Loading...
SR-416-003 (8) City Council Meeting: October 8, 2002 Santa Monica, California TO: City Council FROM: City Staff Subject: Resolution Making Findings Of Local Climatic, Geological And Topographical Conditions As Required To Adopt Local Amendments To The California Building Standards Code; Adoption of the California Building Standards Code And Santa Monica Amendments To The California Building Standards Code; and Resolution Amending the Administrative Fine Schedule INTRODUCTION This staff report explains the adoption process for building standards; why and how the City can amend these codes; and what amendments will benefit the City at this time. The report recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution making findings of local climatic, geological and topographical conditions, which State law requires be adopted before the City can adopt local amendments to the California Building Standards Code (see Attachment A). The report also recommends adoption of the attached emergency ordinance that adopts the California Building Standards Code and the Santa Monica amendments to the California Building Standards Code (see Attachment B). Finally, staff recommends adoption of a resolution to revise the current administrative fine schedule for the newly numbered code sections as a result of the proposed ordinance and include additional special fines for violations of specified municipal code sections (see Attachment C). BACKGROUND Pursuant to the Health and Safety Code, the California Building Standards Code applies 1 throughout the State of California. This set of building standards incorporates by reference various model codes with amendments created by interested State agencies. The California Building Standards Commission publishes amended codes once every three years. One hundred and eighty days later, all cities and counties must follow the published standards unless the local jurisdiction amends them as allowed by law. During the period between publication of the California Building Standards Code and mandatory local adoption, cities and counties may make amendments based on local topographical, geological and climatic concerns. For amendments to be effective, the local governing body must make specific findings that any one or more of the aforementioned concerns is applicable, approve an ordinance adopting the amendments and file a copy of the express findings and local ordinance with the Building Standards Commission. These requirements apply to both new and previously adopted local amendments. SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES Major issues include incorporation and amendment of administrative provisions for the technical codes (see Chapter 8.08), re-adoption of previous local amendments (see Chapters 8.12 through 8.44 and Chapter 8.108) and adoption of new local amendments. The new local amendments include provisions for: Guardrails at openable windows (see Section 8.12.060) ? Changes to Essential Facilities Designations (see Section 8.12.040) ? Structural steel and earthquake design (see Chapters 8.16 and 8.20) ? 2 Electrical disconnects for solar photovoltaic systems (see Chapter 8.24) ? Enclosures for refrigeration rooms (see Chapter 8.28). ? ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AMENDMENTS Each of the main technical codes (Building, Plumbing, Mechanical, and Electrical) contains administrative requirements that the existing municipal code adopts by reference. City Council has previously amended these regulations related to the Boards of Appeal and permit provisions such as expiration, fees, suspension and revocation. The myriad sources for administrative regulations makes it difficult for staff and the public to always locate and determine the applicable requirement. To solve this problem, staff recommends incorporating all related administrative requirements into one chapter of the municipal code (see Chapter 8.08). Other problems exist in the current administrative requirements. These include time limits for building permits and demolition permits awaiting planning approval for replacement projects, criteria for fee refunds, special inspection and contractor conflict of interest and the appeal process for security provisions and building numbering. The new administrative chapter proposes amendments to address these concerns. Time Limits for Building and Demolition Permits The City has experienced a number of situations where minimal construction work is performed under a building permit, and completion of the project stretches over a period of years. This practice raises a number of concerns. Neighbors of such sites continue 3 to be impacted by noise, dust, safety and aesthetic impacts over a long time period. Important changes in either building or planning ordinances may occur that make the ongoing project inconsistent with public safety and community planning objectives. To address these issues, Council adopted regulations that establish maximum time periods allowed to complete construction, with varying time periods based on permit valuation. Projects with higher permit valuations are allocated longer time periods to complete construction. After analyzing completed projects for the last five fiscal years, staff has noted that most projects in the $1 million to $5 million value range cannot complete construction within the required time period. This problem does not exist for projects in the other valuation ranges. After review of sample projects involved, staff believes that the time allowed to complete construction is too aggressive for projects in this valuation range and should be increased from 30 to 36 months. Another problem exists when construction projects are segmented into separate permits for the convenience of the owner or tenant and yet remain codependent for completion. A common example is when the owner completes the new building shell and tenants complete their individual improvements. Under current law, each project has a separate allowable time to complete. This requirement results in the granting of numerous permit extensions due to circumstances out of the control of the permit holder with the smaller valuation. Staff recommends that the time period for related projects be determined based on the sum of all concurrent construction, which will treat concurrent tenant 4 permits as supplemental permits to base building construction. With this new provision, all related construction will have one required completion date. Current regulations prohibit issuance of demolition permits for structures in multi-family districts unless a building permit has been issued for a replacement project. While applications for demolition permits are normally valid for 180 days, the approval process for the replacement project can take significantly longer. For example, applicants will apply for demolition permits so that the Landmarks Commission can make a determination on the significance of the structure before they are ready to obtain building permits for the replacement project. As a result, applicants have found it necessary to apply for demolition permits more than once during the lengthier discretionary review process for their planning approval. Applicant frustration and staff inefficiencies result. Staff recommends that the maximum number of extensions permitted for demolition permit applications submitted as part of a replacement project be increased from one to three. This change will allow demolition applications to remain active during the planning permit process for most applicants while requiring staff evaluation every six months for changes in pertinent laws. This will also eliminate redundant staff and applicant effort at the Landmark Commission. Fee Refunds Current administrative provisions require the filing of any request for refund within 180 5 days of fee payment. This is also the time period allowed to start construction unless an extension of time is granted for an additional 180 days. Permit holders must decide at the end of 180 days whether or not to file for a refund or an extension without the possibility of a subsequent refund if they no longer wish to proceed with construction. To solve this concern, staff recommends that the time period to apply for a refund be increased to one year. Fees are currently set by Council resolution but the administrative requirements do not establish the criteria for fees and refunds. To insure conformity with state law, staff recommends adding language clarifying that fees are based on the reasonable estimate of the costs to provide the service and that refunds will be based on the estimated reasonable cost of services not provided. Special Inspection Process and Contractor Conflict of Interest The Building Code requires owners to hire special inspectors who are to be continuously present during critical elements of the construction. These inspectors act as deputy inspectors for the City and are responsible for insuring that the specified important elements of the construction comply with the related technical codes and the approved plans and specifications. The Building Officer currently registers over 200 such special inspectors who are to be employed directly by the owner. Several concerns exist with the current system. When special inspectors need to write substantive corrections, owners can face considerable construction delays. The Building 6 Officer frequently receives complaints from special inspectors who are replaced on the construction project after writing proper and significant corrections. Although the Building Code prohibits it, owners often allow the contractor to employ the special inspector directly because they believe that contractors may work better with special inspectors they know. This may result in only cursory review of the contractor?s work. Owners are also sometimes the contractor, which prevents the separation of responsibility between quality control and construction as envisioned in the Building Code. Conflicts of interest exist when the special inspector is hired and paid by the person whose work they regulate. The City?s legitimate concern for public safety and welfare is not well served by a system that deputizes special inspectors who can then be removed by owners for causing expensive corrections or delays. Staff recommends that the current system be revised to authorize the Building Officer to hire the special inspectors directly. Appeal Process for Security Provisions and Building Numbering Current law allows building permit applicants to file to the City Council for a hardship exemption from the security provisions for commercial and residential buildings based on practical difficulties. Security provisions are often codependent on other building standards for light and ventilation, fire rating and emergency egress, which are under the jurisdiction of the Building and Safety Commission. To simplify process and avoid conflicts, staff recommends that the Building and Safety Commission act as the Board 7 of Appeal for security provisions instead of the City Council. Current law permits only one address for any main building when newly constructed. This requirement exists to facilitate emergency egress by public safety personnel and to better maintain City records. Exceptions do not exist for these provisions. Recently, large building projects that span an entire block have shown the advantage of separate addresses for facilitating emergency personnel. Staff recommends that current law be amended to allow the Building Officer to grant exceptions to the one address requirement when requested by the Chief of Police or Fire Chief to facilitate emergency services or record keeping concerns and clarify existing roles of the City Engineer and Building Officer related to address assignment. LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO THE CALIFORNA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE The following sections list the proposed local amendments to the building standards found in the California Building Standards Code. These amendments are necessary due to a number of unique local conditions outlined in the attached resolution (see Attachment A). Existing local amendments that require readoption start with the word ?Continue? and new amendments start with the word ? Provide?. Discussion on the new local amendments follows the list of both existing and new local amendments for the technical code in question. Local Amendments To The Building Code ? Continue to require the engineer or architect of record to verify that their structural designs are followed during construction (see Section 8.08.120). 8 ? Continue to adopt necessary appendices to the Building Code that include provisions for Use or Occupancy, Aviation Control Towers, Sound Control Transmission, Re-roofing, Structural Forces, Waterproofing and Damproofing Foundations, Minimum Plumbing Fixtures, Membrane Structures, Excavation and Grading, Existing Buildings, and Material, Testing and Installation Standards (see Section 8.12.030). ? Continue to establish Seismic Hazard Zones and Geologic Hazard Filled Area Zones to require special design requirements (see Section 8.12.050). ? Continue to require guardrails at openable windows and provide clarifying language (see Section 8.12.060). ? Continue to prohibit the use of non-fire retardant wood shingles or non-fire retardant wood shakes for new or replacement roofing and require a moderate level of fire retardant roofing as a minimum standard (see Section 8.12.060). ? Provide for updated earthquake design provisions that properly account for dead load effects during earthquakes, limit shear-critical behavior in concrete and masonry shear walls and properly calculate the allowable story drift under earthquake loading (see Section 8.16.020). ? Continue to require improved connection of roofing to prevent slippage during earthquakes and the associated falling hazards (see Section 8.16.030). ? Continue to require all masonry and concrete chimneys to be structurally designed by a licensed architect or registered engineer instead of by prescriptive rules that have allowed failed performance in recent earthquakes, including the Northridge Earthquake (see Section 8.16.040). 9 ? Provide the most current seismic provisions for steel frame and light gage steel stud buildings that incorporate the lessons learned to date from the Northridge Earthquake instead of the outdated Pre-Northridge reference standards (1992) in the California Building Code (see Section 8.16.050). ? Continue to require the most current seismic provisions for wood frame construction to limit the use of materials that have proved ineffective in resisting earthquake forces and require additional engineering analysis (see section 8.16.060 and Chapter 8.20). ? Continue to require automatic fire extinguishing and detection systems in all new construction and when there is a change in use to a higher classification (See Section 8.44.050). ? Continue to require automatic fire sprinkler systems for existing public assembly spaces above 5,000 square feet that protect assembly areas and exit ways (See Section 8.44.050). ? Continue to require compliance with the high-rise provisions of the California Building Code in new high-rise buildings with human occupancy above 55 feet of the lowest level of fire vehicle access point in accordance with authority granted to the City in the California Health and Safety Code Section 13216 (See Section 8.44.090). ? Continue to require adequate seismic bracing of fire sprinkler installations (see Section 8.44.120). 10 New Local Amendments for the Building Code New Language for Openable Windows And Guardrails Current construction design and practice seeks to gain the most benefit from local climatic conditions of fresh air and cooler ocean-based temperatures by using windows that open full or near full floor height. When the height of the floor exceeds thirty inches above exterior grade, a guardrail is normally required for openings to prevent a falling hazard. However, the present language of the code does not clearly require the guardrail to be installed at openable windows. To provide for public safety and prevent serious injury from falls, staff recommends continuing to adopt the amendment that requires a guardrail when the openable portion of a window is lower than the required height of a guardrail for the occupancy in question. Although the Building and Safety Commission recommended the height of the guardrail in residential occupancies be lowered from 36 inches to 32 inches at openable windows, staff believes that the California Building Code and state law requires a minimum of 36 inches be provided since cities are prohibited from adopting less restrictive standards than found in the California Building Standards Code, of which the California Building Code is a part. Staff has clarified the language as recommended by the Building and Safety Commission but maintained the required minimum height of the guardrail to 36 inches in residential occupancies. Changes to Essential Facilities Designations After the Northridge Earthquake, the Municipal Code was amended to list several City 11 facilities as critical to the City?s long-term community plan. Ordinance 1945 (CCS), which became effective July 1, 1999, changed the status of these critical facilities to essential building status under the Building Code. This status and the related requirements are normally limited to police and fire stations and emergency operations centers. Staff recommends amending the provision to include only those buildings essential to emergency operations, which are the police and fire stations and City Hall. New Structural Steel And Earthquake Design Amendments The 1997 Uniform Building Code, which will no longer be printed, is the base document for the 2001 California Building Code. This code contains structural steel design provisions that predate the Northridge Earthquake and hence, does not contain regulations based on the valuable lessons learned from the study of buildings damaged during the earthquake. Since the Uniform Building Code will no longer be printed, these subsequent gains in knowledge cannot be updated and included in the code, as would normally occur. Instead, California cities and counties must adopt local amendments to update this code, until the State chooses a more modern model code, such as the 2000 International Building Code, which is the successor code to the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Building Officials throughout Los Angeles County, in concert with the Structural Engineers Association of Southern California, have agreed on the necessary changes to update the seismic provisions of the 1997 Uniform Building Code related to structural steel design and earthquake loading. These provisions further limit the use of steel frame systems with limited ability to absorb and dissipate earthquake forces in 12 buildings. Staff recommends that these local amendments be adopted to protect the public with the state of art seismic knowledge. Staff has also added clarifying language for the testing information required for the use of shear wall systems constructed with steel studs. Local Amendments To The Electrical Code ? Continue to ensure that any wiring not having metal protection over the conductors shall be entirely concealed within the building structure to prevent and inhibit tampering and restrict the use of aluminum wiring found to be hazardous (see Section 8.24.030). ? Continue to prohibit the sale and use of any electrical material, device, or equipment unless it complies with provisions of this section, including rating and conformance with national standards (see Section 8.24.040). ? Continue to provide regulations for temporary service poles used on construction sites (see Section 8.24.060) ? Continue to provide regulations for underground concrete vaults and handholes (see Section 8.24.070). ? Provide proper disconnecting means for multiple arrays on solar photovoltaic systems (see Section 8.24.080). New Local Amendments for the Electrical Code Solar Photovoltaic Systems- Disconnecting Means For Multiple Arrays City sustainable goals promote the use of green building standards including the use of 13 photovoltaic systems. These systems range from simple single family dwelling units rated at 48 volt, 2KW (2000 Watts) up to, and beyond the larger commercial units of 480 volt, 350KW (350,000 Watts). The California Electrical Code does not address the disconnecting of the array conductors, when they are combined (series or parallel). This combining produces circuits capable of the higher voltages and/or wattage with no means of disconnecting the array (rooftop solar panel) at the source. Staff recommends adopting the amendment that provides for an emergency disconnect and allows service and repair of the system. Local Amendments To The Mechanical Code ? Continue to provide sufficient gage support of grease ducts during earthquakes (see Section 8.28.030). ? Continue to require the use of Type I fire protective hoods for all cooking ovens that cook food with grease (see Section 8.28.040). ? Provide for the use of refrigeration machinery rooms for all refrigerants in rooms with over 100 HP motors above maximum threshold amounts instead of just the least toxic and flammable (see Section 8.28.050). ? Provide for the use of the proper table values from American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers to determine the allowable quantities of the refrigerants R-123 and R-55 in Table 11-1 of the California Mechanical Code (see Section 8.08.060). 14 New Local Amendments for the Mechanical Code Increased Use of Machinery Rooms and Current ASHRAE Quantity Tables The current California Mechanical Code requires a machinery room for equipment with refrigerants other than A1. Since this section requires a machinery room for A1 refrigerants, if any equipment exceeds 100 horsepower, it is more important to require protection for equipment containing refrigerants other than A1, as they are either toxic, more flammable, or both. Staff recommends increasing the use of these separation rooms to protect occupants during earthquakes from the more toxic and flammable refrigerants and using the updated ASHRAE tables, upon which the current code is normally based, for the proper amounts to trigger the enclosure requirements. Local Amendments To The Plumbing Code ? Provide for enclosures of water heaters to prevent associated fire hazards from uncontrolled adjacent combustible storage (see Section 8.32.030). ? Continue to prohibit water softener systems from using drywells to discharge effluents in order to protect local ground water and the Santa Monica Bay (see Section 8.32.040). ? Continue to prohibit the use of combined storm drain and sewers to prevent the possible future contamination of the Santa Monica Bay (see Section 8.32.050). New Local Amendments to the Plumbing Code 15 Enclosure of Water Heaters Current plumbing code does not require the enclosure of water heaters inside a building. Often, particularly in residential garages, water heaters are surround with combustible storage that presents a fire hazard. The water heater, when fired and running, can present a source of ignition. To further separate the ignition source from the combustible storage and thereby reduce the potential ignition, staff concurs with the Building and Safety Commission recommendation to require the enclosure of water heaters when located inside buildings. Local Amendments To The Fire Code ? Continue to require automatic fire extinguishing and detection systems in all new construction and when there is a change in use to a higher classification (See Section 8.44.050). ? Continue to require automatic fire sprinkler systems for existing public assembly spaces above 5,000 square feet that protect assembly areas and exit ways (See Section 8.44.050). ? Continue to require compliance with the high-rise provisions of the California Building Code in new high-rise buildings with human occupancy above 55 feet of the lowest level of fire vehicle access point in accordance with authority granted to the City in the California Health and Safety Code Section 13216 (See Section 8.44.090). ? Continue to require the connection with control valves on each floor level with full automatic sprinkler systems in any new building with floors more than 55 feet in 16 height (See Section 8.44.090). ? Continue to require adequate seismic bracing of fire sprinkler installations (see Section 8.44.120). Local Amendments to the Energy Code ? Continue to require cost effective energy efficiency in multi-family residences, hotels, motels, commercial and institutional offices, light industrial and retail uses pursuant to the Green Building Standards (see Sections 8.108.040). ? Continue to require additional mandatory energy efficiency measures for Solar Water Heating, Pipe Insulation and Heat Traps in all buildings (see Section 8.108.060). BUILDING AND SAFETY COMMISSION ACTIONS On August 8, 2002, staff held a study session with the Building and Safety Commission to review state laws that affect local adoption of building standards. After explaining the code adoption process, staff informed the Commission of the existing local amendments for the technical codes, including supplemental fire prevention and seismic safety requirements. Finally, staff presented the draft ordinance and sought Commission direction. The Commission gave no specific direction but did express concerns about the appropriate use of building standards in mixed used buildings based on recent appeals heard. Staff promised to place this concern and the proposed ordinance on the agenda for discussion at the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting in September. 17 On September 12, 2002, September 17, 2002, and September 26, 2002, the Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance and resolution making findings regarding local climatic, geological and topographic conditions. After discussion, the Commission unanimously moved to recommend the City Council adopt both the staff proposed ordinance and resolution with the following changes: 1. Require permits for all fences over 3 feet in height and for accessory buildings and structures consistent with the zoning ordinance so that applicants will be properly advised of setback and height requirements. 2. Allow 24 months to obtain a demolition permit for replacement projects subject to Municipal Code Section 9.04.10.16.010. 3. Clarify Building Officer?s stop work authority for construction projects with asbestos contamination. 4. Update current language to match recent changes in state law for approval of architects prior to copying approved plans. 5. Clarify the role of the Commission on recommending ordinances. 6. Enclose water heaters in all buildings 7. Reduce the height of required guardrails at openable windows from 36 inches to 32 inches in residential occupancies. Staff has incorporated these changes into the proposed ordinance, except for the change in the required height of guardrails in residential occupancies for the reasons discussed in the previous section on New Local Amendments For The Building Code- 18 New Language For Openable Windows And Guardrails. NEW SPECIAL FINES FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT The existing fine schedule for administrative citations does not include special fines for Code requirements for public nuisances, construction inspection or best management practices to prevent urban runoff pollution. Staff recommends adding special fines for these Code sections to improve enforcement of the requirements. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct budget and financial impact to the City of adopting the 2001 edition of the California Building Standards Code and local amendments. As a result of the standards for seismic and fire life safety, the approval of this ordinance will increase costs of construction and repair to certain structures, including City-owned structures. The specific costs and cost sharing arrangements for City structure repairs that might be mandated by the standards are not known at this time. Council will have the opportunity to review such costs and cost sharing arrangements when repair contracts are placed on Council?s agenda. The proposed amendment to authorize the Building Officer to hire special inspectors directly will result in increased expenditures for professional services and general fund revenues from user fees. Authority to charge for this new service requires a separate Council resolution to establish the additional administrative and overhead costs of the City for procuring services and monitoring the work. Staff will address this concern in 19 the development-related fee study that will be presented for Council consideration in conjunction with the FY 01/02-year end report. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Adopt the attached resolution making findings of local climatic, geological and topographical conditions as required to adopt local amendments to the California Building Standards Code. 2. Adopt the attached ordinance that adopts the California Building Standards Code and Santa Monica amendments to the California Building Standards Code. 3. Adopt the attached resolution setting forth the administrative citation schedule of fines for certain violations of the Santa Monica municipal code pursuant to Ordinance number 2043 (CCS) and Chapter 1.09 Administrative Citations of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, effective November 1, 2002. Prepared by: Ettore Berardinelli, Fire Chief Jim Hone, Fire Marshal Jim Glew, Assistant Fire Marshal Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning & Community Development Jay Trevino, Planning Manager Tim McCormick, Building Official Attachment A: Resolution Making Findings Of Local Climatic, Geological And Topographical Conditions As Required To Adopt Local Amendments To The California Building Standards Code Attachment B: Ordinance Adopting The California Building Standards Code And Adopting The Santa Monica Amendments To The California Building Standards Code 20 Attachment C: Resolution Setting Forth The Administrative Citation Schedule Of Fines For Certain Violations Of The Santa Monica Municipal Code 21