Travis County Commissioners Court
April 27, 2010,
Item 7
>> okay, next item. Is item number 7. We're into the justice and public safety section of the agenda. Receive briefing regarding order to adopt the 2009 international fire code for unincorporate travis county effective june 1, 2010.
>> thank you very much. I'm danny hobby and i'm the executive manager of emergency services and i have with me today our travis county fire marshal hershal lee. This gives you an opportunity to go over a subject we don't get to do very often. The last time you adopted a fire code, the only one you have adopted, is the 2003 which was in february 2005. And so today what we would like to do is too give you a briefing. We really don't request you do that. What we would like do is just to introduce what we would hope irjtuarlike to have action o &q you approve an order that would basically approve a revision of the 2003 which is now the 2009 international fire code. What we would like to do today is to first introduce what a fire code is about for those that may be watching.
>> [one moment for change in captioners, please
>> [brook.
>> [brook. . . . . .
>> that was the international fire code 2003. Now, this code basically requires permits for the construction of commercial establishments in public buildings and unincorporated travis county, texas. It governor verns the safeguarding of life and property from fire and explosion hazards arising from storage, handling and use of hazardous substances, materials and devices from conditions hazardous to life and property and the occupancy of buildings and premises in unincorporated travis county. And it provides for the issuance of permits and collections of fees. Now, since 2003 there have been advances in technology of fire prevengs and newer methods of construction that require different approaches to fire prevention. These have been addressed in the international fire code 2009, which is the most recent version of this code published by the international code council. Now, we are also in partnership with our other jurisdictions, meaning the city of austin, other emergency services districts, and as we tried to do and we were successful in doing in 2005, we all wanted to try to be consistent having the same code. So as we speak today, there are others who are also moving in the direction of going to this revised 2009 code. The city of austin is right now moving in that direction. We already have two esd's, esd 3 and esd 9 have adopted the 2009. And we also see some other emergency services districts that are reviewing it as well. So this is consistent with our partners so that our citizenry will be consistent in what is being issued in regards to fire protection. I'd like to at this time pass it on to herschel lee, our travis county fire marshal and he will actually highlight some of the revisions that are in this particular code.
>> thank you, mr. Hobby. Good morning, commissioners. I know in your backup there you have some information in this. This is the 2009 international fire code that we're asking you to consider. And this is the second revision since the fire code that is currently adopted as the travis county fire code. So the changes that are in 2009 actually are the changes to '06 and then the changes up to '09. I want to highlight those for you. These changes are because of lessons learned from fires, studying the behavior of fiefers. What has happened in fires and also the advancement of technology, fire prevention and firefighterring methods. Some of the significant changes are that for buildings such as this building, a building that is classified as a group b occupancy, if it has more than 100 people above the level of exit discharge, which would be this floor, if the occupant load is more than 100, the current code is going to ask for an evacuation plan, a fire safety plan and that plan be placed in the records and that it be enacted and records kept of those evacuation drills. It will require an evacuation drill at least once each year for a building such as this one. And that the code itself just says employees. That will be a challenge for the occupants of the building to have a drill and not involve the public as well, but that is one of the things that will be a change in the '09 code. One of the fires that was of great significance in the past was the nightclub fire and one of the things that was learned from that is that interior finish requirements will affect the rapid spread of fire throughout a building. And so changes that went from '03 into the '06 code were more stringent requirements of how the interior of an assembly occupancy can be finished out. And another change between '03 and '06 was a more stringent sprinkler requirement for what we call an a 2, assembly occupancy that serves food and alcohol. In the '03 code that is currently in effect, the occupant load is 300 before sprinklers are required. This new load is going to lower that occupant load to hundred. Once the occupant load is 100, a fire sprinkler system would be required. Another significant change is that the '09 code has a chapter for marinas. Now, western travis county has a lake with a number of marinas, and through cooperation with ourselves, esd 1, 6, 8 and 14, we have gotten together in the past to decide how those marinas would be address sod that everybody was addressing the marinas the same. But now this is being incorporated into -- as a complete chapter in the fire code and we will -- we plan to continue to use our document on how we have addressed fire suppression requirements on marinas. One of the chapters that will scare people when they first hear is the new chapter 46 on existing buildings. What has been learned from past lessons is that there are some buildings where the danger to life is greater. And those are buildings that are more than 75 feet in height, institutional occupancies, educational occupancies and those types of buildings. There are also buildings that store hazardous materials that would have changes based upon the required existing building chapter. I have -- with my short-term knowledge of travis county, i have gone through all the buildings that i knew of in unincorporated travis county that this chapter would affect directly. And i did not know of any, so i sent an e-mail out to iech one of the esd chiefs that we work with for those, and the response back is that they do not know of any buildings that this will affect directly. And those buildings in particular are institutional. Well, that would be a nursing home type facility, those are already sprinkled in unincorporated travis county. They already have fire alarms. The jails, the correctional facility. I've contacted the correctional health and safety crew and they are already in compliance with everything that is in chapter 46. Residential such as apartments that would have more than 16 units or be more than three stories tall. I do not know of any in particular. So it seems that by adopting it, we really carnt covering anything, but if there is a building out there in unincorporated travis county that this would address, it has been shown in past history that it really should be addressed. Chapter 46 gives the fire code official the authority to determine what length of time is allowed to come into compliance with chapter 46. A number of buildings that travis county owned might be affected by this, but they are inside the city of austin. The city of austin has plans to adopt 2009 international fire code. They intend to pick up chapter 46 in the code, so my recommendation for 46 is for us to keep it just so that we stay like all of the emergency service districts and the city of austin. What i have done so far as far as telling people that we want to do this is i've sent an e-mail out to -- when we get a permit application in, quite often we get e-mail addresses with those permit applications. So we send out a mass e-mail to say, this is what we are plan -- planning to do. If you would like more information about it, respond and you will receive a copy of this. We have already received several requests for that information. We sent the information out to our five-member board of review. We have sent the e-mail out and the attachment which basically has this order and amendments out to the austin-san antonio chapter of society protection of fire safety engineers. And if the court is considering going forward and adopting this, with your permission i would like to post it on our website as a proposed order. And then mr. Hobby is recommending that we come back to you in a few weeks and we'll tell you what the public has -- what public comments we've received, questions, concerns and try to get those addressed. I'll be glad to answer any questions or try to answer any questions you have.
>> i had a couple of questions. Thank you again for this presentation. I think that's real adequate. Number one is that when we visit this had -- first of all, i think danny brought it up back in 2003. We ended up bringing it before the court at that time, however we didn't really adopt the fire code until 2005. Would that -- if the court decides -- after we receive community input on these different proposals that you have -- and of course we receive the necessary input from the persons in the community, what would be the timeline on adopting the new recommendations -- recommendations as far as the 2009 uniform fire code? When would that go into effect? I didn't want -- i was just wondering the timeline of the 2003 uniform fire code, which at that time we didn't really have one, but of course we end up adopting it in 2005. What would be the timeline on this side from the 2009 uniform fire code if the court decides to adopt it? What would be the -- on the other side there as far as the length of time as far as adopting this new code?
>> thank you for bringing that up, commissioner. I should have introduced that in my opening remarks. And that is in the order the effective date would be june 1st.
>> june 1st?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> that's why we're here today is to allow enough time between now and june 1st --
>> june 1st of this year. All right. Secondly is that the e.t.j., which is governed -- which have some degree of involvement from cities, even though it may be in the unincorporated area of travis county, but if there's an e.t.j. That overlay that, per se, how would those cities become a part of -- an example like a chapter 46 for an example that you had brought up dealing with height of buildings and a whole lot of other things. In other words, how would e.t.j., extraterritorial jurisdiction, in the overlapping situations of the unincorporated areas of travis county, how would that come into play dealing with cities?
>> the fire code that's in effect in the tej is the county's fire code now. I understand the city of austin does review for those areas and i can't tell you exactly what they review, but in particular they look at drainage and easements and address and those type things, but -- and we work with them if we have questions about -- especially if it's a city building that's being built, we work with them. But the travis county code somewhat will actually be in effect for the unincorporated area, even though it is in the e.t.j. And we have had a number of experiences where there was a building that literally is being built right on the line or it's two buildings and the city limits will split them. So we will work with their inspection department to be sure that a fire code does apply to each of those two buildings. If it's inside the city they always do t but if it's outside the city there have been a couple of times where people didn't know and they went to hem and they have already paid all of their fees and started the inspection work by the time we find it. And as long as we continue to keep records of the inspections, we have allowed those -- i think there's only been one, but that has happened. I guess the short answer to your question is that in the e.t.j., travis county's fire code applies.
>> on the different requirements that you have brought up as far as the evacuation plan that must be in place, of course the numbers have changed from what it was before to a lesser number i think as far as this illustration is concerned. I think it's down to 100 before an evacuation plan is received. So those particular settings that have -- that must submit an evacuation plan or at least have an evacuation plan available for the office, do we know who they are as far as the occupancy -- as far as the occupancy of that particular setting and if the rules change for that, how would they be notified of existing settings.
>> okay. The occupant load question, that was at 100, that is a fire sprinkler requirement. The evacuation plan requirement is -- it not aimed at every last building in travis county, but it is for only particular ones. There's a table in chapter 46 that lays that out. The main buildings that are in unincorporated travis county that are going to be affected that we deal with are going to be county buildings. And this is one of those issues we discussed this with risk management. They are -- they look through the chapter, realized that -- what it would mean and said that in many cases they were already developing or had already developed plans for -- especially for the county buildings. If there is a building that does not -- such as a privately owned building, and we find that we do an inspection on it, we'll notify them of the requirement for that, give them a length of time to make those plans, get those -- that evacuation and safety plan in place and then go back and verify that it is there. And for each building it would be a little bit different, but our intent is to notify and then work with them to get them into compliance.
>> last question. And that is, how -- within this timeline when you bring it back between now and may 18th for us to consider adoption of the code, the new code, what instruments will be used or how will you actually notify folks out there to participate in this so we can have a vast array of participation with exposure to this particular adjustment in the code?
>> the primary buildings that are going to be affected are going to be -- they probably already have these, such as schools. In our e-mails that are going out to architects and engineers, we're telling them -- and while they may not be entirely responsible for existing buildings, any time they work with an existing building they will know that this is something that's going to -- that we're going to ask for when we review a plan or alteration for that building. That's something we will ask for in their submittal to us for a permit is do you have a plan and is it in place? What are the records for that?
>> okay. Thank you very much for those questions -- answers to those questions. Thank you.
>> you mention that had there were new provisions for marinas and that you were working with the esd's around the lake. What about lcra? They actually issue marina permits.
>> that's correct. And when we started developing our guidelines, what we call our guidelines, basically it is just a summary of what the national fire protection association rules and requirements are for marinas. And taking in the parts where in the past matter irinas were just addressed in spots throughout the code. So we kind of put it all in one place. And we provided that document to lcra and i believe it's about three weeks ago now lcra gave me a call and wanted to know was it okay if they sent that out to all of the existing marinas that were out there? And of course, that is fine with us because the more people know about what we want and what we require, the easier it is to get compliance. And so lcra knows of our rules and regulations. I know when i first came here in 2005 we met with a group for private marina owners to talk to them about the then 2003 fire code.
>> so does the lcra, do you know when they issue their permits, they actually require compliance with the code? Or is it just travis county that they're required to comply with? Or are they required?
>> the lcra does have some requirements, but i believe they're leaving all of the fire code requirements up to us now that they know that there's someone that is looking at that.
>> i have just one question. What will we do with the 2012 revision? Just cross that bridge when we come to it? It's on the three-year cycle.
>> right. Every three years you have a revision that is made.
>> okay.
>> we'll be back in three years.
>> question answered. All right. We are looking for a reset of 5-11, is that correct?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic]. You know who it applies to, but what they're required to do hasn't been presented. I think court will want to know that.
>> do you recommend taking that presentation now or would you like to set this for next week when have you a fuller court to advise of the requirements?
>> i have some notes about the existing buildings that would be affected, but whatever the court please is okay with me.
>> then let's do it now.
>> okay. In particular some of the existing buildings that i mentioned briefly --
>> you can blame barbara. I'm teasing.
>> [ laughter ]
>> when we were going back and forth over there, mr. Wilson said you know you will have to tell them about chapter 46.
>> [ laughter ]
>> what i want you to tell them is not what buildings will be covered, but the buildings, if they need -- and there may be none in travis county that exist that will be asked to do it -- will be requested to do in terms of what retrofitting they'll have to do.
>> right. The particular retrofit requirements would be -- the only ones that are for sprinkler or for those that store a particular type of plastic, and that is the old time movie film that over years becomes very unstable and almost explodes instead of burns. So the retroactive spliller requirements there -- sprinkler requirements there, that's where they come in. Now, the code also says that if you have -- if you have an institutional occupancy it must be sprild. The ones that we have are already sprinkled so that's not going to be a problem. The fire alarm requirements for residential -- and this is for hotels or apartments that have more than two stories in height or more than 16 units in a building. Those would be required to retrofit what fire alarms. The only one nigh that came close, i sent an inspector out to this week, their largest building has 16 units. So it's not going -- the code -- adopting the code will not affect that particular apartment complex. There are firefighter control requirements for elevators in buildings over 75 feet high, but the fire chiefs say they don't have any. So those are the type retro fit requirements that would be required. Educational occupancies would have to have fire alarms. Ours already have fire alarms. Educational occupancies over 12,000 square feet require sprinklers, but ours already have them. So again, ms. Wilson pointed out to me now, well, why do we want it? I don't know of any buildings out there that this fits, but there may be one. And if there is, then we want to work with them and get them into compliance.
>> the main reason i wanted the court to know about this is that if we have missed anybody who would have to comply, i suspect that they would be calling your offices and i wanted you to be forewarned. It is not that i think that you shouldn't do it, it's simply that i don't want you to get blindsided.
>> and also for the individuals who it may cover, we don't want to blind side them either. So if -- let me recap what i'm hearing. The parties that should be particularly interested in this revision are film archives, nursing homes, large apartment buildings of more than 16 units or three stories, buildings over 75 feet high, and educational buildings with a traffic level of --
>> i believe it's more than 12,000 square feet.
>> more than 12,000 square feet. And there may be other categories, but if you are something like that, take a look at this revision, see if it applies to you, give us your thoughts.
>> that's correct. Any public input or questions we would welcome and would like to address. I don't want this to catch anybody unawares, but again, one of the first sections in chapter 46 gives us authority to work with someone who owns such a building to make a plan to come in compliance and then set an accepted timeline for when you will do that.
>> and our office has a very good track record, my understanding from those in the communities, that we do have a very good track record of working with individuals for a reasonable time frame to come into compliance. As well as having some rules unlike many other counties, we've established rules for coming into compliance so that everyone knows what is expected of them and it's a level playing field.
>> commissioner davis, awhile ago you mentioned some advertisement and how we're going to get the word out. Herschel had mentioned awhile ago that along with the e-mails we also would like to put this on our website so that people can actually go and read and get a better understanding of what it is we're talking about today.
>> for those that are listening to this today, there are -- for clarity purposes in the future where they will maybe get a better understanding than what they've heard here today, is there a telephone number that someone can call, either one of you, i guess, in this particular regard?
>> yes, sir. They are free to call our office at 512-854-4621. Our office also offers predevelopment meetings on tuesday morpgz and thursday afternoons if someone has a building they think this may affect and want to talk about it. Those predevelopment meetings are free. One of the fire marshals will sit down and go over the requirements with them.
>> thank you.
>> thank you so much for the briefing. We'll be looking for a proposed reset of the 18th.
>> yes.
>> now i would like to -- we will call up number 17 again, but right now i'd like to skip to item 19 and then item 21 so that health and human services can knock those out of the park.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, April 27, 2010 2:35 PM
