Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09291987 - IO.6 t TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Contra ltra September 21, 1987 Costa DATE; Proposed Amendments to 1985. WCb * �� ��J SUBJECT: Uniform Building Code SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . Direct County Counsel to prepare an ordinance amending the ordinance adopting the 1985 Uniform Building Code to provide for area separation walls without openings in the absence of sprinklers, as proposed by the Fire Districts. 2. Eliminate the proposal for 3011 parapets. 3 . Amend the Uniform Building Code to require sprinklers in buildings 10,000 square feet or more in area. However, the building official shall have the right to allow alternative methods of construction (excuse sprinkler requirements) when such alternate methods will result in substantial compliance. 4. Exempt agricultural buildings from the sprinkler requirements. 5. Direct the County Administrator to circulate the proposed ordinance to all fire districts in the County and to the Building Industry Association prior to its being heard by the Board of Supervisors. 6 . Request that the County Counsel return a proposed ordinance to the Board within 30 days for the purpose of fixing a date and time .for a hearing on the ordinance. 7 . Request County Counsel to determine whether the Board has the ability to impose a fine on a first violation of either the area separation wall or sprinkler ordinances even though there is subsequent voluntary effort to comply with the ordinance and report his findings and recommendations to the Board. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE: _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE s : NancyC. hden Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON ep. em, er , APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE _ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON HE DATE SHOWN. County Administrator CC: County Counsel ATTESTED p� 7 �� Chiefs, All County Fire Districts PHIL BATCH OR, CLERK OF THE///BOARD OF Nels Carlson, BIA SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Building Inspector M382/7-83 BY ,DEPUTY — Page 2 BACKGROUND: On July 21, 1987, the Board of Supervisors, on the recommendation of our Committee, directed the County Administrator to continue working with the fire districts, BIA, and the Building Inspector to resolve or reach a compromise on the remaining issues regarding the Uniform Building Code; namely: A. Limiting the use of area separation walls to walls without openings and with a 30" parapet unless the building is sprinklered throughout; and B. Requiring automatic fire sprinkler systems in all buildings more than 10,000 square feet in floor area. The County Administrator was directed to return a report to our Committee on the negotiations. If it were indicated that these two remaining issues were not resolved in a mutually satisfactory manner, the County Administrator was directed to request the fire districts and BIR to make full presentations on each of these issues so our Committee could reach agreement on a recommendation to make to the Board. In response to this direction, staff from the County Administrator' s Office met with representatives from most of the fire districts in the County on August 27, 1987. The Fire Districts and BIA each had an opportunity to outline their position and to discuss with each other the justification for their position. Each party made a presentation to our Committee on the reasons they advocate their particular position on these two issues. While progress has been made, complete agreement on recommendations to present to our Committee could not be achieved. Following is a summary of the two issues: A. Area Separation Walls: Under current code requirements, sprinklers are not required for most buildings. In order to contain the spread of a fire area separation walls are required in order to reduce the area which is exposed to immediate contact with a fire. The specific area varies by type of construction and type of occupancy. Doors, windows, or other openings, are allowed in these area separation walls, even when the building has no sprinklers. If the openings in these walls are maintained as is required by the codes, with self-closing devices the problems with the potential danger from the spread of fire would be substantially reduced, even in the absence of sprinklers. However, many of these doors and windows are not properly maintained. Doors are propped open, are removed, or are otherwise allowed to continue in a state of disrepair. The Consolidated Fire District recently reported that 810 of openings had violations of current code requirements. If the Fire District had sufficient staff to constantly inspect and reinspect every such opening in an area separation wall it might be possible to continue to allow their use. However, such enforcement is extremely expensive and there is no prospect that the Fire Districts will have sufficient personnel to conduct the level of inspections needed to insure that these openings are maintained in full compliance with the code. Page 3 As a result, the Fire Districts have suggested that where a building is not sprinklered, area separation walls be required without such openings. They view this as the only practical way to maintain the integrity of the area separation wall. If the building is sprinklered, area separation walls frequently are not required, and where they are, they can have openings. The proposed code change would apply only to new construction. The Fire Districts are willing to drop the requirement for the 30" parapet because of the architectural problems involved in incorporating this feature into the overall design of buildings. The Building Industry Association resists any changes to current area separation wall requirements. B. Sprinkler Requirements: Under current code requirements applicable in this County, sprinklers are generally required in structures of 12,000 square feet, particularly in office buildings, warehouses, retail stores and hospitals. The proposed change would reduce this requirement so that most structures of 10,000 square feet in area would be required to be sprinklered., Many other jurisdictions have a 10,000 square foot, or lower, requirement for sprinklering a new building. The proposed reduction to 10,000 square feet would only apply to new construction. The Ryland Report in 1981 recommended a 10,000 square foot requirement in Central County and a 5, 000-6,000 square foot requirement in east County because of the potential for delayed response time. Placing a 10,000 square foot requirement on sprinklering a building combined with the area separation wall requirement allows a builder to sprinkler a building and avoid an area separation wall with no opening requirement. The two proposals work together and reinforce each other. The corollary to this is that if area separation walls without openings are installed, sprinkling will not usually be required. As Chief Maxfield has noted, the County must either put effort into preventing fires or put money into more adequately staffing fire stations. In addition to the recommendations made by staff, our Committee has added the last recommendation in an effort to take more stringent and prompt action against individuals who violate these provisions.