimated to be approximately $3 .75 per square foot. This totals approximately $1,760, 000. As noted, if the City participates by installing the underground sprinkler connections, the cost will be lowered to approximately $2 . 50 per sq. ft. or $1, 175,000. RETROACTIVE INSTALLATION OF FIRE SPRINKLERS IN DOWNTOWN "CORE" BUILDINGS - COST TO THE CITY If the Council selects the CAO's recommendation and participates by installing the underground water line, the cost to the City would be approximately $3,000 per building. There are 183 structures which would need to have automatic fire sprinklers installed over a nine year period. The total cost would be $550,000 or $61, 000 per year for nine years. In addition to the possible undergrounding cost, the City has two buildings that are inside the. downtown "core" area, and would require a retro-fit. They are City Hall and 955 Morro. The downstairs of City Hall already has fire sprinklers and the upstairs will be required to have sprinklers installed as part of the Civic Center expansion project with or without this amendment. The cost for installing sprinklers at 955 Morro is approximately $17, 500. None of these funds have been budgeted in any current CIP budget. CIP budget allocations would need to be appropriated beginning in Fy 1991-92 CIP budget. Additionally, the estimated City costs do not include the costs of installing new Ra I 3 ATTACHMENT to CI-W or San LUIS OBISp0 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT UFC Adoption/Page 18 water mains in the downtown area. Water main replacement will be required with or without the sprinkler retro-fit. FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM COST City Developers Cost Cost i New Residential $0 * $1. 00 to $1.50 " per Sq. Ft. New Commercial $0 * $1.25 to $3 .50 ", per Sq. Ft. Major Remodel $2. 50* $1.55 to $4 .50 **I per Sq. Ft. per Sq. Ft. Retroactive Instal- $2 . 50 to $3.50 "1 lation in Downtown $37 , 000 per Sq. Ft. Without City Assistance Total $1,760, 000 Retroactive Instal- $550, 000 Total $1. 50 to $2 .50 ** lation in Downtown $61, 000 Yearly I per Sq. Ft. With City Assistance for nine years Total $1, 175, 000 * The City will experience minimal additional costs with a fire- sprinkler ordinance. City cost will escalate without a fire- sprinkler ordinance as fire-suppression costs increase in future years. Without annexations this cost is estimated at $600,000 per year before 1995 and $750, 000 with additional annexations. ** In most installations fire sprinkler costs are eventually recovered by fire insurance savings. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the ordinance as written adopting the 1988 UFC, including the fire-sprinkler amendment requiring installation of. fire sprinklers in new buildings, major remodels, and retroactive installation in the downtown "core" buildings, without City participation in the program. 2. Adopt an ordinance adopting the 1988 UFC with a sprinkler- amendment only requiring installation of fire-sprinkler systems in new buildings, major- remodels and change to a more hazardous occupancy. ATTACHMENT to AU city of san Luis OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT UFC Adoption/Page 19 3. Adopt an ordinance adopting the 1988 UFC, leaving the current sprinkler ordinance as it is written. PRO AND CON OF ALTERNATIVES 1. Pro - The advantage of adopting the 1988 UFC with a comprehensive fire-sprinkler amendment with a retro-fit requirement .is that the fire and building codes will be the same edition as they are intended to be. The comprehensive fire sprinkler amendment will provide the greatest degree of fire safety for the buildings and citizens of the City. It will also provide the City with the lowest cost, long-term fire protection available.. The retro-fit requirement of this alternative will maintain the unique character of the downtown by preserving the older buildings for generations to come. The advantage of not financially participating in the installation of the fire-sprinkler systems in the downtown "core" buildings is that the City does not incur any financial responsibility. Con - The disadvantage of this alternative is that it has the highest cost to the building owners who must retro-fit with fire sprinklers. This alternative is not recommended because the City can install the water lines at a lower cost and in a more cohesive manner than 183 different building owners. If each individual business installs their own water line the downtown streets will be randomly disrupted for years. 2 . Pro - The advantage of adopting the 1988 UFC with a fire- sprinkler amendment that only requires sprinklers in new construction, major remodels and change to a more hazardous occupancy is that the fire and building codes will be the same edition as they are intended to be. A sprinkler amendment that only requires fire-sprinklers in the above situations has the advantage that fire sprinkler costs are at their lowest at this stage of construction. The City will realize long-term reduction in fire-protection cost. As buildings are remodeled or destroyed and rebuilt, they will have fire sprinklers installed. Eventually this will include most or all buildings. Con - The disadvantage of this alternative is that many older historic buildings in the downtown area will be destroyed by fire. Over the years the City may lose all of these buildings to fire. This alternative. is not recommended because it does not solve the problem of the older historic buildings being destroyed by fire. -43 ATTACHMENT t.&P 0111iIIIIi$11WIJJl city Of San LUIS OBI SPO Sligo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT UFC Adoption/Page 20 3 . Pro - The advantage of adopting the 1988 UFC without a comprehensive fire-sprinkler ordinance is that the fire and building codes will be the same edition as they are intended to be and the City and builders of residential and small commercial properties will not incur the expense of installing sprinkler systems. Con - The disadvantage is the City will experience ever- greater fire-suppression costs. Buildings and lives will continue to be lost in fires that fire-sprinkler systems would have extinguished when the' fire first started. This alternative is not recommended because without a more comprehensive fire-sprinkler amendment the fire losses and fire-suppression costs will continue to increase. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Downtown map showing "core" area requiring retroactive sprinkler installation. Exhibit B - Map of historic Fire Zone One. Exhibit C - Composite map of both the proposed "core" sprinkler retro-fit area and the historic Fire Zone One. Attachment #1 Summary of changes in the 1988 Uniform Fire Code. Attachment #2 Proposed amendment to the 1988 Uniform Fire Code and their justifications. Attachment #3 Input received from the public and Staff responses. Attachment #4 Excerpts from the DOWNTOWN WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS, Evaluation Section pages 7 and 8, completed by John Wallace and Associates. Attachment #5 Proposed Adopting Ordinance �aj ATrACHMINT(9 EXHIBIT A > > - D. () � G7 N m D _T x m 1 BEACH E3 CC �1 0 ii I I IE � o NI POND STI 0 l� '900 �, p 4—a I' Z v BROAD 4sm m 7. — O❑ ROAD ST. GARDEN 'ST a �I O CHORR� �L—J _QUO_—I —� EE rcHORRO ST. R Eo p MORRO1:1 rL MORRO ST. G ❑Old �o, Ed osos sr_ laoo soo 70�0 OSOS sr: o" w SANTA ROSAI L—� p - SANTA ROSA � a - o 0LA 0� o O - - `y7 b 1 00r-flDD.-_-� TORO ST. p I F-7 p � ! I 'n O O n o o Dy y o �` F 1.100 7P. R ST. O > Rmm y y 1 ATTACHMEN EXHIBIT B n_ A Z -n cn C D Q ST _ m NIPOMO1300 0 O v I i Z BROAD S m . F-I ROAD ST. J J V GARDEN ST . o i ; CHORR01.3nQ I - rcHORRO ST. I � MORRO ST_ MORRO ST. o P I Q p 0505 1300 in900 n700 OSOS ST. q Q SANTA ROSA I 7 t- SANTA ROSA Gil 700 1100 TORO ST. TORO � I �1 v I D I n — 0 Oy�11, 01V cn 700 I PEPPER ST. 1 o D 3 S P R R cn m 3 z cn cn > { -� cn W �� -L4 �. _ ATTACK, GNT EXHIBIT C N D mD p O z - x O Z m m m D D = m D m D p . n N C y O D N O E3 T = m z o z m z m _ m m -- n - - � - j -� - --- m m m - -' y Oz o rcxl i O m BEACH ST � q VIII Illlilllll� lllllllllllll _ ,N,P°M° 5` to l b NIPOMO ST1.300 900 O v Q 3 3 b Z I Mfj m ip BROAD S9 :1� -< pi 1 { P L F3 G=ST. G=GARDEN ST. U 089 O -- �_ mil I d �- Q CHORR I L'iGG—J CHORRO ST. MORRO —1 �MORRO ST- Ea OSOS ST_ 1300 700 OSOS Si. O ES0 o SANTA ROSA 1 ` . _ . _ - , - -� SANTA ROSA Sa -- o Q b B TORO ST. 1� - � i o cz d E3 AUL v Q r p i r - u 0 uo �y"s ON 0 PGP PER ST. 23 4-4 S . P . R R . r _ o D - n -ZI 3 r m z m 1 1 � ATTACHMENir� ":_ttac XRttf1 SUMMARY OF THE 1989 UNIFORM FIRE CODE Changes from the previous edition of the code are identified by hash marks printed vertically down the page. Approximately 115 changes have occurred from the 1982 to the 1988 edition. The changes vary from revised wording of sections to entire new articles and complete revisions of existing articles. The changes identified in this report are those which will have a significant impact on owners, developers and occupants of buildings or properties. IMPORTANT CHANGES Article 2 - Organization, Authority, Duties and Procedures 2.302. This section is new to the 1988 edition and states that if technical expertise is unavailable within the fire department to determine the acceptance of new technologies,processes, products, facilities, materials, etc., the chief may require the owner or occupant to provide, without charge to the department, a technical opinion and report. The opinion and report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer, specialist or laboratory and shall make recommendations concerning the fire- safety of the design, operation or use of a building or premises. This requirement would apply, for example, to a business processing or using a hazardous material in a new technology for which safety standards have not yet been developed. In this case the chief would have the authority to require the business to contract with an independent laboratory or expert to prepare a report and make safety recommendations. The obvious effect of this requirement on a business owner or occupant is that they would be required to pay for the opinion and report and fire-safety recommendations therein. Article 4 - Permits 4.108. Article 4 requires that a permit be obtained from the fire department prior to engaging in certain operations, practices or functions which are considered hazardous. Several new uses which require a permit have been added in the 1988 edition and some existing requirements have been modified. These permit requirements are retroactive, therefore,some businesses which have not been required to obtain a permit in the past will now be required to obtain one. Also, new businesses engaging in these operations would be required to obtain a permit as well. The permit fees for hazardous materials currently range from $100 to about $500 depending on the number of chemicals and quantities involved. The following are the major changes in permit requirements: 4.108.c.6. The 1982 edition required a permit for quantities of 2,000 cubic feet of flammable gases or 6,000 cubic feet of non-flammable gases. The 1988 edition has been expanded to require a permit to store, transport on site, dispense, use or handle compressed gases in excess of the following amounts: flammable gases - 200 cubic feet; oxidizing gases (including oxygen) -500 cubic feet; corrosive, highly-toxic, radioactive or reactive gases - any amount; inert gases - 6,000 cubic feet. As can be seen, the quantities of compressed gases requiring a permit have been reduced substantially. This change will affect such businesses as welding shops, hospitals, and electronics companies by requiring them to obtain a permit to store, transport, dispense, use or handle gases over these quantities. ;ATTACHMENT (, 4..108.h.1 The 1982 edition required a permit to store, transport or handle more than 55 gallons of corrosive liquids; 500 pounds of oxidizing materials or more than 10 pounds of organic peroxides. The 1988 edition has been expanded to require permits for about 25 different types of hazardous materials such as flammable solids, oxidizing liquids, reactive liquids, reactive solids, etc. For example, a permit will now be required for any amount of Class 4 oxidizer and any amount of a Class I or II organic peroxide whereas no permit was previously required for these quantities of materials. Generally speaking, the qunntities of hazardous materials which require a permit in the 1988 edition are smaller than the quantities in the previous editions. Therefore, a permit will be required for many more businesses than in the past. Article N - General Provisions For Fire Safety 10.106.f The 1988 edition requires automatic fire sprinklers in more occupancies than the previous editions. An automatic fire extinguishing system is now required in all hazard occupancies such as those dealing with explosives, flammable liquids, and hazardous materials regardless of the size. The previous editions only required fire sprinklers in highly flammable or explosive occupancies larger than 1500 square feet. It should be noted that the Fire Sprinkler Ordinance amending this section, is more restrictive than this.section of the Code. Article 14 - Fire Alarm Systems A new article covering fire-alarm systems has been added in the 1988 edition. This article provides requirements for the installation and maintenance of all fire-alarm systems. Two basic types of alarm systems are required by this article - manual and automatic. A manual alarm system is one which is activated manually by pull boxes normally located near the exits of the building. An automatic alarm system is one which is activated automatically by detectors, such as heat or smoke detectors located throughout the building. An automatic alarm is generally more expensive than a manual alarm system. A rough estimate of the cost of these systems for an average size building would be about $3,000 for a manual system and about $7,500 for an automatic system. The requirements of this article will be retroactive, therefore, many businesses which were not required to have an alarm system in the past may now be required to install one. The following summarizes where alarm systems will be required: 1. In assembly occupancies such as auditoriums, theaters, churches, dance halls, restaurants, etc., a manual fire-alarm system is required. 2. In educational or day-care facilities with more than 50 persons a manual and automatic fire- alarm system is required. 3. In institutional occupancies such as nurseries, hospitals, nursing homes and jails a manual and automatic fire-alarm system is required 4. In residential occupancies such as apartment houses three or more stories in height or containing 15 dwelling units and in hotels three or more stories in height or containing more than 20 guest rooms a manual and automatic fire-alarm system is required 2 LAU l ATTACHMENT (o Article 51 - Semi-conductor Fabrication Facilities Using Hazardous Production Materials This article was added in the 1985 edition and modified in the 1988 edition. It provides fire- safety requirements for semi-conductor fabrication, research and development facilities. This article applies to a very special type of occupancy where integrated circuits are placed on silicon wafers. It does not apply to general electronics facilities where devices are manufactured or assembled. At the present time there are no known occupancies of this type in the City, however, many of these companies are moving out of the large cities and into more desirable areas such as San Luis Obispo. Therefore, the City should be prepared to regulate these businesses in the near future. Semi-conductor type occupancies normally use substantial quantities of hazardous production materials (HPM) such as flammable liquids and gases, toxics, corrosives, and oxidizers, which present a high hazard to the community if not properly protected. To design and build a facility in accordance with this article will require a large expenditure on the part of businesses. The following are some specific requirements for these businesses: 51.104. These facilities are required to have an on-site emergency control center to receive sprinkler system and emergency alarms. The emergency control center is an approved location on the premises staffed with trained personnel. Due to the hazards of this type of operation, it is imperative that fire, incendiarism, spills, or other emergencies be immediately detected and mitigated by on-site personnel. To train these personnel and man a control center will be an extra expense for these businesses which is not required for most others. 51.105,6. Fabrication areas_ and work stations located within fab areas have specific protection requirements. These requirements include maximum-allowable quantities of hazardous production materials in these areas, exhaust ventilation, gas leak detection, fire sprinklers, drainage, containment and special electrical equipment designed for hazardous locations. For example, the maximum-allowed quantity of flammable liquids is 360 gallons in fab areas and 15 gallons in work stations. 51.107,8. The storage, dispensing and handling of hazardous production materials is also regulated by this article. Hazardous liquids, gases and solids are required to be stored in special enclosed storage cabinets. Incompatible materials are required to be stored in separate cabinets. Storage of hazardous gasses requires special gas cabinets which are provided with gas-leak detectors, 51.109. ventilation, automatic sprinklers and containment. 51.110. This section provides requirements for hazardous materials storage areas. Inside storage rooms are required to have 2-hour rated occupancy separations from the remainder of the building and are limited to 6,000 square feet in area. Also required are ventilation, emergency alarms, drainage, gas leak detection and liquid-tight floors. Article 79 - Flammable and Combustible Liquids 79.903. This section in Division IX of article 79 applies to gasoline service stations. Where dispensing at these facilities is performed by someone other than a qualified attendant (such as a self-service station) the code now requires that a special listed nozzle be provided which is equipped with an integral latch-open device and designed to remain in the fill pipe during re-fueling. This will require many gas stations to purchase new nozzles or retrofit their existing nozzles. 3 61, 50 1 , 50 ATTACHMENT (o Previously, non-attended service stations were restricted to commercial, industrial and government facilities. The 1985 edition permitted attended card-key operations not open to the public. The 1988 edition allows unattended locations which meet a list of requirements such as: 1) The owner must make daily visits; 2) Regular inspections must be performed; 3) Instructions and the operators phone number must be posted; 4) The uninterrupted amount of fuel to be delivered must be controlled by a card or limited to 25 gallons; 5) Product delivery hoses must be equipped with a listed emergency breakaway device to retain the liquid in case of a break- The reakThe hazard of these facilities is the unsupervised dispensing of flammable liquids. These requirements are designed to provide a level of supervision to prevent a large accident involving flammable liquids from occurring. ;dost self-service and unattended stations now in operation are deficient in one or more of these requirements and many will require new equipment and/or procedures to comply. Article 80 - Hazardous Materials This article provides requirements for businesses involved with hazardous materials. It was revised slightly in the 1985 edition and completely re-written and expanded in the 1988 edition. The length of the article has grown from approximately 5 pages in the 1982 and 1985 editions to approximately 50 pages in the 1988 edition. The need for additional safety requirements pertaining to hazardous materials has arisen from the tremendous increase in the number of businesses using hazardous materials and in the types of hazardous materials on the market. The number of businesses currently required to file a Hazardous Materials Management Plan in the City of San Luis Obispo is approximately 160. This is a good indication of the number of businesses which use hazardous materials in substantial quantities. The article has been divided into four divisions. Division I - General Provisions provides general requirements which apply to all hazardous materials regardless of quantities. Division II - Classification by Hazard divides hazardous materials into two categories-physical or health hazards - for the purpose of prescribing requirements. Division III - Storage Requirements, and IV - Dispensing, Use and Handling provide requirements for businesses which have quantities over the exempt amounts of materials listed. Exempt amounts are small quantities which are allowed to be stored or used without triggering the requirements of Division III or IV. The main purpose for allowing exempt amounts is to encourage businesses to minimize the amount of hazardous materials on hand, thereby reducing the hazards associated with these materials. 80.101. The scope of article 80 has been revised in the 1988 edition to serve two purposes. The first is to provide requirements for the prevention,control and mitigation of dangerous conditions involving hazardous materials and the second is to provide information to emergency response personnel. The main purpose of previous editions was to accomplish the first objective only. The addition of the second objective has generated many more requirements for the business owner such as permits, inventory statements, record keeping, signs, etc. The benefit of adding the second objective is that it provides a safer environment for emergency response personnel and increases the effectiveness of mitigation measures. One additional revision to the scope of Article 80 is the statement that the requirements apply to all hazardous materials including those covered elsewhere. This means, for example, that a 4 1207 5 I 1 ATTACHMENT4, business using compressed gasses would be subject to all the requirements of Article 74 - Compressed Gases and Article 80 - Hazardous Materials. 80.103. The permit section has been clarified to specifically prohibit storage, dispensing or handling of a hazardous material over the exempt amounts without the appropriate permit. It has also been expanded to require a permit when a storage facility is closed, repaired or modified. The main purpose of these permit requirements is to ensure that the fire department is aware of and monitoring businesses which are involved with hazardous materials. 80.104. Regulations pertaining to the release of hazardous materials have been added to the 1988 edition. Specifically prohibited is the release of any hazardous material into a sewer, storm drain, ditch, lake, river, ground, street, etc. In the event of an unauthorized discharge the permittee is required to keep accurate records, notify the Fire Department immediately, mitigate the discharge, remove any leaking container from service and complete all actions necessary to remedy the effects of the discharge. 80.105. A new concept called `control areas' is introduced in this edition. A control area is defined as a space within a building where the exempt amounts of hazardous materials can be stored, dispensed or used. A control area must be bounded by either an occupancy separation with a minimum one- hour, fire-resistive rating or the exterior walls, roof or foundation of a building. Control areas were designed to provide a practical method for businesses storing, dispensing or using over the exempt amounts of hazardous materials. If a business needs over the exempt amounts to operate, control areas may be constructed to increase the quantity of hazardous materials allowed in the building. A maximum of four control areas may be permitted within a single building. 80.106. All persons responsible for hazardous materials operations are required to be familiar with the materials and mitigation actions necessary in the event of a fire or spill. Also required are designated people to be trained as a liaisons for the fire department to aid in pre-planning emergency responses. The obvious effect of this section on the business owner is that it will cost them money to provide training and time for these individuals to become competent at handling hazardous materials. The benefit to the City is that there will be less chance of a serious accident or injury to fire department personnel or others if there are competent people on hand to aid in the event of an emergency. 80.107. Facilities which are terminating their storage, use or handling of hazardous materials are subject to special requirements. This would include facilities which are moving to a different location, going out of business or discontinuing their use of these materials. It requires the permit holder to submit a plan of closure 30 days prior to the facility closure. The main purpose of this section is to ensure that hazardous materials are properly disposed of, ensure the site is cleaned up, make the fire department aware of cleanup operations taking place and to ensure that adequate safety precautions. are employed when a facility is shut down. 80.108. Facilities taken out of service are required to be designated either temporarily or permanently out of service. Facilities designated temporarily out of service are required to be monitored and 5 C33-52- ATTACHMENT inspected periodically. Permanently out-of-service facilities are required to be closed in accordance with section 80.107. This ensures that the status of a facility handling hazardous materials is understood by everyone involved including the fire department and that adequate safeguards are maintained. 80.301. This section provides general requirements pertaining to the storage of all types of hazardous materials in excess of the exempt amounts specified in Sections 80.302 -80.315. If a business stores more than the amounts listed, then all the requirements listed in this section must be complied with. Storage areas are required to have the appropriate signs, adequate drainage and containment, ventilation, fire extinguishing and explosion-protection systems. Special electrical equipment and standby power systems are also required. iviost of these protection requirements will require a large expenditure for the business storing more than the exempt amounts of hazardous materials. 80.303. - Each of these sections provides detailed safety requirements for the storage of specific 80.315 hazardous materials. The types of materials regulated by these sections include: combustible liquids, flammable solids,oxidizers,organic peroxides,pyrophorics,reactives,cryogenics, highly toxics, radioactives and other health hazards. Each section provides exempt amounts of stored materials. If the storage is over the exempt amount, then all the requirements listed in these sections must be complied with for each material. If the storage is under the exempt amounts, then only the general requirements must be complied with. The safety requirements vary depending on the type of material involved. For example, if the material is a gas or can give off flammable or toxic vapors, explosion-venting and ventilation systems are required. If the material is a liquid, spill-control, drainage and containment are required. Other fire protection requirements for most materials include smoke/heat detectors, leak-detection systems and automatic sprinklers. 80.401. - This section provides general requirements for businesses which engage in dispensing, use or 80.402 handling of hazardous materials in excess of the exempt amounts. These exempt amounts are in general smaller than those for storage due to the fact that dispensing , use and handling present more hazards than just storage. Some examples of the exempt amounts are: 10 gallons of Class I-A flammable liquids (acetone,gasoline, etc.) in an unsprinklered building, 25 pounds of flammable solids (magnesium, cellulose nitrate, etc.) in an unsprinklered building and 1 lb./ 1000 cubic feet of combustible dust. The requirements are basically the same as those for storage. 80.403. This section provides requirements for the handling and transport of hazardous materials within a building or facility. It addresses the types of containers allowed for transport, requires carts or trucks capable of containing a spill for containers over certain sizes and requires special alarms for transporting in exit corridors. Article 81 - High Piled Combustible Storage 81.105 - This article provides requirements for businesses which have high-piled storage (storage 81.111 over 12 feet high). The stored materials are classified into one of five commodity classes for the purpose of prescribing requirements. Class I commodities are essentially noncombustible materials 6 0 '2 -53 ATTACHMENT such as ceramics, metal products, dairy products, etc. A Class II commodity is of the same material as a Class I commodity but ispackaged in combustible material such as cardboard. A Class III commodity is any combustible material such as wood, paper, natural fiber, etc. Class rV commodities are plastics and synthetic fibers and Class V commodities are special fire hazards such as flammable liquids. The hazard increases as the commodity class increases (Class I is least hazardous, Class V is most hazardous). The arrangement and height of storage also affect the hazard level. For example, storage on high racks.is more hazardous than storage on pallets. The protection requirements for high piled storage include limitations on maximum heights and dimensions of storage piles, mechanical smoke removal systems. smoke and heat vents, fire-hose connections, automatic sprinklers and smoke detectors. This article has been expanded in the 1988 edition and now requires these protection systems for smaller storage areas, lower commodity classes a;:d more :acs in gencral. There are only a few businesses in San Luis Obispo which have high-piled storage at this time such as an athletic clothes manufacturer and a food distributor. However, as more of the industrial area of the City develops there will be more businesses with high-piled storage subject to the requirements of this article. Article 82 - Liquified Petroleum Gases This article provides requirements for the storage, handling and transportation of liquified petroleum gas (LPG) and the installation of associated equipment. This article was completely revised in the 1988 edition, however, there are only a couple of changes which will have a significant affect on businesses in San Luis Obispo. 82.102. A new requirement pertaining to distributors has been added in the 1988 edition. This requirement prohibits a distributor from filling an LP container unless a permit has been obtained for the installation of the container. This will place some of the responsibility on the person filling the container to make sure there is a permit for the container being filled and will prevent the filling of non-permitted installations. 82.104. This section provides requirements on the location of LPG containers. The requirements pertain to the separation distance between containers and adjacent buildings, public ways or property lines and the minimum separation distances between adjacent containers.. The requirements have been expanded to apply to tanks up to 120,000 gallons in size and are more restrictive than the previous editions. The separation distances have been increased. This section will have a limited impact in San Luis Obispo due to a local City amendment prohibiting the installation of tanks over 500 gallons except by special permission from the chief Article 87 - Fire Safety During Construction, Alteration or Demolition of a Building This article is new to the 1988 edition and provides fire-safety requirements for any building undergoing construction, alteration or demolition. These safeguards were developed due to the serious hazards present during construction and the presence of a large quantity of unprotected 7 !/�t ArrACH NT ,(, combustibles. The City has experienced large fires in buildings under construction such as the apartments at Foothill and California streets which was caused by a fire involving flammable liquids. These are the types of incidents this article attempts to prevent through fire-safety requirements. These requirements will have an impact on owners, contractors and developers by requiring them to provide the safeguards outlined in this article. Since this article is new and these safeguards have not been required in the past, opposition to these requirements should be expected. 57.102. - Approval of the safety precautions employed during construction alteration or demolition 87.105. may be required by the fire department. Excepted are single-family dwellings, private garages and carports and fences. This means that a safety plan may be required at the same time the building p!arW are submitted to :! e C ty for ....e.v. In effect, the saf:ty precautions would Become part of the project. The contractor or developer would be required to include general notes on the plans for tire-safety or submit a letter stating that these requirements will be complied with. Specific safety requirements such as access roads, water supply, fire extinguishers, standpipes, ignition source control, etc., are required during construction The Fire Prevention Bureau has previously been requiring only that access roads and water supplies be installed prior to the start of construction, therefore, some of these requirements will be new. Fire-protection systems, exits and fire-resistive construction are required to be kept in service and maintained during alteration. Approval of the chief is required prior to removing a sprinkler system. Fire hose and fire guards may also be required during demolition. Appendix I-A This appendix provides minimum life-safety requirements for existing buildings which do not conform to the code. The requirements contained in this appendix are those which will provide a reasonable degree of life-safety to persons occupying such buildings. Adequate exiting is considered the primary means of life-safety in a building. The basic components of adequate exiting are as follows: 1) an adequate number of exits for the occupant load involved; 2) The correct arrangement and location of exits; 3) Construction of exits which provides the required degree of fire and smoke resistance; and 4) The prevention of fire and smoke from entering the exits and corridors through vertical shafts. This appendix requires at least two exits for every floor of all multi-story buildings. One of the required exits may be an exterior fire escape if it meets certain requirements. One-hour fire- resistive corridor construction is required for most buildings with an occupant load of 30 or more. Vertical shafts such as stairways, elevator shafts and service chutes are required to be enclosed by one-hour fire-resistive construction to limit vertical fire spread Basements of these buildings are required to have an approved automatic sprinkler system installed if the area exceeds 1500 square feet if adequate openings to the outside are not present. These requirements for basements are due to the difficulty of fighting fires in basements. There are many older buildings in San Luis Obispo which are deficient in one or more of these basic requirements. Many of these buildings are used for businesses or residential and have a Aub eACHMEN tl substantial occupant load. If these deficiencies are not corrected, eventually there will be a fire and lives will be lost. Appendix I-C This appendix provides standardized requirements for the identification of exit stairways in new and existing buildings four or more stories in height_ This is to prevent occupants and firefighters from losing their way out of a building in the event of an emergency. This appendix will affect a very small number of building owners in San Luis Obispo since there are a limited number of four or more story buildings. By adopting this standard now, there will be guidelines for future tall buildings and a limited number to retrofit. Appendix II-A This appendix provides regulations and gives the Chief authority to restrict activities in areas designated as hazardous fire areas. These areas may be grass, grain, brush or forest-covered land where a potential hazard exists from fire and resulting erosion. The Chief is responsible for designating these areas and publicly announcing their closure. This appendix provides a list of prohibited activities in these areas such as: no smoking, spark arresters required on chimneys, no explosives, fireworks, open flames, fires, incinerators, dumping, etc. The Chief may also require the clearance of brush and vegetation where a hazard exists. There are few areas in San Luis Obispo which would be considered hazardous fire areas, however, as more houses are built on the wildland interface and rural land is annexed into City limits, there may be increased need for this appendix. Appendix II-A This appendix provides safeguards for flammable or combustible-liquid tanks in areas subject to Gooding. During flood conditions the tank may "float" or move thereby rupturing the pipe connections and allowing a leak to occur. The primary means of protecting against this is to fill the tank with water during a flood to prevent it from moving or to anchor the tank with concrete. This appendix requires that adequate facilities are available to accomplish this. Since most of San luis Obispo is located in flood-prone areas, these safeguards will help prevent flammable-liquid tanks from becoming a hazard during a flood. Appendix II-D This appendix provides safeguards for rifle ranges. These safeguards include supervision by a qualified range officer, the presence of first-aid and fire-protection equipment and the removal of surrounding vegetation. These requirements are basically common-sense type safeguards and will not put a large burden on the rifle range owner. At present there is one rifle range in the city. Appendix III-A 9 � -S( This appendix provides a guide for determining the flow of water in gallons-per-minute required to provide adequate fire protection for buildings. The required flow of water is dependent on the size, type of construction and exposures of the building. This appendix is a simplified version of the guide published by the Insurance Services Office (ISO) for determining fire-flow. Appendix III-D This appendix requires that all unsprinklered basements be provided with pipe inlets for fire department use. This allows firefighters to access the basement with hoses for firefighting purposes. The size, construction and location of these inlets is also specified. Almost all buildings in the downtown area of San Luis Obispo have basements. Most of these basements are not large enough to require sprinklers, therefore, manual firefighting is the only protection available.. Appendix IV-A This appendix regulates the types of floor coverings which are installed in new buildings or in existing buildings which are being re-covered. The purpose of these regulations is to prohibit the installation of highly-combustible materials which will present a life-safety hazard. This appendix regulates floor coverings in the following types of occupancies: 1) Assembly (theaters, dance halls, restaurants, etc.); 2) Office, retail; 3) Educational; 4) Hospitals, nursing homes, etc.; and S) Motels, hotels, apartments,etc. The floor coverings in these occupancies are required to be tested and have a maximum critical radiant flux (heat release) as specified. Appendix V-A This appendix provides a list of Nationally Recognized Standards which may be used for guidelines when specific requirements are not provided in the fire code. Appendix VI-A This appendix is provided as a supplement to Article 80 to help clarify and provide examples of the classification of hazardous materials. The correct classification is very important as this dictates the type and level of safeguards and protection required. Appendix VI-B This appendix provides an explanation and derivation of the emergency relief venting required in Article 79 for above ground tanks. It is supplemental only and provides no additional requirements. Appendix VI-D This appendix consists of various tables reprinted from the Uniform Building Code. Many of the requirements of both codes are inter-related such as wall and opening protection, required 10 —lj TACHMENT separation between buildings, allowable floor areas and building heights, exiting requirements, etc. With these frequently-used tables copied in the Uniform Fire Code, the need for jumping from one code to the other is minimized.. Appendix VI-E This appendix provides a convenient list of conversion tables and factors. ATTACHMENT � 1988 UNIFORM FIRE CODE AMENDMENTS NOTES: Redline text is to be added to the 1988 Uniform Fire Code. Text which has a line through it is to be removed. 9 designates a new amendment. SECTION 4.108. a second paragraph is hereby added to read as follows: PM... ..... Permits are 9bt#tp San-.Lots i�-Qb- poCiIty-FIre- .:Department .(Fire Prevention Bureau]."Af6,6***'*m'a'*v*,,"*,'bcharged far Etre..... ..........furfe..n The .'amount of these fees ........ ... Cit CA 0 8 ary 0 CS .. shall bt- bblishe-&:]).. rah. C. 'Y.. i'mou on City may w e: r ...........1........................ ..... ...... . . ..... ..�W. a'-wit so Wo coas S read. would bt- i tent ............- ------- D d-pair.tifte- n-L with Ahe'best' teres&of the -0_ __ _ 0 SECTION 4.108.a.2.1. is hereby added to read as follows: To,install or modify nor ................. ..iQ'starting.. SECTION 9.108. the definition of Fraternity House is hereby added to read as follows: FRATERNITYHOUSE (OW$Q�Lqgl[T*Y, HOUSE) means a building or buildings —:.... 1. ...1.1.... :::..%:............. ...... ...........w- occupied'by a em ts: who.are rnemb�m of a social or educational association ..gq� f:i�_pw _..y u em A" where s-,.such .8 association::.h ids gatherings., .Fraternity House. . and Sd it GAISC-shall : rQrL.y-1`H! bti-l" -R�1- defined in the ......I , : .. , . uparicies-as. .......... Unifidrff: 9 Budding 1C6d&' IT SECTION 9.121. the definition of Sorority House is hereby added to read as follows: Sorony House(see Fraiernuy Hoeise Section 51118 I1FG): ......... • SECTION 10.202. is hereby amended to read as follows: No person shall remove ... tamper with or otherwise disturb any fire hydrant, fire appliance, e installed or maintained underprovisions of this code oir'E #tie;. arincnt except for the purpose of �m necessary repairs or when permitted by the Fire Department. Whenever a fire appliance ?ir is removed as herein permitted, it shall be replaced or reinstalled as soon as the purpose for which it was removed has been accomplished. • SECTION 10.207.(b) is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) Where Required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be required for every building hereafter constructed when any portion of an exterior wall of the first story is located more than 150 feet from Fire Department vehicle access. ATTACHMENT EXCEPTIONS: I. When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, this;distance may be.inctcased,to:3.00.'..-f 2. When access roadways cannot be installed due to topography, waterways, non- negotiable grades or other similar conditions, the chief may require additional fire protection as specified in Section 10.301.(b). 3. When there are not more than two Group R, Division 3 or Group M occupancies, the requirements of this section may be modified, provided, in the vL Ltll �.,LL\.L, Llll.-Lighting or rescue operations would not be impaircu. SECTION 10.207.(m) is hereby added to read as follows: The Chief and his authorized representatives steal! have the power add'authoritq to remove or cause to be iemov.utth0ut-- _ttce, airy uebicle, or -b-- Cprke ad of placed to vioiatton of'UFC Sections IO ZOG or 10�07(k}. The owner taf any.item so removed shalt be responsible for all ter.ehargesUcurred. SEC"CION 10.301.(b) is hereby amended to read as follows: In occupancies of an especially hazardous nature or where special hazards exist in addition to the normal hazard of the occupancy, or where access for fire apparatus is unduly difficult, or the location is beyantl the four minute response tune of the Fire Department, oc the Id att00 I above tlte-w tei.5ervtee height:iuii additional safeguards may be required consisting of additional fire-appliance units, more than one type of appliance, or special systems suitable for the protection of the hazard involved. Such devices or appliances may consist of, ufazeiao '3untec a, automatic fire-alarm systems, ...................:::................::..... automatic sprinkler or water-spray systems, standpipe and hose, fixed or portable fire- extinguishers, oiuezTakets, breathing apparatus, manual or automatic covers, carbon dioxide, foam, halogenated and dry chemical or other special fire-extinguishing systems. Where such systems are installed, they shall be in accordance with applicable Uniform Fre Code Standards or standards of the National Fire Protection Association when the Uniform Fire Code Standards do not apply. Othe> ltuproveasentsssieh as fzre rated CdrilSfx[;Cttt3n t7r Jiie`Cet tSl�#t il�C? fiTtifi EX116t Sti#?l lEtlQf BAtIkkK extenpr vermgs inay 81so map • SECTION 10.301.(c) is hereby amended to read as follows: (c) Water Supply. An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire-flow for fire protection shall be provided to all premises upon which buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed When any portion of the building protected is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building, there shall be provided, when required by the chief, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire-flow. ' v-fIC11r^"3� . :........ 2i , ,D A" ACHMENT protected by ail fire spnnkler system throughout, the flistance • may 6e increased to feet.: Water supply may consist of reservoirs, pressure tanks, elevated tanks, water mains or other fixed systems . m;atid capable of providing the required fire-flow. In setting the requirements for fire-flow, the chief may be guided by the Fire:Suppression Rating Schei u pabhshed by the Inwg.... a Services Office, 1980. EXGI?TFON ;For a buttdiitg protected by art approved )ire=sprinkler system Ifi[ougldiit, the required fire.flow may be reduced by 50% The location, number and type of fire hydrants connected to a water supply capable of delivering the required fire-flow shall be;provided on the public street or on the site of the premises to be protected as required and approved by the chief. All hydrants shall be accessible to the Fire Department apparatus by roadways meeting the requirements of Section 10.207. EXCEPTION For areas no# in the wtldland cuterface where ail buildings in the area are protected by an appravecl fire sprinkler systetrt:throughout, the:;:ailawable _ . distance d-tweets hydrants b0% may be increased:by 5 SECTION 10.303.(a) a sentence is hereby added to read as follows: The minimum 'fire extittguisfierxequireinent shall be: the installation of one (1) approved Z A I0 B G as rated by'tlnder►vriters Laboratories fire eexfiriguisher far every 3,000 square feet of floor area os 7 €ee# offiaor travel, whichever-is greater. • SECTION 10306.(6) is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) All Occupancies Except Group R Division 3 and Group M. Except for Group-R, Mision 3 and Ckgup N! Occupancies, rinkle; system shall be installed- I.- in 4o;,Gr-ystory o. ha.ement of ail build:..a. ...hen the flnQr- aFQ21 axacadr 3500 squarc feet and there is AQt pro,ided 2t le2st 20 square feet of opening entircly above tho adjoining gr-ouAd leAre-1 iA earb 50 lineal feet o; fraction tharcof o cxterior- Awall :Ment on 2t least one side of the building Opening shall h2*0 2. dimgAgign of openings shall be ac=sdble to the fire departineAt from- the c;acdo; 2nd shau accomplished &gm the wdeiiP& When openings in a stog; are prg;idad on only oRc side and the opposite wall of such aory is mom than, 75 feet fmm such opaWags, the stgry shall be pro If any portion of a basement is located more than 75 feet from openings 3501 _i7ACHMENT ;:cquired in this section, the bawmcnt shall automatic spr-inbler eyst 7 At thet6P <r r„h,hlS 1-as:'lig-i.rr.+f--b 4ii4- --' in their terminal room,s Chutes avtanainrt t{rrnugh thraa nr mora fon shall 1 2uc additional sprinkler L .t igisullec!4,Aithim Such Ghutes 24 21ternate floors. Spi:inklor heads shall beb 2 in r99Frlrr 11hGr nitrate film is storeci or handled. Ali new ocegpancaes Aat autQtnattc spr' er>systetnishall be installed:and tttaintaaned to all new c7acU ..... s tegardiess Uf rea Or occupancy type. Restdentlal or quicl:- res . , standard sprp ers shall be Used m dwelling units and guest-room poi irons of all buildings AR systems shall conform fo the appropriate National Fire Protection A5soctattOli (NEPA) $tandr3�ds 13, I3D and the San Iuls Obispo Crty:Fire Department. LXCEPTIOIV� Detached Group Moccupancies not exceeding500 square feet to IIoor area and located at least 10 feet from adjacent buildmgs and eet )rUrh adlarent prgper#y lines. SECTION 10.306.(c) is hereby amended to read as follows: FOOMS 2ad asse bly vises Guecdc 500a --are feet- For uscs lo be considcr_cd as; separat shall he Ant less than as r-cquired fop a wAa hour occupaAcy sopa;atioR :MG area OF ^-be; user Shall k. Filem separatad by at least a one- hour ocrupang separation. 2 FvhiWW” -A A.e-Vnv .00m A t f' sprinkler shall n 4 St2us An automalic sprinkler system-shall be insuli�d ;n �n�lnc�,j .,, Ic space below G Other.-ams- An a « ti -I t I, 11 be. insulled under the rooC a gridiron, ;� tue tic and fly galictics and in lM9, 1'i'Yf'L'U'I4/l1yC. 1 Cta C..t...C.. _ gQ .>_ t three 4 B3,67X ATTACHMENT • SECTION 10.306.(d) is hereby amended to read as follows: height.(d) Gaup B, Division 2 Occupancie3. An atifernatie sprinkler system shall be installed ift retail sales raoins elassed as Group B, Division 2 E)eetipafteies wlmn Lh� Reer area exeeeds 12,900 square Feet on any Floor or 24,009 square Feet on all FIGars at in GLotip B, Division 2 retail sales oeettpaneies mere titan three stories in The atea oF fne?zanines sisal! be ineluded ift determining the areas where sprinklers are required. Floar.Area For the purpose:bf requiring the automatic fire sprinkler systems specified in.this chapter the h*;;-* area within the sizrroun Jag.ex€erxor.wails shati be considered€ s a .one:buiiding. Area separa oa..was s as seUforrti iii the —Q shall not:be used in: catcu a*ttng atY wabte:`floor acea.for sprrpkv*. requXXetnenis.. e SECTION 10.306.(e) is hereby amended to read as follows: larger than i599 square Feet in Floor area. 2. Siahs. An automatie sprinkler system shall be installed in enclosed usable spaee below or ay in Group E 9eetipaneies. Notification ::Whenever the Fire Department detertnines byinspec€ion, that.a building does Aot conform to the mintinum requirements of 5uhsectign..(e t.pf this Sect%an, it shall prepaze a fire(iife safety notice in wrtixng ihata t automa'kic flre- spri:nkler system.be rnstatieci_ n tl�e.:uiiding The notice shall sgecif y tp what manner the building fa}Is:tt7.met''the uuncmum requirements of Snbsectaon (e} f of tJixs Sectsoa Tk shall i#rrect that plans:Tie submitted,2nd khat necessary permits be ObtE�ined nqt later than January }, 1999 and thai the automaticsprtnkler systeirt be tnstalle nak later khan,Jasxua3r 1, 204fl; The 3=zre 17ertmenc shFl Serge the ntiCt;estlietrsOnatp pr P', r: regtsteted mail, upon the awztet as shown on khe fast-eq:aalxzed assesstneai and upon .,the pe;SQn, tf.any, �n real or.agparet#t:£ha:tg .flrcbrtfrgY Of.thebu� ding • SECTION 10.306.(f) is hereby amended to read as follows: (F) Group 11 Occupancies. 1. Disision 1. An itutematie Fire extingttishi..,, shall be installed in Group 11, Divisions 1, 2, 3 and 4 . Feet.2. Division 4. An att!etnatie Fire extinguishing systern shall be installed in Group 11, Divi-sien 4 Geeuponeies having a Floor area eF inere than 4990 square 3. Diviseon 6. An auternatie fire extinguishing sy3tern shall be installed throughout buildings eontairzing Grett, H, Division 6 Geettpeneies. The design oF the sprinklei system shall be not less titan that required tinder U.B.G. Standard ?;6. 066UPATION HAZARD 6 Pj -,� ?) - ATTACHMENT (o Storage rooms %,ith dispensing Extra Hazard Group 2Exit eazaidors E)rdinary Hazard Group 1 1 to" OF sp,inklets, the maxiinum numbe, of sprinklers that need be calculated is H. Becardattou tlt the time chat the 1 i're Aepartmeitt:serveS the afocctttefaned order or notice, the; ire Dcprtm aeMt shale file witfi the O€1 ice.of the Canty Recorder a certificate Vaa ing iha.± the fiti IPei bn ldltig does n of ztzee# the mtnimuT fixe sAfe;cy regairemettts of Subsectton,.(e) and that the czwues tTsereaf.lias been so not�faecl After ail.neGfsSary Fnrr-&eu B.werlc 12�Iae813 peTl QrIIted;Ll2e I�ITe Dep ..... h*still Cale with the Office of the Cgnnty Itecgrder a certfipate.termina1.tttg fiestatus of r31n st.5leci «..w. ,,. F.. a �n Faij.:rs� Z,W:..e -tS;.Cf s bseciion (c)'i of th,s Section • SECTION 10.306.(g) is hereby amended to read as follows: Group 1 monitored location. Opening of tire valve voili cause tire Fivi..r, 115--bl; U.B. ` cam.A No. 38 V.L.V. Jl EnforcerRent. If the ownsr or other person itF charge attd.cntrGl oC:the Subject: buitding:fails to campty wath;the afozementlaned urdcr ur ....othe iitiie ..... periods set foth in Subsegtron' (C1 6F Ehjs Secitors4 thewtter ;stuliy d£ g m�sdcmeanoc ptrntshable Ity a fane of,aot rnd;e than - ' €h...... nd dollars( :I,OQ� 00) os by imlrrt�enment f Oi*. P. mors #h8it S=xittttlss,'gr by hRth im rssonment A petxen 1s gutlt}* 01 a.... a olfensc each zlay dtxrtn hxeh ►e; G ..... ,e0>ytrngg"T._perWit uiat ttda.Of$t1b5e tsbn_(C�-3;#f,thi;4 eCtifln • SECTION 10.306.(h) is hereby amended to read as follows: installed thretighout eve.� apa.tanctit house thtec-el inei e ste.ies in height 0. height or containing 20 ea anesc guest towns. Residential or quiei- tesponsc st2trid2tid building. .518ffidard`s �I automatta fl�e�spr�nk#er'sy�stcros�cgttrr���€Ius���s'13a1I r Gdnilt arsiEt !!rose staxtctardsanzl rot;E3+ psctcs„CSt811S d l► t a�itt }Zsspo SECTION 10.307. is hereby amended to read as follows: 4ITa�ttotsttid°S rlattcr:�3ysm'; tlep pr :> 7 ��� i ATTACHMENT (i) . :.YsoJaterl specr2�ty 5y5tCrrtS Such a5 5gray......Panb441h SySteuts Or iSgJat�d rnstafla:traas rd closeta<and storage spaces unlesshe,extttre uceupattcy Vis.also equi.ppe_ with;an au ..in 1 slyrrrtlsTtr system ii Res?de Ltial sprintcJersystems p. in fam l r dWellrngS.Or tltrg(exCS; SECTION 10.501. is hereby added to read as follows: There is hereby established a commercial fire zone established byr:the Chief: �tit:ined on 3 reap 6f the City of San Lu,$ (3bispoa copiCS Qf which aFe on f i#e is The . . .. ...... . offices of the City:Clerk and:the erre Departmedt SECTION 10.501.(a) is hereby added to read as follows: A#I riew construction_u rihin the com i ereia :'fire.zpn@ eStabl-R_E l..Vy t#}e.Chi, f shad hereafter require interior sills, floors, cefflags and partrt qns to be constrvetect with 5/8" Type "X" gypsum vva11 board or iisequiv8lent .......... Ali tither:teaser mrnrmtrin requirements1o,the contrary This requ'xrement applies to all additions, and alterations, as defined n,the C3rniform:l3uilding'Cbe_ EXCEPTIpN:;Buildings.protected ihroughQui by.anBpgrQved fire':spr>nkler system: SECTION 10.502. is hereby added to read as follows: It shall be unlawful to rnsraii:or cause to be' ttsialied, wood*shake or wood-shingle roofs on any building: In eases where buildings ter.tie.re roofed have different roof coverings present, the least cobustible couezrng shad ire used as the% -mi .'— standard of re'p#acecnent. ......:........... m lrXC ]?T[OIJ: Itemodeis and additions where: Jess than..50%o,aF.the flrrginai,r0of.area requires a new° roof covering may usc;Underwriters f aborat'arres listed fire.created woad:cowering, The 5Q55 area=is a eumulaLiarc area;tfrat..m$y rt�1t.be ext tdtd at.an;y time; SECTION 11.101.(a) a third sentence is hereby added to read as follows: a14 waste matter,4'ambaStsl�lematerial 4r rfus4 Shat 811€Ltec i the aAetr. ri wtthxn.; lte Ctty,except for agrtc?uitural, ceremaaai be."sufit�ar tyg�„u€ f�res.when authprtzed hy-the Chief; SECTION 11.210. is hereby added to read as follows: All sxtersox avvntags sot:nected oz adjacent Co bttilcus sllaTi:: uiade fxoni erthcr fab�C svliiCli has �eetl ft$m4 r�hstartt tt'e�t�d.�rt� Att >�rasaec�„,c�t�a;circ�iestitcat. prLicess'isy actppr©vett appattn eoncern�yi%ftta`tz<ythr # y l'laxuc rtsfant 6c._aw�:t�afal� t��:�ihe �ct�mtse;oto of�f�axttt.ib.e;�ar�e-�estst� �;aal�'`.£a`�i�ic�':aici: JR :i.. :......_.....:::Y:..,,,:.,..�.,:::.:,:.,�Q,..,:��r.:`:::'�..::::���<�11;{�E:: O;nYY..Y:Y'..YYY%'Q'...C.•.„. :n^.�v .Mv,. .vw..n...rvv....n..-....-nrvmw...r.n.-..nv.:';nI.`�nvr� ��.<v�i�S........n.nn'Y.�u......... 8 .l.0 5 ATTACHMENT o SECTION 14.105.(a) is hereby amended to read as follows: 3A'hen required by the ehieF, fire alatat systerns shall be supervised by an approved eentral, proprietary or semete station serviee or a loeal alarm %hielt will on systems �nstailed in Group A-througtr K X. uccnpancxes shaft be supervtsed by a central statron:listed by Underwriters abnratarres for rsceiyrng Elie alarms.rfthn'One year after the;adoptlrit X., t>xs code VI. "Gentraf Stattoe S�gnalsng 5ysteri. CertEFcate" s1s11 beprovide , to iht,. ira Department upon request. • SECTION 14.105.(c) is hereby amended to read as follows: more zones ate reqttited, visible annuoeiati6n shall be prolf-ided in a loeatioft All fzre alarm systems shalt be zoned as rcgutred by the Fire Department MuiP*story ..... dings 5h:2�il.be zcined..per floor.aS- a:msnimu n. All mulct zone'fire alarm systems shall be prouided wsth an'avproved gcaphie annunciator..sn a Igcatrepartment;.: EXCEPTION Butldrngs where the toeatxott of a Etre would be readily apparent as ... _ determined by:EhC,1=ire3Cpa_rm�nL,: • SECTION 14.106. is hereby amended to read as follows: Fire alai rn 3ysternsh_„ be maintained ., tested The installattesting, inspection,m6n2toring and maintenance Ah repair ' f etre amr. systems sha1,V xn accordance with Underwrrters:Labarattsr�es and thj.e appropriate Nat,ronal Fire Protection Association .n. .. ...:.. Sta ndards:. SECTION 61.106.(e) is hereby added to read as follows: Anx vaverlte�l Ertel Uurning ropm,lteaiers tsu display for retail sale shall be accoropauct by a catspxutt�.wazrxi ,sEgn.:rclaht 'rout,�tlte ttlspla3r azsl statarF,B, n::...;.:.:: ..a ................w.;x.»:.: It�s stfegal La;sell ar use,urrverited Duet bu :nang.neateIt- SECTION 79.301.(b) is hereby amended to read as follows: Where Allowed. Stationary tanks for the storage of Class I, II, or III-A liquids may be installed in indust.in! plant3, ehemies! plants, distilleries, ser v iee , 09 Plants, bulk Plants and teFineries when in room ex buildings eensti tterh=ed trated its required in the Building Code Fe. Group 11, Divisi6n 3 eeeepatteies or Fe, Fu-1 qmm rp PPFn >Y .IyCSC\: pvy F. \. qp Standby s,::.v....:mt 1-1115 to E tn� {e laro�z c x gs. SECTION 79.501. is hereby amended to read as follows: The storage of Class I and Class II liquids in aboveground tanks outside of buildings is prohibited. within the liffliM established by law its the limits oF 9 ATTACHMENT �O SECTION 82.102.(d) is hereby added to read as follows: Pians f or appraisalf E 1yC flank tnstalations mast.be 2ppcgved by."the.l~tre DeparEz�eni prior a_.rustailatxt�n SECTION 82.104.(b) is hereby amended to read as follows: iviaximum Capacity Within Established Limits. :'='"- the iirnim established L G . The installation of any ifgysd,petrnteum,gas,tank over 50(3 galloris,water capaciEy is prohibited_ 10 f - � ATTACHMENT 1988 UNIFORM FIRE CODE AMENDMENT JUSTIFICATIONS SECTION 4.108. Justification: This is a continuation of an existing amendment which specifies exactly where a permit can be obtained (SLO Fire Prevention Bureau). It also states how permit fees are established and allows the reduction or waiver of fees in special circumstances at the discretion of the City Administrative Officer. SECTION 4.108.a.2.1. Justification: This is a new amendment which applies to permits for fire alarm systems. The purpose of a permit is to ensure that the Fire Department reviews plans of alarm systems prior to actual work. This will help prevent systems from being installed or modified incorrectly and possibly making the system deficient. Permit fees also help the City recover some of the cost of plan review. SECTION 10.202. Justification: This is a new amendment designed to eliminate the re-occurring problem of tampering with fire- protection systems. Fire alarm and fire-sprinkler systems are not specifically addressed in this section of the UFC. These systems are the most critical in terms of life-safety and property protection and are also the most abused in terms of tampering. This amendment will help maintain these systems in the state which they were installed and approved. SECTION 10.207.(b) Justification: Eighty-five percent of fires in sprinklered buildings are controlled or extinguished without the use of a standard Fire Department hose stream. In the remaining 14.7 percent, the sprinkler system checked and controlled the fire spread. The additional 150 feet will not adversely affect fire suppression by the Fire Department.* Reference Automatic Sprinkler Performance in Australia and New Zealand, 1886 to 1968 by H. W. Marryatt, page 89. SECTION 10.207.(m) Justification: This is an existing amendment which was revised slightly in the 1988 edition. It allows the Fire Department to authorize the removal of campers, abandoned trailers and obstructions other than motorized vehicles if such are obstructing a fire-lane or a fire hydrant. Currently, there is no specific provision in the UFC which provides this authority. SECTION 10301.(b) Justification: This is an existing amendment which was revised slightly in the 1988 edition to improve readability. A fire in a structure beyond the four-minute response time of the Fire Department is likely to be fully I 14' _ - ATTACHMENT involved by the time fire-fighters arrive. The structure would most likely be lost and the danger to the public, fire-fighters and the surrounding structures would be greater. Fire-protection systems such as automatic sprinklers will provide immediate notification and help keep a fire under control until fire- fighters arrive. Fire-resistant exterior construction will help prevent external fire spread and conflagrations, reducing the fire hazard and allowing the Fire Department to make best use of their resources. SECTION 10301.(c) Justification: Eighty-five percent of fires in sprinklered buildings are controlled or extinguished without the use of a standard iire dopaiuiaent hose stream. In the remaining 1 4t.7 plercera, Lae sprinkir-1 systelll checked and controlled the fire spread. The additional 150 feet will not adversely affect fire suppression by the fire department." The second exception is following the guidelines published by the Insurance Services Office (ISO) on determination of the required fire-flow. The fire-sprinkler system provides an early alarm and puts water on the fire. The time saved is greater than the additional time required to lay the extended hoses required by the third exception. In over 80% of the fires in sprinklered buildings the hydrants are not needed to control the fire.' Automatic Sprinkler Performance in Australia and New Zealand, H. W. Marryatt. Reference Automatic Sprinkler Performance in Australia and New Zealand, 1886 to 1968 by H. W. Marryatt, Page 89. SECTION 10303.(a) Justification: This is an existing amendment which was revised slightly. The specific minimum fire-extinguisher requirements are necessary as Uniform Fire Code standards are not specific as to minimum requirements. Without specific minimum requirements and only general policies, interpretation of fire- inspection requirements can differ and the public becomes confused as to exactly what the minimum requirements are. SECTION 10306.(6)-(h) Justification: See separate Fire Sprinkler Ordinance justification. SECTION 10307. Justification: This is a continuation of an existing amendment which ensures that the Fire Department is notified immediately in the event of a fire by requiring that all commercial sprinkler systems be monitored. It will also help prevent a large loss of water and property damage due to a leak which could occur at night or on a weekend when the building is not occupied. 2r�� ATTACHMENT I� SECTION 10.501. and 10.501.(a) Justification: These are existing amendments which have been revised slightly in the 1988 edition. When the City adopted the 1979 Uniform Fire Code it lost the ability to require fire-resistive construction in the high- value downtown area (Fire Zone 1). This amendment replaces some of the protection for future construction of new buildings, additions to existing buildings or a change of occupancy in existing buildings. The Commercial Fire Zone takes the place of Fire Zone 1, referred to in early editions of the Code, which covers approximately 18 square blocks of the downtown mercantile area. SECTION 10.502. Justification: This is a.continuation of an existing amendment which has been modified. Wood shake or shingle roofs in the City of San Luis Obispo represent a threat of conflagration and heavy fire loss. Wood shakes and shingles are easily ignited and fire spreads at an extremely rapid pace, especially during windy periods such as those experienced in San Luis Obispo. The existing amendment had an exception which allowed structures with existing wood shake roofs to be re-roofed with wood shakes. This would allow the fire hazard created by existing wood shake roofs to continue indefinitely. However, banning wood shakes completely would make additions and remodels to existing buildings with wood shakes very expensive. The modified amendment will help reduce the fire hazard created by wood shakes by not allowing their use on new construction while still allowing the use of U.L. listed fire-retardant wood shakes or shingles on small additions and remodels. The normal life of a wood shake roof is approximately 25 years, therefore, a house with a wood shake roof which had an addition at some point in time would require a complete new, non-wood shake roof at about 25 years of age. The amendment also requires that the least combustible roof covering be used in re-roofing a building with different roof coverings present. This will help ensure that a less fire-resistant roof covering for which the building was approved will not be installed. For comparison purposes, the approximate cost of re-roofing a house with non-treated heavy wood shingles is approximately $130 per square, B grade (treated) heavy wood shingles $195 per square and Cal Shake, an imitation ceramic wood shake is approximately $300 per square. SECTION 11.101.(a) Justification: This is a continuation of an existing amendment which reduces the chance of accidental fire-spread due to unnecessary burning. SECTION 11.210. Justification: This is a continuation of an existing amendment. There is no specific Fre Code requirement that requires awnings to be fire-resistive. Future downtown improvement plans call for increased awning use. Untreated or highly-combustible awnings can lead to rapid exterior fire-spread if ignited. This requirement wt71 help prevent exterior fire spread. 3 Y�3-10 ATTACHMENT � The requirements for flame-resistant certification contained in this section are consistent with the State Fire Marshal's regulations for flame-resistant fabrics, and represent the utilization of existing technology and processes. SECTION 14.105.(a) Justification: This is a new amendment. With the advent of alarm systems which transmit over standard phone lines, central station companies across the nation are now monitoring alarms in San Luis Obispo. The fire department has no way of controlling how these companies process fire alarms. Underwriters Laboratories can enforce performance standards on central station companies located anywhere in the United States. finis amendment will ensure that central station companies immediately and properly transmit fire alarms to the Fire Department. SECTION 14.105.(c) Justification: This is a new amendment. A zoned fire alarm system with a graphic annunciator will help responding Fire-fighters locate the source of the alarm much faster. This is especially important with the limited manpower of the San Luis Obispo Fire Department. SECTION 14.106. Justification: This is a new amendment which clearly specifies which nationally recognized standards are to be followed in the installation, testing, inspection, monitoring and maintenance of fire alarm systems. This will help ensure that alarm systems are maintained as they were originally designed. SECTION 61.106.(e) Justification: This is a continuation of an existing amendment. The sale or use of unvented fuel-burning heaters for residential use is prohibited by both the Uniform Fire Code and the Health and Safety Code. Retailers do not always know of or transmit this information to the public when they are purchasing one of these appliances. This amendment will help ensure that the public is aware of this prohibition prior to the purchase. SECTION 79301.(b) Justification: This is a continuation of an existing amendment. Inside tank storage of flammable liquids is extremely dangerous. If a tank fails inside a building, the flammable liquid could flow out and produce explosive vapors. Workers, members of the public and fire-fighters would be at unnecessary risk during even the smallest fire involving a flammable liquid inside a building. The possibility of an explosion and rapid spread of a fire would always be present. Underground construction is the safest alternative. 4 E2/7 :3, ATTACHMENT 1� SECTION 79.501. justification: This is a continuation of an existing amendment. Outside tank storage of flammable liquids is hazardous. If the flammable liquid tank is punctured or vandalized, the flammable liquid could flow into drains, gutters, creeks or around buildings. Ignition of this liquid could cause rapid fire spread, a life-safety hazard and large property loss. SECTION 82.102.(d) Justification This is a continuation of an existing amendment. The Fire Department needs to review the total site layout for Installations of LPG tanks due to their hazardous nature. SECTION 82.104.(b) justification: This is a continuation of an existing amendment. Liquified petroleum gas-tank fires often end up in violent explosions. Smaller tanks of around 500 gallons can have their hazard reduced by construction of block or concrete walls. LPG tank explosions send metal shrapnel and sometimes the tank itself rocketing into the air. The causes of LPG tank fires are usually accidental. Smaller tanks can be safe-guarded or barricaded from persons or vehicles. Larger tanks post a significant threat as it is more difficult to protect larger areas. The Fire Department feels that the installation of larger LPG tanks will unnecessarily jeopardize workers, members of the public, and fire-fighting personnel. 5 ��a ATTACHMENT AUac�fxrennf S an Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 039 C _•rr S:ree: • San Luis Ob soo. California 93401 (805) 543-1323 . FAX (805) 543-1255 Dav!c E Gars,. Executive Manager April 23 , 1990 Mayor and Council Members City of San Luis Obispo P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Dear Mayor and Council Members.: Chief Dolder and Fire Marshal Erwin Willis have met extensively with us and our member property owners to discuss the proposed Fire Sprinkler Ordinance. In turn, our committee members have dedicated hours of time and analysis to the proposal . We believe this extraordinary effort has • produced a proposal which is manageable for all. Our Board of Directors feels that the proposed ordinance is acceptable to us with some modifications. We believe that fire sprinklers for the downtown core are effective and advisable, but that any kind of retrofit ordinance must be reasonable. Our downtown is especially valuable to the City's character, and to remain viable it must be competitive with other commercial districts in and outside the city. Since downtown is being singled out for the commercial retrofit, that program must include financial participation by the City. otherwise, the financial burden on business may ultimately create a fire safe, abandoned downtown. Our proposal is as follows. 1. We agree with ordinance provisions requiring sprinklers for new buildings and for major .remodels. We would define a major remod-el as a project involving 50% of the property valuation or an addition of at least 1100.0 square feet, but in no case less than 10% of property valuation. We would further state that no retrofit will be triggered simply by the sale of the business or building. 2. The City should install the new water mains where necessary to provide adequate flow for the sprinkler ADsystems, and should pay the cost of laterals for the t, retrofits -{.as suggested in the draft proposal) . 4 3. Imposition of sprinkler retrofit requirements must be. coordinated with the Downtown Master Plan and selsmlc ACCREDITED U ` ATTACHMENT/o ield inspections of pipe material from old pipe repairs w e also made to assist in estimating the extent of cor osion<enstation) present. Two general observati6ns were onfy the City maintenance personnel . Firstthe PV owed negligible corrosion, even the 1,0 year old sampe older steel and ductile iron pipes however are seriorroded. Several pipe samples with- corrosion one half inch thick were observed, with tliicker deposits d in worst cases . Correlatin Hazen- g ,Williams ues and reduced pipe diameters' with age and material provide6 reasonable calibration according to the following schedule YEAR C-V UE 1990 130 1985 100 1975 90 1965 85 1955 80 1945 75 1935 70 1925 65 1915 60 1905 0 1895 6 Notes : 1. 1 PVC pipes, C=130 . 2 • Starting at .1965 all metal pipes are assumed to gain 1/2 inch of corrosion every 10 years and pipe diameters were reduced ccordingly. The mo as configured above predicts residual pr ssures ' over st of the system and the area near the Frenc Pav' ion within 2-3 psi. In some areas the calibrate n fa s off to ± 6 psi. This lesser degree of certainty 's ' nerally isolated to small specific sites and areas nea other PRV's which may have been operating when older hydra it tests were done. V. EVALUATION bF EXISTING SYSTEM Hydraulically, the existing Downtown water system performs very poorly.- The older pipes and fittings have corroded to � . a degree such that many have less than 40 percent of the flow capacity of a new pipe. During system calibration, two broken, partially closed valves near the Pavilion site were found and it was discovered that the 16" PRV at Foothill was not operating. The City Fire Department guidelines recommend that commercial areas be provided with a 5,000 gpm fire flow. Typically, the system is capable of a fire flow of only about 1,100 gpm which is well below this goal. 7 ATTACHMENT One hydrant at Islay and Osos Streets can only flow 160 gpm. Only near the 16 and 20 inch lines does the fire flow meet normal requirements for commercial areas. The Downtown water system warrants a program of system improvements to improve reliability and overall hydraulic performance. Improvements to the Downtown water system should consider the overall system and be planned to provide maximum benefit. The criteria below lists goals which should be considered when evaluating alternative improvements : ' 1 . Provide a system of Primary Loops. Looped water mains provide redundancy and superior hydraulics . Primary loops are larger pipes which feed the network of I connected smaller lines . Primary loops should generally be at least 12 " diameter. 2 . Provide increased fire flow. The Fire Department guidelines of 5,000 gpm should be held as a target flow rate for the commercial areas . Fire hydrants intended for this flow rate should have 8 inch laterals, at I 5, 000 gpm a 6 inch, 20 foot long lateral can use up 13 psi of available pressure. An 8 inch lateral would use only 3 psi. 3 . Utilize the existing system to the maximum extent possible. At many intersections, hydrant flow is I substandard yet a 20 " line with 6,000 gpm capacity is nearby and not connected. Connecting hydrants and smaller pipes directly to the largest nearby main can greatly improve performance in the immediate area. FRENCH PAVILION A 'or emphasis of this study was to determine of to water tem improvements for the French Pavil' Existing fire flow ' lable. at the Pavilion site i urrently only about 1100 gpm, the structure has ire flow requirement of 3500 The required modeled fire ow r this study was 3850 GPM concurrent with avera aily flow Iumed throughout the system.. This fire ow includes the r 'red fire flow of 3500 GPM with additional safety factor o %. TWO options fo istributing the total flow of 3850 re consid d. All of the flow may be provided by one by t, or a flow may be split between two hydrants. 8 ATTACHMENT !o page 2 Fire Sprinkler Ordinance 4/23/90 issues. The timing of any mandatory retrofit should be as follows: Buildings requiring seismic upgrades: no sprinkler retrofit for at least ten years after the completion of the Downtown Master Plan and not sooner than the final date for seismic upgrade. Buildings not requiring seismic upgrades: no sprinkler re+-r�Fit F... at 1�. st ten —sears after completion of the Downtown Master Plan. In no case should a retrofit be required unless and until the City has provided mains to deliver adequate fire flow to serve the sprinklers. The City should provide a map showing those areas where fire flow is inadequate. i 4. The City should provide low interest loans or other financial assistance for the downtown businesses required to do fire sprinkler and/or seismic retrofits. i Lastly, we would like the cost estimates and rationale i provided by the City to more clearly indicate that sprinkler requirements apply to all the building area (including basements, attics and some crawl spaces) , not just leasable square footage. We have encountered some confusion from property owners about this point. We hope you view our proposal as a thoughtful means of melding the two financially conflicting goals of a fire safe downtown and an economically viable one. Please contact me or the Chamber staff if you would like to discuss this further. Best regards, Sharon Ybgng C Chamber President ATTACHMENT (o DOWNTOWN SAN LUIS OBISPO BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION April 20, 1990 Mayor Ron Dunin and City Councilmembers City of San Luis Obispo P. O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 Dear Mayor Dunin and Councilmembers: Following the March 19 BIA Town Meeting, many members raised concerns relating to forthcoming seismic upgrades and the proposed fire sprinkler retrofit requirements. On April 10 , the board of directors of the Downtown Business Improvement Association addressed the issue of the fire sprinkler ordinance and its implications. It is clear that our historical downtown, with many of its buildings in close proximity, may be more vulnerable to a major fire than some other areas of town. However, with seismic requirements, additional fees for parking, and the possibility of fire sprinkler retrofits all looming ahead, these business and property owners will be faced with a significant financial burden which could well spell the demise of some. While we understand the concerns of the Fire Department in its rush to adopt a retrofit ordinance, we encourage you to consider these factors. There are also several steps that we feel must be taken, before any mandated retrofit program would be acceptable. Water mains must be upgraded, with lateral connections to storefronts (at no cost to property owners) ; a downtown master plan must be adopted; a low interest loan program for major renovations should be in place; and a manageable timeframe should be established. P.O. Box 1402, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 (805) 541 -0286 ATTACHMENT �o The BIA board voted unanimously to endorse the concept of the proposed sprinkler ordinance based on a maximum cap of $1.75 per square foot net cost to property owners, in conjunction with establishment of an earthquake retrofit program, adoption of a downtown masterplan, and a time frame of at least ten years. We look forward to the opportunity to meet with you and discuss this matter. Sincerely, p_ n Thomas Donat President cc: SLO Fire Department a Z a ATTACHMENT � April 19, 1990 California Central City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department Coast 748 Pismo Street Chapter I pan Luis Obispo, CO 934011 I Attn: Erwin Willis AmPriran Fire Marshal Institute Erwin: of Architects Thank you for your presentation on March 7th at our CCCCAIA General Meeting. We appreciate the Post Office Box 375 opportunity for the CCCCAIA Members to review and make San Luis Obispo California 93406 comments to the proposed code recommendations for the Building and Fire Ordinances. After review by our Legislative Affairs Committee we made suggestions to the recommendations of the Local Building and Fire Ordinances. This letter is to give you our consensus of the final recommendations that came from those meetings and presentation to you and the Chief Building Official, Tom Baasch. The following is the conclusion of that meeting and the recommendations that we would like to see made to the City Council. Fire Ordinance Changes: 1. All new commercial & residential buildings shall be required to have automatic fire sprinklers. 2 All the buildings in the 'Downtown Fire Zone' shall be retrofited with automatic fire sprinklers. 3. Remodels shall be required to have automatic fire sprinklers if the area increase in the remodel is greater than 1000 sq. ft. or if the value of the addition increases the building valuation by greater than 50%. 1 OFFICERS FOR 1990• Allan Cooper,President•Victor Montgomery,President Elect•Elbert Speldel,Secretary•Mary White:Treasurer DIRECTORS FOR 1990: Sake Reindersma,Legislation•George Stewart,Membership•Stan stein,Public Relations•Mike Engel,Student Affiliate•James Aiken,Advisor to the Board ATTACHMENT � 4. For buildings where a group occupancy change is an increase in hazard automatic fire sprinklers are California required. EXCEPTION: if the group occupancy Central change is from residential to office, fire sprinklers are Coast required. Chapter I o. Section 10.207 (b): the distance for fire apparatus access roads has been increased to 300 ft. for buildinas with automatic fire sprinklers, AmPrl['."111 I ricciivi I iv..'w i (i): fhc Uiz)fuF ice Ifor i i prOfCCfiOi i f0 firC Institute hydrants and on site fire hydrant spacing is 300 ff. for of Architects buildings with automatic fire sprinklers. 7. The required fire flow is reduced by 50% for buildings with automatic fire sprinklers. Post Office Box 375 San Luis Obispo 8 Section 10.306 California 93406 (c): has been deleted. (The requirement for approved fire sprinkler systems be installed in commercial buildings in the Fire Zone within 12 months of change of ownership). The AIA was made aware of this revision offer the meeting with you and Chief Building Official, Tom Baasch. We approve of this revision. 9. Section 10.501 (a): has been deleted. (fire rated drywall in commercial buildings) 10. Section 10.502: was amended to not allow wood shake roofing material on any new or remodeled building. The AIA was made aware of this revision after the meeting with you and Chief Building Official, Tom Baasch. We understand the main change in this section is the addition of the word remodeled. We do not agree with this recommendation. This requirement compromises the architecture of buildings and additions with existing shake roofs, and places an undo burden on the owner to re-roof the entire building with another material. Our suggestion is to allow fire retardant wood shakes for re-roofing of existing buildings and additions. (A compromise might entail a percentage, to allow fire retardant wood shakes on remodels not exceeding 50% of the building's existing square footage). 2 e ��'C7 OFFICERS FOR 1990: Allan Cooper,President•Victor Montgomery.President Elect•Elbert speidel.Secretary•Mary White,Treasurer DIRECTORS FOR 1990: Sake Relndersma,l.egislabOn•George Stewart,Membership•Stan Stein,Public Relations•Mike Engel,Student Affiliiate•James Aiken,Advisor to the Board ATTACHMENT (� Building Ordinance Changes: California Central 1. Section 508: the fire-resistive substitutions may be applied for buildings that are already required to Coast have automatic fire sprinklers. Chapter 2 1 - Hr. Construction through-out is not required for buildings with automatic fire sprinklers. American 3. Secliott 1709 (a): ruropets may be dCICtC�1 VI Institute buildings with automatic fire sprinklers. of Architects 4. Section 3305 (g), Exception #5: . . .for all B-2 uses (not just offices) the corridors need not be of fire construction when the occupant load is 100 or less for Post Office Box 375 buildings with automatic fire sprinklers. San Luis Obispo California 93406 Thank you again for the invitation to review the proposed code recommendc4ions. I hope we were of service to you. Sincerely: .,.,' Sake Reindersma, AIA Chairman Legislative Affairs CCCCAIA OFFICERS FOR 1990: Allan Cooper.President•Victor Montgomery,President Elect•Elbert Speidel.Secretary•Mary White,Treasurer DIRECTORS FOR 1990: Sake Reindersma,Legislation•George Stewart,Membership•Stan Stein,Public Relations•Mike Engel,Student Affiliate•James Aiken,Advisor to the Board ATTACHMENT CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, INC. DEDICATED TO THE BETTERMENT OF THE BUILDING INDUSTRY 3563 G Sueldo Ed Nolan P. O. Box 1222 Executive Director San Luis Obispo. CA 93406 805-543-7330 Linda Barlow Fax 805-543-7016 Office Manager April 25 . 3990 Chief Michael Dolder City of San Luis Obispo 748 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo , CA 93401 Dear Chief Dolder . Thanks for the opportunity to offer input for the proposed revision to the Uniform Building & Fire Codes for the City of San Luis Obispo - The adoptior: rez,ort for the 1988 Uniform Building and Fire Codes is gener 'ly =_c=^ able to the Contractor`s Association based on the fol_:;uing c points being revised : 7.0nWNTOWN COPE : To have all buildings retrofitted with fire sprinklers in 10 years , in other words , to be completed by the year 2000 . RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS: Should be fire retardant roof finish only if over 50 percent of existing roof square footage is added as new . 3 . ALARM COMPANY: The alarm company should be U. L _ rated . Thank you for the opportunity to review this report prior to the adoption_ If any further information is needed. please contact me at 543-7330 . Sincerely yours . Ed Nolan Executive Director ED:nje BUILDING TOWARD A BETTER ENVIRONMENT-THROUGH QUALITY CONSTRUCTION RECENED AR2. 5 1990 13��U01\_ ATTACHMENT HOWARD CARROLL Post Office Box 1025 (805) 541-0178 San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93406 Mike Dolder April 3, 1990 San Luis Obispo City Fire Chief 748 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Dear Fire Chief Dolder: After reviewing the proposed Fire Sprinkler Ordinance which is being presented to the City of San Luis .Obispo as part of the 1988 Uniform Building and Fire Codes, I have prepared several comments and questions that I believe are pertinent to the proposed sprinkler ordinance. My comments will be consistent with the page numbers of the section of the proposed code entitled Fire Sprinkler Code Amendment Justification. Page 1 - Report-in-Brief This section states that the highest level of fire protection available is an automatic fire-sprinkler. Is this level of protection necessary on all buildings in the downtown core within the next six years or is there an alternative that may be adopted which would provide an increased level of fire protection? The report further states that the City already has adopted a more comprehensive fire requirement than is required by the Uniform Fire and Building Codes. It now becomes a question of, "How much more do we need," vs. "How much does the fire department want." I believe that U.S. Congressional appropriations and the requests for U.S. Military budget have the same dilemma. The expense to the City of defraying some of the costs of retro-fit.•, has been estimated to be $486,000. What is the detail from the engineering department to substantiate this' figure ATTACHMENT and what exactly is the City's proposed participation? This is a very general and vague statement for something that needs to be specific. Page 2 - How did this fire problem develop in the United States? This section states that the fire losses since the 1900's have continued to climb even though building codes and technology have been improved_ Certainly, the fire losses will climb as property replacement costs increase. But, has the frequency in the number of fires per 2,000 people been increasing or decreasing with each level of fire protection available? Are there different levels of fire protection available? Why hasn't the fire department given an option of 24 hour fire-detection devices monitored by the ire station, or any other options other than sprinklers? The fire department states that eighty percent of fire deaths occur in residential structures. It would therefore seem practical to emphasize fire protection where the greatest health and safety need lies; residential structures_ Whereas, the proposed ordinance emphasis is in the commercial sector_ What is the ratio of residential fires to commercial fires? The fire department has been inspecting each business in the City once per year for the last eight years which has resulted in a reduction in the number and severity of fires in the City. Are there additional measures, short of sprinkling all buildings, that would provide additional safety? Today 80% of the cities in California have passed fire sprinkler ordinances that are more comprehensive than the Uniform Fire and Building Codes. San Luis Obispo already has adopted such a comprehensive ordinance. What percentage of California cities and cities in the nation have passed an ordinance similar to that which is being proposed? Page S Adopting a sprinkler ordinance will not reduce the current size of the fire department. Why not? You are asking the City and property owners to invest several million dollars and there will not be an immediate cost savings in the fire department. It is stated 2 _� . ATTACHMENT elsewhere that fires are out in minutes and only slight damage with a sprinkler system. Additional money may be saved by reducing the water main sizes in areas where all buildings have fire sprinklers. In the downtown the water mains are not sufficient to handle the existing fire suppression needs as they exist today. In many areas of the downtown the supply system is so bad that there is not enough water to run hoselines to fight a fire. The additional demand of future build-out will certainly make the present situation worse. Therefore, all the mains will have to be replaced.. What money will be saved in the downtown by reducing the water main sizes? A recent study of California cities found that 40.7% had some type of retro-fit sprinkler ordinance. Currently, the City has a fire-sprinkler amendment. Would this amendment place San Luis Obispo within the 40.7% of California cities that have some type of retro-fit sprinkler ordinance ? In the section on City Participation it says that the ordinance gives six years for fire sprinklers to be installed as a way to spread out the economic impact. On the contrary, the real picture will be more like this. In that six year period all of the city mains will be replaced disrupting auto traffic, parking and commercial/retail business. Water laterals will have to be installed under sidewalks into all nonsprinkler building disrupting foot traffic, auto traffic, parking and commercial/retail business. Installation of the system will disrupt foot traffic and commercial/retail business. Now, add to this the earthquake retro- fit of 145 buildings, demolition of buildings, the remodel of existing buildings, construction of new buildings, normal street repair/maintenance and the removal of asbestos which will be disturbed from all of the above. Please don't insult me by saying this will spread out the economic impact. It will be devastating to the commercial/retail business downtown for six years and I am not even considering the out of pocket cost. Has there been a study to determine the economic impact of this proposed sprinkler ordinance on business and property owners? If a developer were proposing a project that would impact an area this large I'm sure that an environmental impact report would be required. - 3 ATTACHMENT The sprinkler justification refers to the City participating in the water-line upgrades in the downtown area. But nowhere does it detail the water-line requirements, related costs and priority. What are the total flow and water pressure requirements? What factors are being planned for future build-out of downtown and fringe areas? What downtown lines need to be replaced? What lines will need to be replaced outside downtown to supply the downtown system? Where is the engineering report? A capital improvement plan of this scope may take years to develop, engineer, approve and finance. Presently, we are looking at major expenditures for water needs, waste water treatment, enlargement of several city facilities (ie. the downtown fire department), management of solid waste, downtown parking structures, transportation/circulation and earthquake retrofit. The building and engineering departments are presently buried with projects that have been given a priority, which projects will be given the greater priority? The City cannot be expected to approve an open-ended commitment of this type until it has addressed its own fiscal responsibilities. Page 6 The City could set up an improvement area and secure low- interest loans to install the systems. This statement is very ambiguous. I do not see an improvement area or low-interest loans option being available. Do we have any low-interest loans being considered from the City or State for the earthquake retro-fit which has been law since SB 547 was passed in 1986? What would an improvement area do? Who will set it up? Who will monitor it? Will the City fund it? Will the school district lose funds because of it? Alternatives: Where are the alternatives? This is either adopt a sprinkler ordinance or nothing. There are hundreds of alternatives that are stepping stones to greater health and -safety in the community. Is it necessary to have the highest level of fire protection available overnight? 4 ���� ATTACHMENT '60 Page 7 Citizen's input: I have not been fortunate enough to be invited to any of the meetings prior to the development of the sprinkler amendment. In fact, I did not even know of its existence until mid February 1990. I have since received a copy of the report and have attended the March 19, 1990 BIA Town Meeting. At this meeting, 30 minutes was devoted to the fire department presentation►. Questions could be asked at the end of the program. It was stated that a recap of the input from citizens or groups at the public meetings would be presented to council along with the Adoption Report. I assume this will be by addendum to the report. Therefore, I have written this letter regarding my concerns so that I will not be categorized into the one sentence capsule of all those that have been polled to date, "... the Chamber of Commerce Staff, a group of downtown building owners, property managers, and business owners, while not enthusiastically supportive of the ordinance, understand the benefits of fire sprinkler systems." Page 8 Just a little math error here. The correct fraction as presented should be .007 or .7%; not .05%. I'm sure that was just a typographical error. Although, I believe that the true error here is that the sprinkler system cost should be in relation to construction cost not total value including land. Therefore, $1.50 cost of installation divided by $60.00 per square foot construction cost would be 2.5% of residential construction cost. I'm having a tough time with the fire department cost range of $1.25 to $1.75 for commercial systems with city assistance of underground piping. On March 20, 1990, I called a licensed fire protection engineer and contractor for an estimate on the remodel in process on the corner of Monterey .and Morro Streets. His "rough" estimate to retro-fit the retail;;. ,-with. ".ceilings open" was $3.00 per square foot,- plus $$,000 to bring water lateral into building, plus paint; patch, and alarm system. (In addition, the min i m u m time to have system 5 ATTACHMENT engineered, fire department approval, city approval and order material would be six weeks.) Now, if the City proposed to pick up both the cost of the water mains and the laterals to the properties the cost would still be twice the estimate range. The costs of the sprinkler system are offset by savings in insurance premiums. The sprinkler system is usually paid for by the insurance savings in 5 to 10 years. I called my insurance agency (the only two things that I need to know about insurance) and asked what the fire insurance premium savings would be if I sprinkled the above referenced building. It seems that I might save about $150.00 per year. That savings would not pay the interest payment for one month on what I would need to borrow in order to make the retro-fit. The cost of the sprinkler system would never be offset by savings in insurance premiums. Apparently, insurance companies categorize cities . into protection classes based on fire response time, quality of equipment, expertise of fire department and other factors. The best rating is Class 1 and the worst rating is Class 10. Our tax money has been well spent and the City of San Luis Obispo is rated Class 2. But, since we would have very small protection class improvement, we get a very small premium reduction. They added that reinforced concrete and masonry buildings have lower fire premiums than wood frame buildings. If a wood frame building were sprinkled there could be substantial savings of up to 40-50% of the fire insurance portion of the premium, not the total policy premium. Page 9 There is some question about the map of the area to be included in the downtown "core". The report is submitted with a map, but at the BIA meeting a comment was made that they may not use that map. Certainly, an obvious question is, "what map do you plan to use?" At the BIA meeting, a comment was made that the Fire Department would cooperate with the property owners and tenants in the 124 4 X27�O 6 infTACHMENT (� implementation of the sprinkler system. What does this mean? If it means looking at both sides of the problem and applying a practical solution; great. What I have been told by people in the building trades is that it will be interpreted exactly as the fire & building code states; period. Some other points that were not discussed in the .Adoption report that I have some questions about are: A. What happens to property owners that are in process of a remodel now, where permits have been issued that do not require a sprinkler system? B. If property owners sprinkler now, will the City reimburse the property owner for water main and/or laterals development costs if the City later decides to participate in the program? C. Have you tried to get a conventional loan on commercial property lately? Why don't you try to make a few calls and see what kind of loans are available. I did and there are no savings and loans that will accept an application for a commercial loan. Bank of America. Security Pacific Bank,- Mid-State Bank & First Interstate Bank are not making commercial loans. Wells Fargo will not make a loan if property requires earthquake retro-fit (98 buildings in downtown San Luis Obispo that require sprinklers will also require earthquake retro-fit). First Bank of S.L.O. will not make a commercial loan unless the property is both owner occupied and qualifies for a Small Business Association Loan. Commerce Bank has two lending programs. Either a three year loan at 12.0% or twenty-five year loan at 12.75%. The financing problem can be boiled down to one fact. A broad base of lenders are necessary to provide the money needed for both retro-fits. If the funds are not available, how will the property owners finance the programs? I D. What is a major remodel? I have heard that it occurs when 50% of building value -is being spent on the construction remodel 'costs. 1. Who determines the building value? 2. Who determines the remodel cost? 3. If an MAI appraiser is required add another $3,000 to $5,000 for"appraisal:. .......i.,c,.f,. _- Q ' ATTACHMENT �o a. Schenberger, Taylor, McCormick & Jecker have stated that they will not accept any appraisal assignment in SLO downtown where unreinforced masonry improvements are involved. b. Imagine how the coventional lenders react to this policy. 4. Who pays for the appraisal if the estimated remodel cost is less than 50% ? 5. Is the mandatory sprinkler installation cost included in the remodel cost? 6. Is the mandatory earthquake retro-fit cost included in the remodel cost? E. Do you have any statistics for a 24 hour smoke/heat alarm system wired to the fire department? F_ Does the 400,000 square feet of floor area that is impacted by the sprinkler proposal include: all ground floors, all floors above ground floor, mezzanines, attics, basements and subfloors without basements? G. It is estimated that 162 buildings in downtown San Luis Obispo would be impacted by the proposed sprinkler ordinance. An additional 145 buildings in downtown San Luis Obispo have been identified as unreinforced masonry and would be impacted by the earthquake retro-fit. Nighty-eight of these building would be required to have both sprinkler and earthquake retro-fit. Therefore. there would be 209 buildings in downtown San Luis Obispo that would be impacted by both earthquake and sprinkler retro-fit. In closing, I would like to say that I am a businessman and property owner in San Luis Obispo. In that roll, I evaluate the relative risks associated with an action or investment and based upon that assessment I proceed. I view that the cost of a sprinkler retro-fit as proposed would be substantial. That cost, in most cases, will be paid by the property owner, but will be :passed on to the t6nant which will be passed on to the consumer in higher prices. We already know that the consumer does not enjoy shopping downtown when construction projects are underway. Now, we are proposing six years of major construction disruption in the 8 w ATTACHMENT downtown area, passing the cost of two retro-fits onto the tenant and thereby an additional price increase to the consumer. At a point, the margin of profit for some retailers will not be large enough to remain in business. Perhaps only a few at first, but during the six years more will fail and the consumer will lose confidence shopping in the downtown. The likelihood of additional business failures is very strong. The uniqueness and ambiance of downtown San Luis Obispo is something that we all want to preserve. The delicate balance between survival or failure of the downtown is dependent upon a vigorous and prosperous retail business. I fear that the cumulative impact of both the earthquake retro-fit and the proposed fire sprinkler retro-fit within the next six years will tip the scales to failure. Therefore, I cannot support an ordinance proposal, where the risk of failure is so great. Respecff 1� s b¢iitted, ;/. Ho{vard Carroll CC: SLO City Council plp� � ATTACHMENT (� IAllNan IUIs OBIS FIRE DEPARTMENT 748 Pismo Street•San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 •8051549-7380 April 16, 1990 Howard Carroll P.O. Box 1025 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Dear Howard: Thank you for your letter concerning the proposed fire-sprinkler amendme.nts. You have brought up many good points that are not answered in the original document sent out for public review. The original document is a general overview that does not delve into the dctail that your letter does. My responses to your questions will be in the same order as the questions in your letter. Question 1: Fire sprinklers are the highest level of fire protection available, is this reall._v needed in all downtown buildings? Is there an alternative? A. The answer to your question is yes, there is one intermediate level of fire protection. However, fire alarms would provide little advantage and the monev spent to go to an intermediate level would be better spent installing fire sprinklers in downtown buildings. This conclusion is based on the following: Fire protection can be broken into three basic levels. The first level is manual firc- suppression, this is the level we currently work at. At this level when a fire starts, most buildings rely on someone to discover the fire, then call the Fire Department. The next level of protection would be the installation of automatic fire alarms in all buildings, which in most cases would generally give quicker notification of a fire. However, once the alarm notification is complete, we then revert back to the manual fire-suppression level. The highest level would be automatic fire sprinklers. At this level the fire sprinklers sense the heat of the fire, one or more heads activates and extinguishes the fire and notifies the Fire Department. The sprinkler system encompasses both the previous levels, sensing the fire and notifying the Fire Department like the alarm system, but it also extinguishes the fire before it has time to grow. Whether this level is really needed is ultimately a political question. However as the department responsible for evaluating community fire risk, we believe that the proposed fire sprinkler amendments are necessary. Over the years, we have found that fire-alarm systems provide some added fire protection over non-alarmed buildings, however, alarm systems create numerous difficulties primarily due to false alarms and down time. It is obvious that it is better to receive a fire alarm when a fire has been burning only four or five minutes rather than for forty minutes, but we are now finding with the highly-flammable plastics used in building furnishings that even four minutes can be too long to wait. There are many local examples of fires with alarm systems. First, the Et Cetera fire was discovered when the flames were only two inches high, and the Fire Department was called immediately. This is much faster than any alarm system could have notified the Fire Department. Still, even with the Fire_ Department only three blocks away the building-,was lost. Second,'a-fire two years ago in the building on the corner of Johnson and Higuera had a working fire-alarm system. Despite the alarm system the building was still gutted and Accent on Travel tenant space was destroyed. Third, Engineering West at Cal Poly had a working fire-alarm system and the Fire Department was only one block away. The damage in that fire exceeded $1,000,000. Existing evidence indicates that this would not have happened to any of these buildings if fire sprinklers had been installed Howard Carroll -2- ATTACHMENT V Another fire-alarm problem is false alarms. Currently, the Fire Department responds to approximately 200 to 300 false alarms for every real fire reported by an alarm system. Each alarm causes the dispatch of five pieces of fire equipment, which is expensive and somewhat hazardous. In contrast, fire sprinklers falsely activate once in every 16,000,000 heads. Finally, I question if the money needed to install fire-alarms systems would be well spent. Recently General Hospital installed a new fire-alarm system, which cost over $175,000. A fire sprinkler system for the building would have cost between $400,000 and $600,000_ It is a common for a good fire-alarm system to cost approximately half of what a fire sprinkler system will cost. But the alarm system doesn't provide one-tenth the fire protection. Question 2: The City already has a fire sprinkler ordinance that is more comprehensive than the huilding code so, "How much protection do we need vs. how much does the Fire Department want?" A. First let me state that the Fire Department is trying to provide the best level of fire protection that is reasonably available, we feel that this is our job and what we are here for. But more directly to your question, the current ordinance does not address the downtown at all, it only covers new construction. With the current ordinance, the only way a downtown building would receive fire sprinklers is if it burns down or is torn down. Under the current ordinance, even the Et Cetera building, because of its size, could be rebuilt without fire sprinklers. Question 3: Where are the details from the Engineering Department to substantiate the S486,000 water line estimate, and what exactly is the City's proposed participation? A. The $486,000 figure came from the Engineering Department who calculated that the cost of installing a six inch underground, pipe and connections to the City main would be $2,500 per connection. We increased this to $3,000 to be safe in our estimates and multiplied it by the 162 buildings needing the connection. If the City is installing new water lines at the same time sprinkler connections are made, then connection costs would be lower. I have no way of guaranteeing City participation in the underground connection costs. Staff is recommending that the City participate, however, only the City Council can make that final decision. Question 4: Has the frequency in the number of fires per 1,000 people been increasing or decreasing with each level of fire protection available? A. The number of fires that start will not change with changes in levels of fire protection. The actual frequency of fires that require a fire department response increased last year by 4.6%, and fire deaths increased by 7.1%. According to the U.S. Census Bureau the population of the United States has grown at an annual rate of 1.1% for the period of 1980 to 1988, which are the latest figures they have available. Therefore, the number of fires and fire deaths per 1,000 people is increasing at least four times faster than the population. Your assumption that fire dollar loss.increases are a reflection of increases in-replacement values is incorrect The fire dollar toss figures provided by National Fire Protection Association are standardized on 1978 dollars to negate the effect of inflation. The fire dollar loss for last.year was $8.352 billion, a 16.7% increase over 1988. Howard Carroll _3_ ATTACHMENT While no level of fire protection will stop fires from occurring, fire sprinklers have dramatically reduced the number of fires that cause substantial damage. Unfortunately, until recently fire sprinklers were only installed in larger commercial occupancies so this is the only class of occupancies that has seen a reduction in fire loss. In the early 1980's smoke detectors did reduce the number of fire deaths in residential occupancies, but they had minimal effect on property loss. In the past two years residential fire deaths are again on the rise as these smoke detectors start to fail. Question 5: Eighty percent of fire deaths occur in residential structures; why not concentrate the fire protection where the greatest health and safety risk lies instead of in thz commercial sector. A. There are two separate problems we are trying to address with the proposed fire amendments. One you have stated - the problem with residential fires. To address this problem the amendment requires fire sprinklers in all new homes. The second problem we are trying to address is preserving our historic downtown, this is the retro-fit portion of the proposed amendments. If one home burns in the City one or more lives could be lost which is tragic. Almost as tragic would be the loss of the Andrews Building, the Fremont Theatre, the Presbyterian Church or very possibly an entire block of downtown. Much of our City history could easily be lost with one large downtown fire, which would have a significant financial impact on the downtown and the City as a whole. One last point, the 80% figure is for all residential properties not just single family dwellings. Many downtown buildings have residential units on upper floors increasing the likelihood of a fire and life loss in the downtown. Question 6: The Fire Department is currently inspecting every building once per year, are there additional measures short of sprinkling all buildings that would provide additional safety? A. Fire alarm systems and their limited effectiveness have already been discussed in your Question ttl. Additional safety could be provided by increasing the frequency of fire inspections which reduces fire hazards. However, in order to conduct more frequent inspections, personnel would need to be added which has an ongoing cost higher than the one time fire sprinkler cost. Question 7: What percentage of California Cities have passed a sprinkler ordinance similar to what is being proposed? A. This one I can't answer accurately since there are no sources available listing City or County ordinances. The study quoted in the Fire Department's report was completed in early 1989 and it did not break down ordinances into types. The number of cities that are passing sprinkler ordinances is increasing almost weekly. In late 1989, the League of California Cities passed a resolution recommending that all cities pass sprinkler ordinances. Cities are discovering that the only effective way to control fire-protection costs and reduce fire losses is through a zero- square-foot sprinkler ordinance. The number of sprinkler ordinances are therefore increasing. I can't give you a complete-ast of the California cities that have passed this type of ordinance, but I can give you an incomplete list of similar-sized cities that have recently passed this type of ordinance. They include, but are not limited to: Napa, Dana Point, Stanton, Seal Beach, Placentia, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Encinitas, Glendale, Claremount, Calver City, Moreno Valley, and Cypress. The cities and counties that are currently considering this type ,..,of„ordinance is even longer and includes:all of Orange County, Ventura s. City,3.akewood,•._ Redondo Beach, Redlands,"Vallejo, Palm Springs, Desert Hot Sprium-Palm0c's"c t, Rancho Mirage,and many other Howard Carroll _q_ ATTACHMENT Question 8: Why will there not be an immediate savings in the Fire Department? A. There are several reasons for not having an immediate personnel savings in the Fire Department. The first is that all of the buildings will not immediately have fire sprinklers installed. As proposed, it will take up to six years and possibly longer to retrofit all of the buildings in the downtown core only. This will still leave over 90% of the buildings in the City without fire sprinklers. Next, the Fire Department provides many other services besides fire suppression. In fact, over 66% of the Fire Department's emergency responses are for rnedical re ent is so vily involved aid. w Idlandfires, auto tand other ntypes oflfires,aheavy rescueand hveh ceuextrication.aterials rThesessame Fire Department personnel also conduct the yearly fire inspections. The real savings in a sprinkler ordinance is that the Fire Department would not have to cuntinuc to grow at the rate it would.grow wilhout the ordinance. As an example, Fresno passed a retro-fit ordinance for their downtown in 1969. At that time Fresno had five fire stations in the downtown area. Today they only have one downtown fire station and the City has the same total number of fire suppression personnel as they did in 1969, even though the City is almost three times the size. Without the sprinkler ordinance their fire department would be at least twice its current size. Additionally, even though there are only one-fifth the firefighters in the downtown that were there in 1969, the fire losses have been cut by 93.9% while the frequency of fires have increased by 8%. Question 9: If fire sprinklers are installed how much money will be saved in the downtown by reducing the water main sizes? A. Sprinklering all downtown buildings will allow water mains to be reduced in size. As an example, the recommended downtown fire flow without fire sprinklers is 5,000 gallons per minute. With fire sprinklers this can be reduced to 3,500 gallons per minute which equals at least a two inch reduction in most water main sizes. I am not sure what dollar savings this equates to, but if the entire downtown is retrofitted, it could be significant. Question 10: Will this amendment place San Luis Obispo within the 40.7 of California cities that have some type of retro-fit sprinkler ordinance? A. Yes Question 11: Considering the impact of installing the fire-sprinkler systems, new water mains, earthquake retro-fit, has there been a study to determine the economic impact of this proposed sprinkler ordinance on business and property owners? A. No_ To date, the economic impact has not been studied. However, the City's consultant, hired to develop the earthquake retro-fit program, will look at this. One thing that you may not be considering is that the earthquake retro-fits are required with or without the fire sprinkler requirement. Water lines will also need to be replaced even without the fire sprinklers. In fact, without the fire sprinklers it is more critical to replace the water lines. The disruption you speak of will occur even without the fire-sprinkler retro-fit. What doesn't make sense is to go through all of this disruption and not install the fire sprinklers. Think what a building owner, like yourself, would say about the City if we installed the new water lines, required the earthquake retro-fit, and then several years later a block of the downtown burned. The owners that had just paid $40.00 per square foot for the earthquake retro-fit would be furious that the City hadn't better protected their buildings from fire losses. Then assume because of the fire the Council decided to require a fire-sprinkler retro-fit as currently proposed. Everyone would say 'why didn't you have us do this when everything was torn up' We really believe this is a now or never situation. . .• q To I� • Howard Carroll _5_ ATTACHMENT(o As far as an Environmental Impact Report, the City of Santa Barbara was taken to court recently on exactly this same issue. The court found that the City was not required to complete an Environmental Impact Report. Question 12: What water line improvements will be needed inside and outside of the downtown? A. The City has commissioned John Wallace and Associates to complete a study of the downtown water system to answer this question. This study should be complete within the next two weeks. Question 13: Do we have low-interest loans being considered from the City or State for the earthquake retro-fit which has'been law since SB 547 was passed in 1986? A. Research for funding sources will be done by the consultant hired to develop the Unreinforced Masonry Program (URM)_ When this is complete, I hope we can answer your question concerning this issue. Question 14: There are hundreds of alternatives that are stepping stones to greater health and safety in the community, is it necessary to have the highest level of fire protection available overnight? A. I am totally unaware of the hundreds of alternatives you speak of. Fire alarms, addressed in Question 1, is one alternative, but it doesn't make sense to install fisc alarms or any other system now, and then install fire sprinklers later, in the stepping-stones approach you speak of'. Installing fire sprinklers later, after the earthquake retro-fit is completed and the new water lines are in, will cost much more than doing it in conjunction with these programs. Additionally, the money spent on the fire alarm system would be wasted as the fire sprinkler system performs the same function and also extinguishes the fire. Generally, a stepping stone or incremental approach to most projects makes sense but in this situation it does not appear to be a good alternative. First, as mentioned above, if we miss the opportunity to install the sprinklers in conjunction with the Unreinforced Masonry Program upgrade and new water lines are being installed, then we have missed the best opportunity we will ever have to put the sprinkler systems in at a reasonable cost. If we don't do it now then when will we do it? At what point have enough buildings burned or lives lost to make it the right time? Do we wait until the Fremont Theater meets the same fate as the Obispo Thcater? Would it not be better to be proactive and install the sprinklers now before any other buildings burn? Question 15: Why wasn't I invited to the meetings? A. I am sorry you did not hear about the meetings we held. The majority of the meetings were set up in coordination with the Chamber of Commerce and the BIA which we felt represented the downtown district. These organizations notified their members of the meetings, and I also believe these meetings were announced in each organization's newsletters. In an effort to get input from everyone concerned, we held three meetings with the Chamber and two with the B.I.A. Additionally, Fire Marshal Willis called you after he found out you were going to remodel one of your building and sent you one of the first copies of the sprinkler report. B, �Howard Carroll -6_ ATTACHMENT Question 16: Should sprinkler cost be compared to the total cost of a house or the just construction cost of the house? A. Generally, when a person buys a home the person only cares about the total cost of the home. We, therefore, feel it is more appropriate to say how much the sprinklers will add to the total cost, not the construction cost. If a house costs $300,000 the person buying the house doesn't care if it's $300,000 because the lot was $100,000 and the construction was $200,000 or the other way around, he only cares about the bottom line. Question 17: The Fire Department's cost range of $1.25 to $1.75 for commercial sprinkler systems with City assistance seems wrong. A. There was a typographical error in the chart on Page 10. The range we quoted in the report on page 8 for new commercial construction is $1.25 to $3.75 per square foot. The cost for the downtown retro-fit is correctly stated on page 9 of the report and states the cost of the retro- fit in the downtown is approximately $3.75 per square foot without City participation and approximately $2.50 with City participation. Sorry for the error. Question 18: Why is my bid for my building $3.00 per square foot? A. When you dropped off your letter you stated that Frank Rheinisch of S & M Sprinklers had provided you with a retrotfit estimate for your building. Since Frank was one of the sprinkler contractors who provided the information for our estimates, my staff contacted him to see why your bid was higher than the $2.50 estimate he had provided us.' it appears there must have been some type of miscommunication on your bid amounts. He told my staff that your bid was $2.50 per square foot for the second floor, $2.25 per square foot on the first floor and $1.50 per square foot for the basement. Question 19: My insurance savings is only $150.00 per year; this will not pay for the sprinkler system in the time frame stated, why not? A. We have found that some fire insurance companies do not give as large a discount for fire sprinklers as others. If you shop around you should be able to find a greater savings. The least expensive insurance company without fire-sprinklers is often not the least expensive with fire sprinklers. As you stated your company will give a 40% to 50% discount on the fire insurance for fire sprinklers in wood framed buildings. We find this is the common discount for most types of buildings. Additionally, the greater the hazard the building presents the greater the discount. For instance buildings that have bars, restaurants, and residential units receive greater sprinkler discounts than do office buildings. Additionally, the insurance price you are quoting appears to be for protection of the structure only, and as you state, the insurance reduction for a cement building, that would not burn, is expected to be small. However, the insurance for contents and business continuation insurance would be much greater as the contents burn no matter what type of building they are in. When you look at insurance savings resulting from the installation of fire sprinklers you need to look at the entire fire insurance package, i.e. building, contents and business continuance insurance. Question 20: What will the final map be? A. The map that you have is the map that is proposed. The statement at the B.I.A. Town Hall Meeting was that we are willing to work with the community if there is a better map that should be used. To date no'one has suggested a definitive alternative map although we have looked at the B.IA zone as an alternative.The City Council will make the final decision on .what area is affected by the retrofit. 'Howard Carroll -7- Question 21: Will you really work with people? A. You state that you were told by people in the building trades that the Fire Department will interpret everything exactly as the Fire and Building Code states - period. I am not sure that is all bad because it provides consistency and everyone is treated equally. However, I also believe we are flexible when needed. As an example, we recently worked with the Architect doing the remodel on one of your buildings. When he could not get the required 6' 8" headroom for the basement exits without extensively altering the first floor, we allowed him to install the stairs with only 6' 3" of headroom. To try and be both consistent and flexible, we are proposing to develop our own fire-sprinkler standards for small buildings in the downtown. This standard will allow a two-inch water service to the fire sprinklers instead of the national standard of four inch. We would also reduce the required flow area to be covered by the systems. Both of these will reduce the cost of the fire-sprinkler system. Question 22: What will happen to property owners that are in the process of a remodel now, that are not required to have a sprinkler system? A. In this situation, which is the situation you are in, the fire sprinkler system is not required. You would have six years to install the sprinkler system, the same as everyone else. Installing a sprinkler system now would most likely save you money and disruption later, but it is not required. Question 23: If a property owner installs sprinklers now, will the City reimburse the property owner for the water main and/or laterals development costs if the City later decides to participate in the program? A. This has not been decided at this time. The Fire Department will recommend to the City Council that the City refund the City's cost of installing the underground piping to any building owner that installs their own underground in the downtown after the passage of this amendment. Refunds without this provision would be controversial. As example, would the refund extend back to people who installed their systems six months ago, or one year, or even further? Question 24: Have you tried to get a conventional loan on commercial property lately? A. No, but we have contacted some of the banks that you noted. Here is what we found: Sharon Young District Manager for Wells Fargo stated that Wells Fargo is making Commercial loans including loans on property that require earthquake retro-fits, as long as the earthquake retro- fit is done as part of the package; Mary Chastain from Bank of America stated that they are making commercial loans over $50,000 - under $50,000 they make Line of Credit loans for commercial uses; Rick Pando of Mid-State Bank stated that they are making commercial loans called Term To Business loans; Glenda Whinery, from Security Pacific Bank, stated that they are making commercial loans in amounts over $5,000. Most of these loans are variable rates and ranged from 11.69% to 12.5%. It appears that most banks are making commercial loans although they may have a different name. As I understand it, savings and loans are not making any loans that they can not sell to the Federal Government through the FANNIE MAE and GINNIE MAE programs. This may or may not include commercial buildings. Even if some banks and many savings and loans are not currently making commercial loans that does not mean that this will be the situation next year or even next month. Remember, this will be at least a six year program and things in the banking industry will change during this time frame. Hownrd Carroll _ _g_ ATTACHMENT ne last item concerning a loan for the installation of a fire-sprinkler system. I checked with ''.'ells Fargo to see what the loan payments would be for a loan to instngs. The loan payment if P person owns the building would be $125 per month for the 3,000 square foot building and ;;41C for the 7,500 square foot building. This would raise the rent in both buildings by about J..04 per square foot per month. This seems to be a.small increase that should have minimal invncial impact on the downtown merchants. Question 25: What is a major remodel, and how is it determined? A. This is found in the Sprinkler Code Amendment Section (Green Tab) Page 1, Item 4. A major remodel is defined as when the cast of the icmodcl exceeds 50% of the building vaiue. The . current building values will be determined by the Building Official. He will determine this value using the International Conference of Building Officials' Building Values, which is published bi-monthly. This publication assigns building values based on the use of the building, type of construction, and location of the building.. The value of the remodel will be provided by the owner of the building and verified by contracts for the remodel. There will be no appraisal fees to deal with. Question 26: Do you have statistics for a 24-hour smoke/heat alarms system wired to the Fire Department? A. Yes, they were identified in Question I. Qu--stion 27: Does the 400,000 square feet of floor area include all floors. mezzanines, attics, basements, etc. A. No, the 400,000 square foot figure came from the Building Department and includes "usable floor area" which would be all floors, mezzanines, and basements, but not attics. I hope I have adequately answered your questions, if I have not or if you have additional questions please contact me. Again thank you for your interest and input in our proposal. Sincerely, MICHAEL P. DOLDER Fire Chief cc: City Council, via John Dunn, CAO J ATTACHMENT Attachment #4 Excerpts from the DOWNTOWN WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS, Evaluation Section (pages 7 and 8) completed by John Wallace and Associates Dy lob ATTACHMENT ORDINANCE NO. 1170 (1990 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, AMENDING TITLE 15, CHAPTER 15.08 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT THE LATEST EDITION OF THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE AND MAKE EDITORIAL AND MINOR CHANGES AND DELETIONS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT THE IMPOSITION OF REQUIREMENTS WHICH ARE GREATER THAN THE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY OR PURSUANT TO THE STATE BUILDING CODE. WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo hasnumerous fires in structures which causes extensive property and possible life loss; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has limited fire-fighting resources; and WHEREAS, automatic fire-sprinkler systems have been found to be an efficient and effective means of combatting fire; and WHEREAS, it is the desire and intent of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo to provide the citizens with the greatest degree of fire and life-safety in the most cost-effective manner; by adopting that body of regulations generally referred to as the Uniform Fire Code with amendments specific to the City of San. Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, the California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 4, Part 1.5, Division XIII, Section 17958, Section 17958.5 and Section 17958.7 requires the Council, before making any modifications or changes pursuant to Health and Safety Code, Section 17958.5, to make an express finding that each such modification or change is needed; and, WHEREAS, the California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.5 requires that such changes must be determined to be reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geographical. or topographical conditions; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo found by Ordinance No. 943 (1983 Series), adopted on the January 18, 1983, that the Uniform Fire Code as adopted should be changed or modified by amendments which have been previously approved by the Department of Housing and Community Development of the State of California; and, ATTACHMENT6 WHEREAS, Sec. 2.303(c), Sec. 4.101, Sec. 9.108, Sec. 9.121, Sec. 10.206, Sec. 10.207(b,c,), Sec. 10.210 Sec. 10.301(a,b,e) Sec. 10.307(a), Sec. 10.309(a), Sec. 10.310, Sec. 10.312(c), Sec. 10.501(b), Sec. 10.502(a), Sec. 11.101(a), Sec. 11210, Sec. 11.404(e,f,g,h), Sec. 11.416, Sec. 79.301, Sec. 79.501, Sec. 82.102(a,c) of the Uniform Fire Code have had previous findings made for their modification and said findings as contained in Ordinance No. 943 (1983 Series) have been transmitted to the Department of Community Development and have been accepted; and, WHEREAS, such findings must be made available as a public record and a copv thereof with each such modification or change shall be filed with the Department of Housing and Community Development, State of California: NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED that the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo affirms the findings justifying the previous changes and modifications as contained in Ordinance No. 943 (1983 Series); BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that said Council hereby determines that Sections 4.108, 9.108, 9.121, 10.202, 10.207(b,m), 10.301(b,c), 10303(a), 10.306(b,c,d,e,f,g,h), 10.307, 10.501, 10,501(a), 10.502, 11.101, 11.210, 14,105, 14105(a,c), 14.106, 61.106, 79301(b), 79.501, 81.102, 82.104 of the 1988 Uniform Fire Code are required to be modified due to the findings contained herein to greater requirements than those set forth in the California State Building Standards Code; BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the City Council that each of the changes or modifications to measures referred to therein are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geographical, or topographical conditions in the area encompassed by the boundaries of the City of San Luis Obispo, and the City Council further finds that the following findings support the local necessity for the changes or modifications: FINDING 1 That the City of San Luis Obispo is situated at the base of the Santa Lucia Mountains with drainages from San Luis, Chorro, Stenner, Old Garden, and Brizzolara Creeks, which flood with resulting conditions rendering fire department vehicular traffic unduly burdensome or impossible as witnessed in major floods that occurred in 1952, 1961, 1969, 1973, 1978, 1982. Further, flood conditions, described 2 'A� 1001 ATTACHMENT (o above, carries with it a potential for overcoming the ability of the fire department to aid or assist in fire control, evacuations, rescues and their emergency task demands inherent in such situations. Further, the potential for the aforementioned flooding conditions to result in limiting fire department emergency vehicular traffic with resulting overtaxed fire department personnel, may further cause a substantial or total lack of protection against fire for the buildings and structures located in the City of San Luis Obispo. Furthermore, the afore-described conditions support the imposition of fire protection requirements greater than those set forth in the State Building Standards Code and in particular, support the imposition of the greater requirements than set forth in Articles 4, 9,10, 11, 61, 79, and 82 of the 1988 Uniform Fire Code. FINDING 2 That the City of San Luis Obispo is situated near three major faults each capable of generating earthquakes with a magnitude of 7S. These are the San Andreas to the east of the City, the Nacirriiento-Rinconada that crosses Hwy 101 north of the City then parallels the City to the east, and the Hosgri to the West. Other faults of importance are the Huasna and West Huasna to the Southeast of the City; the San Simeon to the Northwest; Edna, and the Edna Extended faults which enter the southern areas of the City. In as much as these faults are included as major California earthquake faults, which are subject to becoming active at any time, the City of San Luis Obispo is particularly vulnerable to devastation should such an earthquake occur. The potential effects include isolating the City of San Luis Obispo from the North and South due to the potential of collapsing of freeway overpasses or a slide on both the Cuesta and Ontario Grades; and the potential for horizontal or vertical movement of the Edna fault, rendering surface travel across the southern extremities of the City unduly burdensome or impossible. Additional potential situations inherent in such an occurrence include: loss of the City's two main water sources, the Salinas and Whale Rock reservoirs, broken natural-gas mains causing structure and other fires, leakage of hazardous materials, the need for rescues from collapsed structures, and the rendering of first aid and other medical attention to large numbers of people. The protection of human life and the preservation of property in the event of such an occurrence support the imposition of fire protection requirements greater than those set forth in the State Building Standards Code and in particular, support the imposition of the greater requirements than set forth in Articles 4, 9,10, 11, 61, 79, and 82 of the 1988 Uniform Fire Code. FINDING 3 That the particular geographical status of the central commercial area in the City of San Luis Obispo 3 M_ �D�L ATTACHMENT6 consists of mixed conditions which hold forth the potential for possible conflagration. This situation includes congested streets during the business day, numerous older buildings without adequate internal fire resistiveness and contemporary low-rise buildings, which taken together actually exceed the fire suppression capabilities of regional firefighting personnel. The continued development of the San Luis Obispo commercial area and the current.and potential development of high-rise buildings will pose a substantial threat to human life and public safety and to the preservation of property against fire and support the imposition of fire protection requirements greater than those set forth in the California State Building Standards Code as adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo, California, in 1982 and 1985, and in particular, support the imposition of the requirements set forth in the State Building Standards Code and in particular, support the imposition of the greater requirements than set forth in Articles 4, 9,10, 11, 61, 79, and 82 of the 1988 Uniform Fre Code. FINDING 4 That the City of San Luis Obispo is bisected by a major freeway (Hwy 101), traversing in the north/south direction and'a major highway (Hwy 1) traversing in an east/west direction. .T ie City is also transected by a mainline railroad which traverses in the north/south direction. It is a frequent occurrence for the aforementioned highways and railway to support the transportation of hazardous materials. The potential for release or threatened release of a hazardous material along one of these routes is highly probable given the volume transported daily. Incidents of this nature will normally require all available emergency response personnel to prevent injury and loss of life, and to prevent as far as practicable, property losses. Emergency personnel responding to such aforementioned incidents, may be unduly impeded and delayed in accomplishing an emergency response as a result of this situation with the potential result of undue and unnecessary risk to the protection of life and public safety and in particular, endangering residents and occupants in buildings or structures without the protection of automatic fire sprinklers. The afore-described problems support the imposition of fire protection requirements greater than those set forth in the State Building Standards Code and in particular, support the imposition of the greater requirements than set forth in Articles 4, 9,10, 11, 61, 79, and 82 of the 1988 Uniform Fire Code. FINDING 5 The seasonal climatic conditions during the late summer and fall create numerous serious difficulties to the control and protection against fire situations in the City of San Luis Obispo. The hot, dry weather in combination with Santa Ana winds frequently results in wildland tires in the thousands of 4 � (�� ATTACHMENT �- brush-covered slopes in the Santa Lucia Mountains, San Luis Mountain, and the Irish Hills areas of the City of San Luis Obispo. The aforementioned areas completely surround the City. When a fire occurs in such areas, such as occurred in 1985 when the Los Pilitas fire burned six days and entered the City and damaged many structures, the entirety of local fire department personnel is required to control, monitor, fight and protect against such fire situations in an effort to protect life and preserve property and watershed land. The same climatic conditions may result in the concurrent occurrence of one or more fires in the more populated areas of the City without adequate fire department personnel to protect against and control such a situation. Further, the effect of Santa Ana winds and extremely dry weather upon the upper floors of a multi-story building can create situations which endanger life and property. Therefore, the above-described factual findings support the imposition of fire-protection requirements greater than those set forth in the State Building Standards Code and in particular, support the imposition of the greater requirements than set forth in Articles 4, 9,10, 11, 61, 79, and 82 of the 1988 Uniform Fire Code. FINDING 6 That the more-restrictive modifications requiring automatic fire-sprinkler systems in buildings evidenced by the afore-described findings allow a trade-off for, and reduction of, other less effective fire-resistive components of a building and support the acceptance of requirements lesser than those set forth in State Building Standards Code and, in particular, support the imposition of lesser requirements than those set forth in Article 10 of the 1988 Uniform Fire Code. BE IT ORDAINED by the said Council that the State Building Standards Code, required to be adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo, should be modified, changed and amended, as provided for in the ordinance attached hereto, based upon the foregoing findings and that said Council takes the afore-described action because of the public interest in protecting life and preserving public safety and property. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Clerk be and hereby is authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of this ordinance, adopting and modifying the Uniform Fire Code, to the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: 5 _do's ATTACHMENt SECTION 1: Chapter 15.08 of Title 15 of the San Luis Obispo the Municipal Code is hereby repealed and replaced by a new Chapter 15.08 to read as follows: SECTION 2. CHAPTER 15.08 15.08.010 ADOPTION There is hereby adopted by the City Council for the purpose of prescribing regulations governing conditions hazardous to life and property from fire and explosion, a certain fire-prevention code known as the "UNIFORM FIRE CODE", recommended by the Western Fire Chiefs Association and the International Conference of Building Officials, being particularly the 1988 Edition, including appendices I-A, I-C, II-A, II-B, II-D, III-A, III-D, IV-A, V-A, VI-A, VI-B, VI-D and VI-E, and except such portions as are modified by Section 15.08.040 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, of which code not less than three (3) copies have been and are now filed in the office of the City Clerk of San Luis Obispo certified as true copies by the City Clerk, and the same are hereby adopted and.incorporated fully as if set out in length herein, and from the date on which this Section shall take effect the provisions thereof shall supersede the previous edition of the Uniform Fire Code adopted by the City Council and shall be controlling within the limits of the City of San Luis Obispo. 15.08.020 Bureau of fire prevention-Established-Duties of the chief of the fire department. A. The fire prevention code shall be enforced by the bureau of fire prevention in the fire department of the city which is hereby established and which shall be operated under the supervision of the chief of the fire department. B. The chief in charge of the bureau of fire prevention shall be the chief of the fire department. C. The chief of the fire department may detail such members of the fire department as shall from time to time be necessary. The chief of the fire department shall recommend to the city administrative officer the employment of technical inspectors, who, when such authorization is made, shall be selected through an examination to determine their fitness for the position. 6 L' -holo . ATTACHMENTS 15.08.030 Authority having jurisdiction defined Whenever the words "authority having jurisdiction" is used in the fire-prevention code, it shall be held to mean the City of San Luis Obispo. 15.08.040 Amendments—Generally. The provisions of the Uniform Fire Code, hereinafter referred to as UFC, 1988 Edition, are amended, supplemented and repealed as set forth in Section 15.08.050 through 15.08.350 15.08.050 SECTION 4.10& amended—Permit Required Section 4.108 is amended to add a second paragraph to read as follows: Permits are obtained from the San Luis Obispo City Fire Department (Fire Prevention Bureau). A fee may be charged for Fre Department permits. The amount of these fees shall be established by resolution of the City Council. The Chief may waive or reduce permit fees so established when he determines that to do so would be consistent with the best interests of the City and_Fire Department. 15.08.060 SECTION 4.108.4.2.1. amended—Permit Required. Section 4.108.a.2.1 added to read as follows: To install or modify any fire alarm equipment prior to starting work. 15.08.070 SECTION 9.108 amended---Sorority house defined. Section 9.108 is amended to add a definition of Fraternity House to read: FRATERNITY HOUSE (OR SORORITY HOUSE) means a building or buildings occupied by six (6) or more college or university students who are members of a social or educational association and/or where such an association holds gatherings. Fraternity House and Sorority House shall be classified as R-1 occupancies as defined in the Uniform Building Code. 15.08.080 SECTION 9.121 amended—Sorority house defined. Section 9.121 is amended to add a definition of Sorority House and read: Sorority House (see Fraternity House Section 9.108 UFC). _�0av ATTACHMENT 15.08.090 SECTION 10102. amended—Tampering with Fire Hydrant or Fire Appliance Section 10.202 is amended as follows: No person shall remove from service, alter, tamper with or otherwise disturb any fire hydrant, fire appliance, fire-alarm system or automatic sprinkler-system required to be installed or maintained under the provisions of this code or by the Fire Department except for the purpose of extinguishing a fire, training purposes, recharging, making necessary repairs or when permitted by the Fire Department. Whenever a fire appliance or any of the above systems is removed as herein permitted, it shall be replaced or reinstalled as soon as the purpose for which it was removed has been accomplished. 15.08.100 SECTION 10.207.(b) amended—Fire access roads. Section 10.207.(b) is amended to as follows: (b) Where Required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be required for every building hereafter constructed when any portion of an exterior wall of the fust story is located more than 150 feet from Fire Department vehicle access. EXCEPTIONS: 1. When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, this distance may be increased to 300 feet, 2. When access roadways cannot be installed due to topography, waterways, non-negotiable grades or other similar conditions, the chief may require additional fire protection as specified in Section 10301.(b). 3. When there are not more than two Group R, Division 3 or Group M occupancies, the requirements of this section may be modified, provided, in the opinion of the chief, fire- fighting or rescue operations would not be impaired. More than one fire apparatus road may be required when it is determined by the chief that access by a single road may be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access. For high-piled combustible storage, see Section 81.109. 8 —` ` J ATTACHMENT 15.08.110 SECTION 10.207.(m) added—Authority to have vehicles in violation of Sections 10.206 and . 10.207(k) removed—Fire appliances. Section 10.207(m) is added to read as follows: The Chief and his authorized representatives shall have the power and authority to remove or cause to be removed, without notice, any vehicle, or object parked or placed in violation of UFC Sections 10.206 or 10.207(k). The owner of any item so removed shall be responsible for all towing, storage and other charges incurred. 15.08.120 SECTION 10301.(b) amended—Special Hazards Section 10.301(b) is amended as follows: In occupancies of an especially hazardous nature or where special hazards exist in addition to the normal hazard of the occupancy, or where access for fire apparatus is unduly difficult, or the location is beyond the four-minute response time of the Fre Department, or the location is above the water-service height limit, additional safeguards may be required consisting of additional fire- appliance units, more than one type of appliance, or special systems suitable for the protection of the hazard involved. Such devices or appliances may consist of, but are not limited to, automatic fire-alarm systems, automatic sprinkler or water-spray systems, standpipe and hose, fixed or portable fire-extinguishers, Nomex blankets, breathing apparatus, manual or automatic covers, carbon dioxide, foam, halogenated and dry chemical or other special fire-extinguishing systems. Where such systems are installed, they shall be in accordance with applicable Uniform Fire Code Standards or standards of the National Fire Protection Association when the Uniform Fre Code Standards do not apply. Other improvements such as fire-rated construction or fire-retardant or non-combustible roof and/or , exterior coverings may also be required. 15.08.130 SECTION 10301.(c) amended—Water supply. Section 10.301 is amended as follows: (c) Water Supply. An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire-flow for fire protection shall be provided to all premises upon which buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed. When any portion of the building protected is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the 9 R` ��( f7ACHMENT �0 building, there shall be provided, when required by the chief, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire-flow. EXCEPTION: For buildings not in a wildland interface area where the building is protected by an approved fire-sprinkler system throughout, the distance may be increased to 300 feet. Water supply may consist of reservoirs, pressure tanks, elevated tanks, water mains or other fixed systems connected to the municipal water system and capable of providing the required fire-flow. In setting the requirements for fire-flow, the chief may be guided by the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule published by the Insurance Services Office, 1980. EXCEPTION: For a building protected by an approved fire-sprinkler system throughout, the required fire-flow may be reduced by 50%. The location, number and type of fire hydrants connected to a water supply capable of delivering the required fire-flow shall be provided on the public street or on the site of the premises to be protected as required and approved by the chief. All hydrants shall be accessible to the fire department apparatus by roadways meeting the requirements of Section 10.207. EXCEPTION: For areas not in the wildland interface where all buildings in the area are protected by an approved fire-sprinkler system throughout, the allowable distance between hydrants may be increased by 50%. 15.09.140 SECTION 10.303.(a) amended—Fire Extinguishers Section 10.303(a) is amended as follows: General. Portable fire extinguishers shall be installed in occupancies and locations as set forth in this code, or as may be determined by the chief. Portable fire extinguishers shall be in accordance with U.F.C. Standard No. 10-1. The minimum fire extinguisher requirement shall be the. installation of one (1) approved 2-A:10- B:C as rated by Underwriters Laboratories fire extinguisher for every 3,000 square feet of floor arca or 75 feet of floor travel; whichever is greater. 10 — 1,� XTACHMENT 0 15.08.150 SECTION 103K(b) amended—Automatic Fire-extinguishing Systems Section 10.306 is amended follows: All new occupancies. An automatic sprinkler-system shall be installed and maintained in all new occupancies regardless of floor area or occupancy type. Residential or,quick-response standard sprinklers shall be used in dwelling units and guest-room portions of all buildings. All systems shall conform to the appropriate National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards 13, 13D and the San Luis Obispo City Fire Department. EXCEPTION: Detached Group M occupancies not exceeding 500 square feet in floor area and located at least 10 feet from adjacent buildings and 5 feet from adjacent property ---- lines. 15.08.160 SECTION 10306.(c) amended Automatic Fire-extinguishing Systems, Existing Occupancies Section 10306.(c) is amended as follows: All Existing Occupancies. Automatic fire-sprinkler systems shall be installed and maintained in all existing buildings as follows; 1. Existing buildings that are in the commercial fire-zone as established in Section 10501. of the Uniform Fre Code as amended by the City of San Luis Obispo shall have an automatic sprinkler system installed and operational throughout by January 1, 2000. 2) Throughout existing and new sections of any existing building whenever total additions result in an increase of more than 1,000 square feet•in the total floor area, including mezzanines or additional stories. The total additional area shall be cumulative with each addition to the building. 3) Throughout existing and new sections of any existing building whenever alterations exceed fifty percent (50%) of the replacement value, as determined by the Building Official. Alteration values shall be cumulative with each application for a Building Permit. 11 ATTACHMENT EXCEPTION: 1. Group R, Division 3 and Group M occupancies (one and two family dwellings). 2. Alterations limited to interior and exterior painting, carpeting, interior window coverings, drapes, interior non-bearing partitions, surface re-roofing or plumbing, mechanical or electrical repairs. 4) Throughout existing and new sections of an existing building for which there is an occupancy classification change to a more hazardous use, as determined by the Fire Chief. 5) At the top of rubbish and linen chutes and in their terminal rooms. Chutes extending through three or more floors shall have additional sprinkler heads installed within such chutes at alternate floors. Sprinkler heads shall be accessible for servicing. 6) In rooms where nitrate film is stored or handled. 7) In protected combustible fiber storage vaults as defined in the Fire Code. 15.08.170 SECTION 10306.(d) amended Automatic Fire-extinguishing Systems, floor area. Section 10306.(d) is amended as follows: Floor Area. For the purpose of requiring the automatic fire-sprinkler systems specified in this chapter the floor area within the surrounding exterior walls shall be considered as one building.. Area separation walls as set forth in the UBC shall not be used in calculating allowable floor area for sprinkler requirements.. 15.08.180 SECTION 10306.(e) amended—Automatic Fire-extinguishing Systems, Notification. Scction 10306.(e) is amended as follows: Notification. Whenever the Fire Department determines by inspection, that a building does not conform to the minimum requirements of Subsection (c) 1 of this Section, it shall prepare a fircAife-safety notice in writing that an automatic fire-sprinkler system be installed in the building. The notice shall specify in what manner the building fails to meet the minimum requirements of 12 ATTACHMENT �O Subsection (c) 1 of this Section. It shall direct that plans be submitted, and that necessary permits be obtained not later than January 1, 1999 and that the automatic sprinkler system be installed not later than January 1, 2000. The Fire Department shall serve the notice, either personally or by certified or registered mail, upon the owner as shown on the last-equalized assessment roll and upon the person, if any, in real or apparent charge or control of the building.. 15.08.190 SECTION 10306.(f) amended—Automatic Fire-extinguishing Systems, Recordation. Section 10.306.(0 is amended as follows: Recordation. At the time that the Fire Department serves the aforementioned order or notice, the Fire Department shall file with the Office of the County Recorder, a certificate stating that the subject building does not meet the minimum fire-safety requirements of Subsection (c) 1 and that the owner thereof has been so notified. After all necessary corrective work has been performed, the Fire Department shall file with the Office of the County Recorder, a certificate terminating the status of the subject building as non- conforming to the minimum fire-safety requirements of Subsection (c) 1 of this Section. 15.08.200 SECTION 10306.(g) amended.—Automatic Fire-extinguishing Systems, Enforcement Section 10306.(g) is amended as follows: Enforcement. If the owner or other person in charge and control of the subject building fails to comply with the aforementioned order or notice within the time periods set forth in Subsection (e) of this Section, the owner is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both fine and imprisonment. A person is guilty of a separate offense each day during which he commits, continues or permits a violation of Subsection (c) 1 of this Section. 15.08.210 SECTION 10.306.(h) amended—Automatic Fire-extinguishing Systems, Standards. Section 10.306.(h) is amended as follows: Standards. All automatic fire-sprinkler systems required by this Section, shall comply with those standards and written policies established of the San Luis Obispo City Fire Department. 13 ��'I ATTACHMENT 15.08.220 SECTION 10.307. amended—Sprinkler System Supervision Alarms. Section 10.307 is amended as follows: All automatic sprinkler-systems shall be supervised by a Central Station listed by Underwriters Laboratories for reciving fire alarms. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Isolated specialty systems such as spray paint-booth systems or isolated installations in closets and storage spaces unless the entire occupancy is also equipped with an automatic sprinkler-system. 2. Residential sprinkler systems for single-family dwellings or duplexes. 15.08.230 SECTION 10.501. added—Fire resistive construction. Section 10.501 is added to read as follows: There is hereby established a commercial fire-zone established by the Chief, outlined on a map of the City of San Luis Obispo, Exhibit A, copies of which are on file in the offices of the City Clerk and the Fire Department. 15.08.240 SECTION 10.501.(a) added—Construction of interior walls, permanent partitions and enclosures. Section 10.501.(x) is added to read as follows: All new construction within the commercial fire-zone established by the Chief shall hereafter require interior walls, floors, ceilings and partitions to be constructed with 5/8" Type "X" gypsum wall-board or its equivalent regardless of all other lesser minimum requirements to the contrary. This requirement applies to all additions, and alterations, as defined in the Uniform Building Code. EXCEPTION: Buildings protected throughout by an approved fire-sprinkler system. 15.08.250 SECTION 10.502. added—Roof covering. Section 10.502 is added to read as follows: It shall be unlawful to install or cause to be installed, wood-shake or wood-shingle roofs on any building. In cases where buildings to be rc-roofed have different roof coverings present, the least combustible covering shall be used as the minimum standard of replacement. - A. rACHMENT EXCEPTION:Remodels and additions where less than 50% of the original roof area requires a new roof covering may use Underwriters Laboratories listed fire treated wood covering. The 50% area is a cumulative area that may not be exceeded at any time. 15.08.260 SECTION 11.101.(a) amended—Refuse burning. Section 11.101 is amended to add a third sentence to read as follows: No waste matter, combustible material or refuse shall be burned in the open air within the City, except for agricultural, ceremonial or similar types of fires when authorized by the Chief. 15.08.270 SECTION 11.210.added—Exterior awnings. Section 11.210 is added to read as follows: All exterior awnings connected or adjacent to buildings shall be made from either fabric which has been flame-resistant treated with an approved exterior chemical process by an approved application concern, or from inherently flame-resistant fabric approved and listed by the State Fire Marshal for exterior use. Certificates of flame-resistance or other documentation acceptable to the Chief shall be available on the premises to affirm the flame-resistance of all fabrics and materials used as part of exterior awnings. EXCEPTION: Single-family and small two-family dwellings not exceeding two stories in height. 15.08.280 SECTION 14.105.(a) amended—Fire alarm systems, special provisions Section 14.105.(a) is amended as follows: All required fire detection systems installed in Group A through R-1 occupancies shall be supervised by a central station listed by Underwriters Laboratories for receiving fire alarms within one year after the adoption of this code. A U.L. "Central Station Signaling System Certificate" shall be provided to the Fire Department upon request. 15.08.290 SECTION 14.105.(c) amended—Fire alarm systems, annunciation. Section 14.105.(c) is amended as follows: 15 ��l �- An. . 'HMENT (� All fire alarm systems shall be zoned as required by the Fire Department. Multi-story buildings shall be zoned per floor as a minimum. All multi-zone fire alarm systems shall be provided with an approved graphic annunciator in a location acceptable to the fire department. EXCEPTION: Buildings where the location of a fire would be readily apparent as determined by the Fire Department. 15.08.300 SECTION 14.106. amended—Fire alarm systems. maintenance. Section 14.106 is amended as follows: The installation, testing, inspection, monitoring and maintenance and repair of fire alarm systems shall be in accordance with Underwriters Laboratories and the appropriate National Fire Protection Association Standards. 15.08.310 SECTION 61.106.(e) added—Unvented fuel-burning heaters—Display for sale. Section 61.106.(e) is added to read as follows: Any unvented fuel-burning room heaters on display for retail sale shall be accompanied by a conspicuous warning sign readable from the display aisle stating: "It is illegal to sell or use unvented fuel-burning heaters for residential use" 15.08:320 SECTION 79.301.(b) amended-Stationary tanks for storage of Class I, II, II-A liquids—in buildings. Section 79.301.(b) is amended as follows: Where Allowed. Stationary tanks for the storage of Class I, II, or IIl-A liquids shall not be installed inside buildings. 15.08.330 SECTION 79.501. amended—Storage of Class I and II liquids in aboveground tanks outside of buildings. Section 79.501 is amended as follows: The storage of Class I and Class II liquids in aboveground tanks outside of buildings is prohibited. 15.08.340 SECTION 82.102.(d) added—Plans for approval of Liquefied Petroleum Gases. Section 82.102.(d) is added as follows: ATTACHMENT Plans for approval of LPG tank installations must be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. 15.08.350 SECTION 82.104.(b) amended—Maximum capacity of liquefied petroleum gas tanks. Section 82.104.(b) is amended as follows: Maximum Capacity Within Established Limits. The installation of any liquid-petroleum gas tank over 500 gallons water capacity is prohibited. SECTION 3: If any provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City of San Luis Obispo hereby declares that it would have passed each and every remaining provision irrespective.of such holding in order to accomplish the intent of this ordinance. SECTION 4: A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the ayes and noes shall be published at least (5) days prior to its final passage in the Telegram Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in said City, and the same shall go into effect ai the expiration of thirty (30) days after its said final passage. A copy of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file in the Office of the City Clerk on and after the date following introduction and passage to print and shall be available to any interested member of the public. 17 pA� 1, -' ATTACHMENT �o INTRODUCED AND FINALLY PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at a meeting held on the 15th day of May , 1990, on motion of Councilwoman Councilman Rappa seconded by Roalman and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Rappa, Roalman, Pinard, Reiss, and Mayor Dunin NOES None ABSENT: None OR MAYOR Ron Dunin CITY LERK Pam4 Voges stss * APPROVED BY: c CITY AD INISTRATIVE OFFICERFINANCE DI44 RECTOR T TT RNE FIRE CHIEF 18 ATTACHMENT � Ordinance No. 1170 FINALLY PASSED this 4th _ day of June 19 90 on motion of Councilman Roalman seconded by Councilwoman Pinard and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Roalman, Pinard, Rappa, Reiss, and Mayor Dunin NOES: None ABSENT: None A ayor Ron Dunin ATTEST: City Jerk Pam Vog s '1 • '- -, Exhibit A ATTACHMENT fo v 3 S O > to T_ m D 2 m n -_ N .- __—_ > =-1 N N BEACH T 0 o � NIPOM O ST 1300900 O p O > O r 1 z CW BROAD I m o ❑�❑ m r o ROAD ST. fz a &� GARDE N Si._-_ O Q d CHORR 130I rcHORRO ST. o P 0 — — ---- Q q w MORRO I MORRO ST. p a to Es Flo OSOS ST. .1300 _700 10SOS ST. c;a - e 1 b � SANTA ROSA - - - �J E SANTA ROSA p go o - - o 0 —�' 7_7 I I > J --_ -- .n IO / 1 1 O -9a0 700 PEPPER ST. 13: V 3 'Oi :>I I> 5-15-90