SUMMARY

JOINT AMCBO/NCSBCS Public Sector Members Teleconference
November 25, 2003

TOPIC: HIGH-RISE RETROFIT ISSUES

Participants:

Cities of: Richmond, New York, Chicago, Columbus, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Denver, Indianapolis, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Portland, Fresno, San Antonio, San Francisco, Seattle, Wilmington

County of: Ventura, CA

States of: New York and New Jersey

Welcome:

Robert Wible, NCSBCS, welcomed the group, described the origins of this call as coming from a list of important issues topics generated by AMCBO and NCSBCS members at their joint annual meeting in Portland, Oregon last month. (Click here to view list.  Your comments/input are welcomed.) The NCSBCS Executive Director noted that the objectives of these monthly calls was to provide state and local building code administrators a venue in which to both hear presentations on important issues to their programs and to share best practices.

The next in these series of calls will be held December 18 at 11:00 a.m. and will feature a presentation by NIST Director of the Building Fire Research Laboratory, Dr. James Hill, on the National Construction Safety Team Act and a dialogue between NIST and state and local building officials on establishing protocols for coordination between the NIST inspection teams and the building department in a jurisdiction where a disaster is being investigated.

Mr. Wible thanked everyone for joining today’s call and turned the call over to AMCBO Chairman and Richmond Building Commissioner, Claude Copper, to serve as moderator.

Claude Cooper mentioned that the purpose of the call was to discuss retrofitting issues for high-rise buildings built between 1900 and 1973. Every large jurisdiction has some of these buildings. Generally they are between 10 and 20 stories tall. In many instances, these buildings lack the fire and life safety protections that are built into modern high-rise buildings. Retroactive enforcement of building code provisions often prevents the jurisdiction’s ability to require that these systems be installed. There also are economic concerns in that jurisdictions are trying to keep these buildings occupied and "on line". Vacant buildings are a problem.

Topic I: What experiences are cities, counties, and/or states having with these buildings, and how are jurisdictions responding to them?

CHICAGO Commissioner Reyes came on board just ahead of the nightclub disaster and the high-rise fire.

MILWAUKEE – Tracey Williams – Milwaukee is currently implementing a façade inspection program. They have found that there is an ASTM standard for these inspections. Façade inspections are costly to do according to the ASTM standard. Inspections start December 1, 2004, for buildings built prior to 1920. The Milwaukee program is based on NYC and Boston ordinances that exist.

COLUMBUS – Joe Busch – Columbus has a façade inspection program. It is called a "CORE" Report – Critical Observation Report. The inspection must be done every year on older buildings. They have had this program for 10 years. There has been no opposition to doing these inspections during this time.

Joe is willing to provide NCSBCS & AMCBO a copy of the form that was just developed for Columbus.

RICHMOND – Claude Cooper – Richmond does not have an ordinance that requires façade inspections now.

CHICAGO has had facade ordinance for 10 years. Condominium associations are protesting because of the remediation costs to association members. Chicago did amend the ordinance to give financial relief by staggering the inspection intervals from 5 to 12 years based on the construction materials.

MILWAUKEE – Marty Collins – Milwaukee also has same amendment (as Chicago). Inspection intervals vary based on the types of material and length of times between inspections -- 5 years to 12 years. Critical inspections performed by licensed engineers.

NEW YORK CITY – James Colgate – 1980 law on books in NYC and amended in 1998 with more stringent requirements. The building owner as well as the engineer must sign the engineer’s report. Compliance going well. Issue fines until they file the report.

Topic II – What features are needed for structural safety, fire safety and life safety features?

NEW YORK CITY – James Colgate – The New York City World Trade Center Task Force report is now before City Council. The report has four parts in it. Many buildings constructed prior to 1984 did not have sprinkler systems installed in them.

The report recommends:

  1. All 100-foot buildings fully sprinklered within 15 years. Commercial buildings. Residential are excluded from these requirements because fatalities have largely occurred in commercial buildings.
  2. Stairwells and doors leading to exits must have photolumenescent markings.  (Set referenced standard as to levels later.) For high-rise office buildings not residential. 75 feet or higher. The installation of Exit signs at floor level is voluntary. The Exit signs must be electrically illuminated red and must be installed over the exit door.
  3. This provision corrects a deficiency in the code. Signage is required in a horizontal exit when the exit changes from one stairway to another stairway or when the entry door is located around a corner. This requirement will provide better directions to people evacuating the building.
  4. This provision pertains to exit signs in buildings constructed before 1984 where the existing exit signs are not on back-up power. Now, the exit signs will have to be on back-up power. (Won’t permit the signs to be radioactive.)
  5. NYC has laws requiring fire alarm systems to be retroactively installed in buildings.

SEATTLE – On the West Coast, sprinklers were put in existing buildings when seismic bracing retrofit was done a few years back.

LOUISVILLE, KY – Russ Sanders (NFPA) – When he served as Chief of the Louisville Fire Department, the city adopted proactive sprinkler retrofit legislation for all of its unsprinklered high-rise buildings. Louisville (which is the 16th largest city in the U.S.) was the first to pass proactive requirements (meaning the legislation was not in reaction to a local incident). Forty-six buildings in the city were involved, and the county later passed the same ordinance requiring six additional high-rise buildings to be retrofitted with sprinklers. The ordinance applies to all residential and commercial high-rise buildings. The only exception applies to condominiums, which are required to sprinkler common areas such as hallways and corridors but are not initially required to retrofit the individual owner-occupied units. However, when the owner-occupied unit in a high-rise condo is sold, the new owner must retrofit. (According to NFPA data, residential buildings present a greater life safety hazard than commercial buildings.) The Louisville ordinance was passed June 22, 1993, and to date 75% of the buildings are complete and all but two are on schedule for completion. The two outstanding properties will be back on schedule effective January 1, 2004. The Louisville ordinance established a 12-year implementation plan, which was the bases for the high-rise retrofit requirements included in the NFPA 1, Uniform Fire Code.

PITTSBURGH – Ron Graziano – When do cities require complete fire alarm systems and fire detection systems?

MILWAUKEE – They can get building owners to go along with some of these requirements a bit at a time.

COLUMBUS – If high-rise buildings have adequate egress, they have to retrofit with sprinklers on a floor-by-floor basis as they get new tenants.

SAN FRANCISCO – The city has an ordinance requiring sprinkler systems in all Type 2, 3 or 5 buildings. San Francisco had a major hotel fire in the mid-1980’s. This incident got a retroactive high-rise hotel ordinance in place. Now retrofitting sprinkler systems is mandatory for all high-rise buildings. They have been installing these in high-rise buildings on a floor-by-floor basis since1994. Apartment buildings are exempted. The time frame for doing this varies from10 years or up to 12-13 years. (San Francisco will review and provide additional information to AMCBO/NCSBCS.)

NEW JERSEY – Since 1986, all high-rise hotels and mercantile buildings must be sprinklered. Retrofitting these buildings with sprinkler systems is required. Currently, they are actively considering retrofitting sprinkler systems in all high-rise buildings.

TOPIC 3: What are the best strategies? What policies do cities/counties/states have in place to address these issues?

COLUMBUS – Change of use is a trigger in Columbus. They do it on a floor-by-floor basis. It is not an ordinance – a sales pitch to owners.

MODERATOR – Are buildings changing Use Groups?

COLUMBUS – Yes, old high-rise are being converted to condos especially in older cities trying to attract people back downtown.

SAN ANTONIO – Al Reemon – Do your jurisdictions have an adopted rehab code that mandates these items? This is a way to revisit and get retrofit.

SAN FRANCISCO does not have a rehab code. They make changes per existing codes.

NEW JERSEY created its own rehab subcode. Works on high-rise. Each use group is addressed according to the work being done and if change of use is required. Also through fire code.

NEW YORK CITY does not have a rehab code but current code does have requirements when you are making a conversion--have to make it sprinklered. Have to change in use.

SAN ANTONIO looks at different hazard levels. They keep it as is, if no change of use is occurring.

COLUMBUS uses the IBC Chapter 34, Alternative Compliance. Getting good mileage out of getting some upgrades – structural elements.

CHICAGO has a new ordinance introduced. No later than July 2004 will adopt standards for life safety evolutions for possible retrofit, Chapter 34 IBC.

NEW YORK STATE using point evaluation system Appendix K draft of International Existing Building Code. This was developed appending on earlier draft. It is working well in NYC. New York State intends to adopt 2003 IBC and this method of alternative compliance seems to be working.

Topic V: Is there interest in holding a one-day conference on this issue in February 2004, and what should NCSBCS/AMCBO include as topics for presentation and discussion in that one-day conference?

JOINT RESPONSES: Yes, there definitely is the need for a one-day program in the February time frame and jurisdictions on the call would attend.

  1. Retrofit of old buildings especially high-rise buildings. Major push is on in cities across the nation to bring more people downtown to live so old high-rise commercial properties are being converted to condos/apartments.
  2. All of the issues covered on this call should be included.
  3. The concept of retrofitting should be considered separately from the change of use. The one-day meeting should cover both.

SPECIFIC RESPONSES:

RETROFITTING

CHICAGO would be interested in materials and installation standards. More economical materials would be useful in condominiums where retrofitting is cost prohibitive, especially materials used for fire protection systems. For instance, will the NFPA Code allow PVC sprinkler pipe? The NFPA 13 used in Louisville allows the owner to use plastic pipe if it is protected.

LOUISVILLE was able to diffuse disinformation regarding high costs by providing actual bids on several commercial and residential high-rise buildings in the city. Local contractors provided the bids.

CHICAGO would be interested as to what else is out there, countries, etc., working on materials for less costly ways to install retrofitting. All are using NFPA 13 with some amendments.

SAN FRANCISCO used difference editions of codes and have diverse fire escapes, no uniformity – exit enclosures, fire escapes. Can use IBC on existing structures but not in new.

SEATTLE – Fire escapes must have a structural evaluation and a load test to verify that they are safe for use as an exit.

PITTSBURGH – When change of use occurs, then the owner must put in an internal evacuation system and cannot use a fire escape for building evacuation.

MILWAUKEE – Exterior fire escapes must have a structural inspection every 5 years.

OTHER TOPICS FOR THAT CONFERENCE:

PITTSBURGH sees the need for better notification (voice) for occupants.

COLUMBUS – The Columbus Fire Department pushes hard for voice notification of occupants. The requirement is not an ordinance, but they want voice communications.

CHICAGO – The group may want to address building safety as it relates to structure and security. There is tension between the two concerns. For example, 69 West Washington in Chicago, the ordinance required the building owner to provide provisions in fire control panels to provide for automatic door closing in stairwells. The doors actually didn’t then open during an emergency because of that feature. The ordinance was in place for one week, then it was changed to require all doors be open. This change compromises building security. All agreed that this was a good topic for the conference.

NEW YORK CITY – Consider the issue of retroactive installation of exit markings. Look at what’s available.

SAN ANTONIO – There seems to be two trends that are being talked about today:

    1. Accommodate retrofit of older buildings to improve downtown area housing.
    2. Based on 9/11 to improve overall safety of buildings and more retroactive installation of sprinkler systems.

We need to find a way to link these two trends to better coordinate public safety with economic development and public safety. Links must be found.  How do you manage these concerns together politically and link them in a manner that they make sense?

COLUMBUS – Time a critical element here. That is a way to approach this. 8 or 10 years is not unreasonable and there may be a way over time to move people and buildings in the right direction.

RICHMOND – Owners more willing to do some of this if tenants are signing up for a 10-year lease as opposed to a 5-year lease.

GENERAL COMMENT:

There needs to be some discussion at a conference of the above trends and what are successful strategies to get urban revitalization and natural disaster and homeland security to work together.

SUGGESTION:

Involve Factory Mutual and other Insurance companies in the one-day conference. Someone from the major insurance companies can show us where the real soft spots are.

Topic VI: What is the best location for the February meeting? Philadelphia can’t host this meeting during February. They are heavily committed to other efforts. Are there other suggestions for a venue for this meeting?
  1. SAN ANTONIO is beautiful in February.
  2. COLUMBUS will look into this.
  3. RICHMOND is willing to host this meeting; but airfares into Richmond are high. A different location might be more cost effective.
  4. WILMINGTON would be willing to host this meeting and they are close to Philadelphia.
  5. CHICAGO will be looking into it.

ADJOURN CALL AND NEXT STEPS & DRAFT AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY:

At 4:15 p.m. Moderator Cooper thanked everyone for their participation on the afternoon’s call. The next Important Issues Call will be held on Thursday, December 18, 2003, at 11:00 a.m. and cover the National Construction Safety Team Act.

The call was then adjourned.

Supplemental to the November 25th call, the following are the Next Steps in holding the February 2004 one-day conference on High-Rise Retrofit Issues.

NEXT STEPS:

  1. Jurisdictions on call offering to host will get back to NCSBCS by December 15 as to whether or not they can host, and what facilities they can offer for the program.
  2. AMCBO/NCSBCS will prepare a draft agenda for the conference based upon input received today and circulate that draft along with the Executive Summary from this call. (FIRST DRAFT IS ATTACHED BELOW FOR COMMENT.)
  3. AMCBO/NCSBCS will circulate the draft agenda for further input from members. Deadline for input will be December 24, 2003. By January 7, 2003, date, location and final agenda for the February conference will be set and notification provided to AMCBO members and NCSBCS public sector members. A registration fee will be set to cover costs.

DRAFT AGENDA FOR THE PROPOSED "One Day" Conference

Where: Possible venue - San Antonio, TX: Columbus, OH; Wilmington, DE or Chicago, IL

When: Late February 2004

Tentative Agenda:

Background: Many mature cities have high-rise buildings more than 75 feet tall. Typically these buildings are from 10 to 20 stories high. They were constructed between 1900 and 1973 when the model codes began focusing on life safety in high-rise buildings. For many economic and social reasons, the local jurisdiction benefits by keeping these buildings occupied even though they lack the same life safety systems built into more modern high-rise buildings.

Topic 1: What steps are being taken to preserve existing buildings and systems?

  1. What are good examples of façade inspection programs and how are they being implemented?
  2. What is the impact of new security regulations being implemented as a result of the attacks on 9-11-01?
  3. What strategies are being employed to regulate night clubs a year after the tragedies?

Topic 2: What steps are being taken to retrofit improve life safety protection in existing buildings?

  1. Sprinklers
  2. Fire alarm and smoke detection systems
  3. Stairwells, exit signs etc.
  4. What improved and economical materials are being used?
  5. How are these requirements being implemented, especially in condominiums?
  6. What strategy is being used and how much time is being allowed?
  7. What financial incentives are being given by the local jurisdiction?
  8. How are these requirements being "sold" in commercial buildings and condominiums?

Topic 3: What strategies are being used to renovate existing buildings?

  1. Chapter 34
  2. Administrative modifications
  3. Active fire protection & detections systems being substituted for passive systems
  4. How are exits, & fire escapes being improved?
  5. What financial incentives are being given by the local jurisdiction?

Topic 4: What changes are coming?

  1. What is happening as a result of the study of the World Trade Center?
  2. What is happening as a result of the Pentagon?
  3. What is happening because of other factors?

Please forward your comments on the above draft agenda to: cfitch@ncsbcs.org with a copy to: coopercg@ci.richmond.va.us and to: rwible@ncsbcs.org by December 20, 2003.