DEPARTMENT: Development Services Department
DEPARTMENT HEAD: Roderick J. Sanchez
COUNCIL DISTRICTS IMPACTED: ALL
SUBJECT:
Appeal to the City Council of Decision by Building-Related and Fire Codes Appeals and Advisory Board in connection with Friedrich Lofts Building Located at 1617 and 1631 East Commerce Street, San Antonio, TX.
SUMMARY:
On November 22, 2013, the City's Building-Related and Fire Codes Appeals and Advisory Board (BRFCAAB) heard an appeal of the decision of the Director of Development Services (DSD) to not allow occupancy in the Friedrich Lofts Buildings located at 1617 and 1631 East Commerce Street, San Antonio, TX due to health, fire and life safety deficiencies within the structure and lack of Certificates of Occupancy (C of O) for any of the tenant spaces. The owner's representative claimed at the November 22, 2013 BRFCAAB meeting that the building was safe for occupancy and that the City should issue C of O's to allow tenants to occupy the building in its current state. The BRFCAAB voted unanimously to uphold DSD's decision to not issue C of O's for the tenant spaces due to the health, fire and life safety deficiencies and lack of C of O's. On January 3, 2014, the City Clerk's Office received an appeal of the decision of the (BRFCAAB) related to the Friedrich Lofts.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Section 10-12(a) of the City Code states that no building or structure to be used or occupied and no change in the existing occupancy classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be made, until the building official has issued a C of O, which are issued after the building official determines compliance with the applicable City building-related, fire and development codes.
Section 10-5(n) of the City Code allows alternative materials, design and methods of construction than those prescribed in the City's building-related and fire codes to be proposed and approved only when the building official finds that the proposed alternative method is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this chapter and that the proposed method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this chapter in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety.
Since April 2010, the City's DSD has directed the owner of the Friedrich Building to properly obtain permits, inspections and C of O's for illegal building tenants (i.e., tenants without the required C of O's) and correct all applicable code violations or otherwise have the tenants vacate the building due to identified health and safety code violations. After two years of the owner not complying with these directives and continued significant health and safety violations, DSD issued a Notice to Vacate order in accordance with Section 10-15(b) of the City Code in March 2012. This notice was served to the six (6) businesses that were illegally occupying the structure and the building owner.
In August 2002, DSD approved a "Reuse and Permitting Master Plan Letter of Understanding" submitted by Mr. John Miller (building owner) which outlined a code compliance approach related to the design, renovation and permitting of the existing Friedrich Building complex. This letter of understanding (LOU) stated that "the facility is protected throughout by wet pipe sprinkler systems that, in most cases, exceed the level of protection specified in [City code]", that "automatic sprinkler protection will be maintained throughout and modified as necessary", and that the "owner understands, accepts and will comply with the above agreements." This LOU has been voided due to the owner's lack of properly maintaining the structure and its safety systems. The building has sustained significant structural damage and a majority of the building's fire sprinkler safety system was illegally shut off by the owner in violation of the City's property maintenance and fire codes as well as the 2002 LOU.
The following is a brief condensed timeline of the events related to this appeal.
· April 2010: DSD staff investigated and confirmed allegations that none of the six (6) tenants in the building had Certificates of Occupancy (CofOs). DSD issued individual tenants notice to obtain C of O.
· May 2010: DSD staff conducted a site inspection of the Friedrich Building again and observed multiple fire and life safety concerns, most notably: major structural damage in many areas; unprotected egress systems; the required fire sprinkler system had been severely damaged with a large portion of that system turned off; electrical code violations and hazards;, and inadequate fire wall separations. DSD met with owner and discussed the need to vacate the tenants or fix the fire and life safety concerns and obtain proper permits and C of O's.
· June 2010 thru February 2012: DSD met with owner's design team representatives to discuss needed next steps to make the building safe for occupancy and the requirement to obtain the required C of O's. DSD sent several correspondences to the owner notifying him that Friedrich Building was still not in compliance and confirmed that the owner did not vacate the structure nor did they obtain the proper permits to upgrade the structure and tenant spaces to meet minimum building-related and fire codes to obtain C of O's.
· March 2012: Owner confirmed to DSD that none of the tenants received their C of O's to date. DSD confirmed several tenants occupying the building without C of O's and observed several fire and life safety code violations - most of them the same as those noted in 2010. Therefore, on March 30, 2012, DSD issued "30-day Notice to Vacate" letters to all six (6) tenants and the building owner due to unsafe conditions and illegal occupancy.
· April 2012: DSD met with owner's representative and tenants who all requested more time to vacate the building due to business continuity concerns. DSD agreed to allow an additional 30 days with the addition of a 24-hour fire watch. The owner proposed and completed some temporary safety upgrades as a means to request and extension for the deadline for the tenants to vacate.
· July 2012: DSD extended the deadline for building tenants to vacate to December 31, 2012 due to some completed temporary safety upgrades to the building. DSD clarified again that this extension represented only an increase in the amount of time for the tenants to vacate the building and was made in an effort to help facilitate their relocation efforts as the owner still did not obtain the proper C of O's and bring the building and tenant spaces up to minimum City building-related and fire codes.
· October 2012: The owner submitted a "Code Analysis of Fire/Life Safety Provisions" from Reed Fire Protection Engineering (RFP) to the City and requested extension to the vacate date. DSD denied the extension request due to several major errors identified in the report. During this time, DSD also found that the owner allowed two (2) additional tenants to occupy spaces within the building without obtaining the proper permits, inspections and C of O's. DSD required these illegal businesses to vacate the structure for violating the City's building-related codes.
· December 2012: The owner submitted a Code Modification Request (i.e., alternative method of compliance) to the City for review requesting 1) immediate occupancy (i.e., C of O's) based upon building's current conditions, and 2) approval of new overall plan for development which included partial demolition of the structure.
· January 2013: DSD confirmed that all tenants vacated the building and the vacant building was properly secured per the City's property maintenance code.
· April 2013: DSD denied part 1 of the proposed CMR (immediate occupancy as-is) due to the fact that it is a waiver to the life safety provisions of the City's codes and approved in concept part 2 (proposed new overall development plan).
· May 2013: The owner appealed to the City's BRFCAAB the building official's denial of the proposed CMR. At the May 5, 2013 BRFCAAB board meeting, the owner's representative requested and was granted a six (6) month extension on the appeal so the owners could attempt the proposed new overall development plan.
· November 2013: The BRFCAAB heard the owner's request for approval of the CMR to allow immediate occupancy. BRFCAAB denied the owner's request for immediate occupancy in the as-is condition and upheld DSD's decision.
ISSUE:
The owner of the Friedrich Building (Mr. John Miller) has requested that the City allow the building to be issued C of O's in its current condition. This is based on the owner's belief that current level of health and safety within the building complies with Section 10-5(n) of the City code as an alternative method of compliance and is equivalent of that prescribed in our City's building-related and fire codes in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety.
DSD reviewed the proposed Code Modification Request from the owner and disagreed that the current building is safe for occupancy. Several major errors were identified with the engineering analysis provided to the City by Reed Fire Protection Engineering (RFPE) dated October 1, 2012. These errors included:
1) The RFPE report utilized the 2009 International Codes, not the applicable 2012 International Codes.
2) The RFPE report "does not address code issues not related to fire protection and life safety (i.e., does not [address] code compliance with such items as the electrical or mechanical code requirements)." Chapter 10 of the City code requires buildings to meet all applicable building-related and fire safety codes to obtain C of O including the City's electrical, mechanical, plumbing, energy, etc. codes which protect the health, safety and welfare of building occupants.
3) The RFPE report references prior building permits issued by the City. However, these permits were issued approximately ten (10) years ago, never completed and have expired. Further, they were reviewed and approved under different codes and different existing building conditions - most notably the fact that the building was fully fire sprinklered when those permits were reviewed by the City.
4) The RFPE report incorrectly states that there are no code deficiencies with the building related to the City's building code provisions for maximum allowable building height and area. However, this building is required by the City's building-related and fire codes to have 1) a fully functioning fire sprinkler system installed throughout the building, and/or 2) a series of independent "fire walls" (i.e., not "fire barriers") that create separate buildings - neither of which the building has.
5) The RFPE report proposed to drain the existing building's partial fire sprinkler system when the weather gets too cold rather than install a dry-pipe or anti-freeze fire sprinkler system which violates the City's fire code and national fire standards.
ALTERNATIVES:
The City Council could vote to approve the owner's Code Modification Request to occupy the building in its current conditions if they believe that the current condition of the building is equivalent or better than that prescribed in the City's building-related and fire codes in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety (City code Sections 10-5(n) and 10-14(j)).
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION:
DSD and the BRFCAAB have determined that the current Friedrich Building does not meet the minimum level of health and life safety that is required in our City's building-related and fire codes for approved occupancy. DSD staff and the BRFCAAB believe that the owner's proposed request to issue C of O's in the building's current condition does not meet the intent of the code and amounts to a request for a waiver of life safety requirements and recommends that City Council deny the applicant's appeal.