Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/17/2009, - FIRE SPRINKLER RETROFIT, 1020 PALM STREET ' IiIIIOh�I►►����� IIIIIIIIII In Iiillll�llill� III city ®f san Us oBispo FIRE DEPARTMENT 40 2160 Santa Barbara Avenue•San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-5240.805f781-7380 March 25, 2009 "Courtesy & Service" Mr.Don Ernst RECEIVED 1020 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 APR 0 2 2009 Re: Fire Sprinkler Retrofit, 1020 Palm Street SLO CITY CLERK Dear Mr. Ernst, In response to your input during public comment at the March 17, 20.09 City Council meeting, Council directed staff to investigate your concerns regarding the fire sprinkler obligations imposed upon your property and to provide information responding to the issues you raised. You requested a hearing before the City Council to consider exempting the buildings located at 1014 and 1020 Palm Street from the City of San Luis Obispo's Commercial Fire Zone Fire Sprinkler Retrofit Requirements. Your request was based primarily on the following six premises, which you believe mitigate against the enforcement of the sprinklering obligations upon certain Palm Street Properties: • The safety of the buildings' occupants are not at risk • The safety of the community is not at risk • That notice was never given to the property owners on Palm Street that their properties would be required to have sprinklers when the water main was replaced in 2006 • That notice was not given that sprinklers may be required in the future when building permits for 1014 and 1020 Palm were processed in the 1990's • The buildings are historical landmarks and costs would be prohibitive • The buildings on Palm Street should not have been included in the core downtown area Staff has now had an opportunity to review the history of the Commercial Fire Zone and the inclusion of your property within that zone. Below, we have categorized your concerns into public safety concerns, notification concerns, and historic building impacts/building inclusion concerns. We endeavor to respond to each of those concerns by providing all information disclosed by staff's review of this matter and we trust the following will be of assistance to you in understanding the history of the zone, both generally and as it pertains to your property. O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. a Public and Occupant Safety Concerns The Commercial Fire Zone, located in the downtown area, consists of many buildings of historical significance, which present increased safety risks in the event of a fire. In determining recommended boundaries and inclusion of specific properties within the zone at issue, the Fire Department considered a number of significant public safety factors, including: the complexity of firefighting operations; firefighter staffing levels; the time-distance separation between San Luis Obispo and surrounding fire department mutual aid resources; density and age of building construction; and pending Public Works water main improvements. After comprehensive evaluation of all those factors, it was determined that the buildings proposed for inclusion in the zone posed an enhanced risk to the public and responding public safety personnel in the event of a fire, absent the effective preventative measures reflected in the sprinkler retrofit obligations. While you contend that the inclusion of certain Palm Street properties, including your own, within this zone does not address any occupant or public safety concerns, the informed fire safety evaluation of the factors noted compels a different conclusion. Fires in areas such as this can and have turned into urban conflagrations, threatening neighboring structures and the character of the downtown itself. The configuration of the zone and the determination of properties to be included were not arbitrary, but rather directly reflect fire life safety concerns. Specifically, the section of Palm Street from Osos Street to Santa Rosa was very consciously included in the original Commercial Fire Zone with the alley between Palm and Mill Streets as the dividing line. The alley was specifically chosen as the boundary because it creates a physical fire break not present between the included properties. Thus, the assumption that the occupants of your building are not at risk or that the community is not at risk in the absence of compliance with the sprinklering requirements is incorrect. Your building poses the same risk to the occupants and the community as any other unsprinklered, professional office building in the city.. However, due to their location,composition and configuration, in the context of available community suppression resources, these buildings would be considered an increased hazard to adjacent buildings should a fire occur. Radiant heat and direct flame impingement from the fire building can and will ignite combustible siding or penetrate windows to ignite interior furnishings of the neighboring structures due to the limited spacing between them. For this reason, they would be a challenge to the City's emergency responders and for this reason they were appropriately included in the Commercial Fire Zone. Notification Issues Staff's review of the history of the retrofitting obligations discloses a record of comprehensive notification and community input. In 1990, the City adopted a fire sprinkler retrofit ordinance for the Commercial Fire Zone only after a number of years working with a Fire Master Plan citizen committee. Also involved were representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, the business and building communities as well as City J , _ staff and citizens at large. That 1990 ordinance required all buildings in the Commercial Fire Zone to have fire sprinklers installed by the year 2000. Later, in 1998, after all procedural notification normally associated with the adoption of health and safety regulations, as well as additional property owner outreach, a subsequent ordinance was passed. That ordinance, in part, mandated that buildings not constructed of unreinforced masonry have fire sprinklers installed within two years of being provided with a city installed water lateral (waterline from the city main to the sprinkler supply). The buildings in question meet those criteria. In addition to standard notification, our records indicate that letters were sent from the Fire Department in December 1997 inviting all property owners in the Commercial Fire Zone to attend a series of meetings on the proposed ordinance change, and that these meetings were well attended. A subsequent letter was sent to the property owners on February 27, 1998 advising them of the outcome of the public meetings, and inviting them to City Hall for a further meeting on March 18, 1998, prior to the Council meeting at which final adoption would be recommended. When the ordinance was ultimately considered by Council, our records indicate that there was very little opposition to the revised requirements. As it-pertains to your building, the effect of the adoption of the 1998 ordinance was actually to extend your deadline to install fire sprinklers from the year 2000 to 2009. Thus, after comprehensive notice of the City's proposed action and significant public information efforts, the City extended an additional nine years for property owners in your situation to plan for compliance with this safety requirement. Your comments to Council indicated that two building permits were processed during the 1990's for your building at 1020 Palm and you suggested that you should have been told at that time that fire sprinklers would be required in your building. The City's records indicate that only one permit was issued for 1020 Palm, in 1995, for a roof replacement. The fire department does not review applications for re-roofing permits and there is no nexus between re-roofing a building and installing fire sprinklers. There were, however, 2 applications to the Planning Department to add a 2°d floor to 1014 Palm Street. That would have required that the building have fire sprinklers installed in conjunction with such a project. However, the City's records indicate that project was never brought forth to the building permit application stage. Had a building permit been sought, review of that application likely would have yielded a comment from the Fire Department. reflecting the sprinklering obligations. Historic BuildinWInclusion Issues Your letter also states that this building is a historic structure and that the installation of fire sprinklers would significantly destroy the historic character of the structure. As you may be aware, there are many buildings in the downtown area that are historic in nature, including some on your block that have already had fire sprinklers installed. Once a historic building is lost to fire, that historic character along with a part of the City's past is lost. Fire sprinklers are a significant tool in protecting the link to our historic past through these buildings. Their installation in historic buildings across the country has been shown to save lives and property, by utilizing much less water to extinguish a fire while it is still small and dramatically impeding the spread of a fire. While we are certainly aware that there are unique aesthetic concerns regarding the sprinklering of historic buildings, there are fire sprinkler products available with a more pleasing appearance than the traditional fire sprinklers commonly found in commercial buildings. I would be happy to discuss with you the availability and appropriateness of these products in meeting your buildings' requirements. In light of the foregoing, it is my position that there is no basis on which staff could recommend to the City Council that your building be exempted from the long-established requirements for the installation of fire sprinklers by July 13, 2009. Thus, absent direction from Council, your obligations with regard to sprinklering your building will remain in accordance with Municipal Code Sec. 1003.2.2.1, as specified in the letter you received in July 2007. However, with the July 2009 deadline fast approaching, I want to help facilitate the needed work by offering some additional flexibility with regard to the compliance deadlines. Thus, I am willing to consider your submission of sprinkler plans to the City by the July 13 date as substantial compliance with the requirements. Thereafter, the Fire Department will review and return these plans as promptly as possible in order to allow work to begin quickly, with the understanding that work would need to be completed within 90 days, or around mid October, more than six months from now. So long as you remain in substantial compliance with the deadlines and continue to make progress toward project completion, Fire Department staff will work with you to avoid the need for enforcement action. Because staff's review of your concerns did not reveal any defect or deficiency in the City's noticing of the sprinklering obligations and because those obligations were enacted via ordinance many years ago, the timeframes for administrative appeal of the requirements of the ordinance are long expired. Thus, the City Attorney's office advises that there is no appeal process available to you. However, the City Council is receiving a copy of this reply, and should a Council majority wish to reconsider the sprinkler ordinance boundaries and requirements, they could direct staff during the Communications Section of a meeting, to schedule the matter for formal consideration. While staff is not recommending reopening this long-standing ordinance at this time, the Council always retains such authority. Please feel free to contact me at (805) 781-7390 should you require more information on this matter. Sincerely, John Callahan, Fire Chief Cc: Ken Hampian, City Manager Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney Rodger Maggio, Fire Marshal 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 2004 enactment for which again there was no notice that I am 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 Exhibit A > N ' N N 1 4 BEACH ST - 1POM0 SS 4 - c � NfPOHO To p .-- 0 0 > Be tl BROADI z r w m 03,❑�❑ { ROAD ST. 73 W Ga GARDENN 0 m GO CHORRI C MORRO HORRO ST. 69 p 0 4 % p =a I MORRO ST. as o0o a00 �� - � ® cm OSOS T. 1300. 700Do OSOS ST. q - D'll w -- - L 0 sa SANTAROSA SANTA ROSA., sop 0 0 0 TORO IT, > r - o 0 Nov n P ER ST. f x �(J A G 3 V m D N N > -C . N N 5-15-90 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 TMM 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 alternative 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 15.08.1.90 is hereby amended as follows: "15.08.190 Section 1003.2.3 amended-Automatic fire-extinguishing systems" 0 1336 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 fire/life-safety notice in writing that an automatic fire-sprinkler system be installed in the building. "The notice shall specify in what manner the building.fhils to meet the minimum requirements of 10032.2 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-Tribune,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 b Ordinance No. 1336 (1998 Series) Page 3 MAYOR ALLEN K. SETTLE ATTEST: .Gy ' /I,* ty Clerk Bop6io Ga APPROVED: J'Aymo y Jr orgensen Ordinance No. 1336(1998 Series) FINALLY PASSED this 5th day of May, 1998, on motion of Council Member Smith, seconded by Cauncd 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 . Settle ATTEST: i Clerk We L. wf