Resolution No. 76661
2
3
4
5
M
7
[.In
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 7666
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VERNON MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE GRANTING
OF AN APPEAL BY VERNON COLD STORAGE LLC CONCERNING
ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDING CONDITIONS AT 4224
DISTRICT BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section
38660, the legislative body of a city may regulate the construction of
and the materials used in all buildings; and
WHEREAS, according to California Government Code Section
50022.2, a local agency may enact an ordinance which adopts any code by
reference, in whole or in part; and
WHEREAS, the Uniform Fire Code (1997 Edition), the Uniform
Building Code (1997 Edition), and the Uniform Code for Abatement of
Dangerous Buildings (1997 Edition) were adopted, respectively, in
Vernon City Codes Section 7.10, 24.10 and 24.30; and
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting of the Vernon City Council on
February 21, 2001, the City Council heard an appeal by Vernon Cold
Storage, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "the Owner"), from a
determination by the Director of Community Services and Water, the
Building Official of the City of Vernon, regarding the Owner's propertyl'i
located at 4224 District Boulevard in the City of Vernon (hereinafter
referred to as "the Building"); and
WHEREAS, the Building Official had determined that:
• the Building (1) lacks a sufficient number of exits
pursuant to Section 3407.1 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code and
Appendix lA of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code; and (2) does not comply with
the swing and opening force requirements of Section 1003.3.15 of the
1997 Uniform Building Code because force exceeding the requirement was
X
i A
1 necessary to open the doors into the stairwell due to icing; and
2 • the Building is dangerous based upon (1) Section 102 of
3 the 1997 Uniform Building Code which states that all buildings not
4 providing adequate egress are considered unsafe, a public nuisance and
5 shall be abated by repair, rehabilitation, demolition or removal; and
6 (2) Section 302 of the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous
7 Buildings which considers a building dangerous if (i) any door, aisle
8 or passageway, stairway or other means of exit are so warped, worn,
9 loose, torn or otherwise unsafe as to not provide safe and adequate
10 means of exit in case of fire or panic; (ii) any building is manifestly
11 unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used; (iii) any building
12 exists or is maintained in violation of.any specific requirement
13 applicable to such building as specified in a building code; and (iv)
14 any building because of inadequate exits is determined by the fire
15 marshal to be a fire hazard provided that the conditions exist to the
16 extent that the life, health, property or safety of the public or its
17 occupants are endangered; and
18 WHEREAS, pursuant to letter dated September 27, 2000, the
19 Owner advised the City that it wanted to appeal the determination by
20 the City's Building Official; and
21 WHEREAS, the Owner advised the estimated cost of adding.the
22 second exit would be approximately $726,000 and that this expense would
23 result in a severe financial hardship and would significantly affect
24 the financial viability of the Building; and
25 WHEREAS, the City's Building Official advised the Owner that
26 while financial burden was a relevant factor, unless the Owner took
27 affirmative steps to address the concerns raised by the City, the
28 Building Official would recommend that the appeal be denied; and
- 2 -
A
w
4
1II WHEREAS, in response to the Building Official's advisement,
2 the Owner engaged the services of Dillon Consulting Engineers, Inc.,
3 professional engineers ("Dillon"), to perform an engineering study to
4 determine if the Building could continue to be used safely; and
5 WHEREAS, Dillon has opined that the Building can be safely
6 occupied if certain mitigation is provided; and
711 WHEREAS, Dillon has provided the following facts, conclusions
8 and recommendations:
9 • The Building is a six -story freezer building constructed
10 in 1928 with 12-foot high ceilings and is fully sprinklered with a dry
11 pipe system. Each floor measures 200 feet by 200 feet and the floors
12 Mare divided into as many as four separate spaces with the smallest
13 Ilbeing 3,500 square feet. Each floor is served by one egress stair.
14 IIThe effective travel distance from the most remote area to the stairs
15 11 is 380 feet.
16 . A second stairwell would be difficult to construct due
17 to the Buildings location on the property, the dock arrangement, the
18 nature of the use of the Building (cold storage) and the thickness of
19 the walls, 46 inches.
20 • From the 6th floor a person could safely exit the
21 Building in 4 minutes 18 seconds. The total elapsed time from ignition
22 to when a smoke layer from a fire involving the frozen commodity
23 descends to a point 6 feet above the floor in the smallest storage room
24 is 8 minutes 10 seconds. On an undivided floor, the same conditions
25 are not reached until 72 minutes 36 seconds.
26 • Second floors of any use with an occupant load of less
27 than 10 are permitted to have only one exit, pursuant to California
28 Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Section 1004.2.3.2 and Table
- 3 -
4 a i
1 10A. An aviation control tower with an occupant load of 15 per floor
2 and a maximum area of 1,500 square feet is permitted to have only one
3 exit even though it may be unlimited height when of type I-FR
4 construction. The subject building can be classified as type I-FR and
5 the actual occupant load due to the nature of the operations and
6 environmental conditions is approximately 1 per floor.
7 • warehousemen are intimately familiar with the building
8 geography and _are equipped with and trained in the use of an emergency
9 escape mask, which provides them up to 20 minutes of escape time
10 through even poisonous gas clouds.
11 . There is a written procedure whereby the stair doors in
12 each level are inspected and logged daily to ensure they are not
13 blocked or closed by ice or other obstructions.
14 • All employees are trained to deal with an ammonia
15 release as required by the Hazardous Materials Management Plan and the
16 Risk Management Plan and Prevention Plan which is on file with the
17 City. All warehousemen at this facility are provided with and trained
18 in the use of a two-way transceiver.
19 • The likelihood of a release is minimal because of the
20 piping arrangement and the way the evaporators are suspended. The
21 mounting is flexible which allows movement without damage. Any
22 significant leak of ammonia will be detected by `the ammonia detection
23 system, which automatically cuts off the feed to the entire warehouse
24 and transmits an alarm to an attended location. Additionally, the
25 ammonia system operates at a below atmospheric pressure (vacuum) of
26 approximately 6 inches. Under the unlikely scenario that if a 1/32 of
27 an inch crack in the piping occurred and the leak went undetected, the
28 piping system filled with sufficient incompressibles to take the
- 4 -
j
L
1 compressor offline and the system feedback is bypassed and line
2 pressure built to 150 psig, then it would take 11 seconds after the
3 flow reversal before the IPLH concentration would be reached in the
4 smallest room.
5 0 Flow indication in the sprinkler system sets off a fire
6 alarm to an attended location and automatically notifies the Fire
7 Department. Response to the alarms is immediate evacuation of the
8 building.
9 WHEREAS, in response to the City's concerns, Dillon has
10 recommended and the Owner has agreed to furnish the following
11 mitigation:
12 • Place emergency escape masks on every forklift truck, this
13 will assure that the mask and the user will remain in close proximity
14 to each other.
15 • Install notification appliances in every room on every
16 floor of the refrigerated space to provide audible and visual alarms to
17 the warehouseman upon detection of smoke or ammonia gas in the
18 building.
19 • Provide a corridor with a 1-hour fire resistive floor-to-
20 ceiling wall assembly from the stairs to the lobby. Openings into the
21 lobby shall be protected with self -closing or automatic closing
22 assemblies of at least 20 minute rating.
23 • Maintain exit signs and mark an area to assure that no
24 commodities are stored in such a way as to not block egress.
25 . Install a permanent rail to preclude the placement of
26 pallets within 4 feet of the door or its exit path; and
27 WHEREAS, Dillon points out that, under California Code of
28 Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 34 division, Section 3401,
- 5 -
1 existing buildings that were legal at the time of the Code, may have
2 their use continued provided such continued use is not dangerous to
3 life.
4 WHEREAS, given the extraordinary low occupant load of the
5 upper floors and basement of the Building, the lack of credible
6 _ignition, the difficulty of igniting and sustaining a fire in frozen
7 foods, the presence of a sprinkler system, the presence of an ammonia
8 detection system throughout the type of I-FR construction, the
9 familiarity of the occupants with the space, the vacuum operating
10 condition of the ammonia refrigeration system, the routing examination
11 and logging of the stair door condition, the emergency training and
12 apparatus provided for employees and the ability to communicate with
13 employees throughout the Building it is Dillon's opinion that the
14 Building is safe to occupy with a single egress and should not be
15 considered dangerous; and
16 WHEREAS, based upon the statements of fact and conclusions in
17 the Dillon report, the City agrees that if all of the mitigation
18 suggested in the report is implemented, the continued use of the
19 Building should not be considered dangerous; and
20 WHEREAS, under the alternative design provision of the
21 Uniform Building Code, the City's staff has recommended that the
22 Building be allowed to continue to be occupied with only one means of
23 egress from the upper floors and basement under the following
24 conditions:
2511 1. All existing safeguards mentioned in this report and in
26 the January 22, 2001 Dillon Consulting Engineers, Inc.'s letter shall
27 be maintained.
28
- 6 -
1
2'
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
right to inspect at all times to determine that all provisions outlined
in the January 22, 2001 Dillon Consulting Engineers are being
maintained. Failure to maintain any of the provisions may void, at the
City's discretion this alternate design approval.
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered testimony on behalf
of the Owner of the Building at the appeal hearing, documentation
offered on behalf of the Owner, staff reports supporting documentation
submitted by the Director of Community Services and Water prior to the
appeal hearing, and correspondence dated August 31, 2000 and October
11, 2000 from Samuel Kevin Wilson, Director of Community Services &
Water, and correspondence dated September 27, 2000 and November 8, 2000
from Patrick A. Perry of Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble & Mallory LLP on
behalf of the Owner and correspondence from Dillon dated January 22,
2001; and
WHEREAS, the appeal hearing was closed during said meeting,
and the matter was submitted to the City Council for decision; and
WHEREAS, the evidence presented in this matter supports the
following findings of fact:
1. The property in question consists, in part, of a
building located at 4224 District Boulevard in the City of Vernon, Los
Angeles County Assessor Parcel Number 6304-027-015, that contains a
basement as well as six stories above the ground floor.
2. The Building located at 4224 District Boulevard in
Vernon is currently owned by Vernon Cold Storage, LLC and Frank White
is the President of Vernon Cold Storage, LLC.
3. By letter dated August 31, 2000--
(a) Mr. Wilson informed Vernon Properties that the City
had determined that the Building was dangerous in accordance with the
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings and in
violation of the 1997 Uniform Building Code due to the lack of
sufficient exits and iced doors entering the existing exit stairwells.
(b) Mr. Wilson ordered the immediate repair and
maintenance of the doors entering the existing exit stairwells to
comply with Section 1003.3.15 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code.
(c) Mr. Wilson ordered the Owner to submit plans,
receive City approval and commence construction of a second means of
egress within 60 days to comply with the 1997 Uniform Building Code and
further ordered that such construction be completed within 21 months.
(d) Mr. Wilson advised that failure to comply with the
order was grounds for termination of the occupancy permit and the
building ordered vacated until the work was completed.
(e) Mr. Wilson advised that if the City proceeded to
cause the work to be done, the City would charge the costs thereof
against the property or its Owner.
WHEREAS, Section 104.2.8 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code
allows for alternate designs when approved by the building official.
Given the age of the building, type of construction and the safeguards
currently in place and proposed to be employed and maintained, as
outlined in the Dillon Consulting Engineers letter dated January 22,
2001, it is recommended that the alternate design be approved, that the
one exit stair well be deemed acceptable and that the Building not be
considered dangerous.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF VERNON AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby
finds and determines that the recitals contained hereinabove are true
- 9 -
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and correct, and adopts the same as its findings of fact in this
matter.
SECTION 2: Upon reconsideration of this matter, the City
Council of the City of Vernon hereby grants the appeal in this matter,
contingent upon the.Owner's compliance with the following mitigation
measures:
1. All existing safeguards mentioned in the staff's report
and in the January 22, 2001 Dillon Consulting Engineers, Inc.'s letter
shall be maintained.
2. The Owner shall provide a one -hour fire resistive exit
corridor from the stairs to the lobby.
3. The Owner shall maintain an emergency escape mask on
every forklift truck in addition to the masks currently being provided
in each room and placement of notification on appliances in every room
on every floor to provide audible and visual alarms to the occupants
when smoke or ammonia are detected.
4. The Owner will also mark and place railings in areas
around the exit doors to exclude storage in order to insure that the
doors are accessible at all times.
5. The above mentioned mitigation shall be implemented
within six months of the date of City Council action and shall be
maintained for the life of the Building.
6. The Owner shall maintain insurance in the amount of
$20,000,000.00 in a form and carrier approved by the City. The `City
shall be named as an additional insured.
7.. The type of use of the Building shall not be changed.
8. The Owner shall execute a hold harmless agreement with
the City in a form approved by the City Attorney.
- 10 -
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9. The Building shall be available at all times for City
inspection to determine continued compliance of all conditions.
SECTION 3: The City shall have the right to inspect the
Building at all times to determine that all of the provisions outlined
in the January 22, 2001 Dillon Consulting Engineers are being
maintained. The Owner's failure to maintain any of these provisions
may void, at the City's discretion, this alternate design approval.
Furthermore, the Owner's failure to comply with any of the conditions
in Section 2 may automatically void this action.
SECTION 4: This action shall be construed as "a temporary
approval of an alternate design and this matter may be revisited by the
City in five (5) years to ensure that the safeguards set forth herein
are sufficient. At that time, the City shall have the right to confirm
or deny the continued occupancy of the subject Building based on the
outcome of its re-examination.
SECTION 5: The Staff Reports dated November 14, 2000 and
February 15, 2001, as well as other documents relating to the Owner's
operation of its Facility in Vernon are hereby made a part of the
record in this case. The Reports are attached hereto as Exhibit "A"
and made a part hereof.
SECTION 6: All existing and future tenants shall be notified
of these restrictions and conditions and these terms shall be placed in
all future leases.
SECTION 7: These conditions shall be binding upon the owner,
and its successors, heirs or assignees and shall continue in effect
until released by the City.
1
SECTION 8: The
City
Clerk of the City of Vernon shall
2
certify to the passage of
this
resolution, and thereupon and thereafter
3
the same shall be in full
force
and effect.
4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of February, 2001.
5
6
7 EONIS C. MA UR�G,M�aor�
ATTEST:
8
9
10 BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 12 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk of the City of Vernon, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No.
7666, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Vernon at a
regular meeting of the City Council duly held on Wednesday,
February 21, 2001, and thereafter was duly signed by the Mayor of the
City of Vernon.
(SEAL)
v
BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk
- 13 -
EXHIBIT
AM"
REVISED
STAFF REPORT
VERNON COLD STORAGE
4224 DISTRICT BOULEVARD
BUILDING CODE VIOLATION
FEBRUARY 15, 2001
On August 31, 2000 a letter was sent to Vernon Cold Storage.
LLC, the owners of 4224 District Boulevard, requiring them to
abate a dangerous condition. The subject building is six stories
and is located on Los Angeles County Assessor Parcel Number 6304-
027-015. Section 302 of the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement
of Dangerous Buildings considers a building dangerous if one of
eighteen enumerated conditions exists provided that such
conditions or defects exist to the extent that the life, health,
property or safety of the public or its occupants are endangered.
The building located at 4224 District Boulevard lacks
sufficient number of exits_ Section 3401 of the 1997 Uniform
Building Code states "Buildings in existence at the time of the
adoption of this code may have their existing use or occupancy
continued, if such use or occupancy was legal at the time of this
code, provided such use is not dangerous to life. Appendix
Chapter 34, Existing Structures outlines the minimum life safety
requirements for existing buildings. Section 3407.1, Number of
Means of Egress, states "Every floor above the first story used
for human occupancy shall have at least two means of egress, one
of which may be an exterior fire escape complying with Section
3407.4. Appendix lA of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code restates the
exact same requirements for an existing building.
Section 102 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code, Unsafe
Buildings or Structures states, "All buildings or structures
regulated by this code that are structurally unsafe or not
provided with adequate egress or that constitute a fire hazard,
or are otherwise dangerous to human life are, for the purpose of
this section, unsafe." Section 102 goes on to state "All such
unsafe buildings, structures or appendages are hereby declared to
be a public nuisance and shall be abated by repair,
rehabilitation, demolition or removal in accordance with
procedures set forth in the Dangerous Building Code..."
Section 302 of the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of
Dangerous Buildings considers the following conditions dangerous:
1) Whenever any door, aisle or passageway, stairway or
other means of exit is so warped, worn, loose, torn or
otherwise unsafe as to not provide safe and adequate
means of exit in case of fire or panic.
2) Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or
any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the
purpose for which it is being used.
3) Whenever any building or structure has been
constructed, exists or is maintained in violation of
any specific requirement or prohibition applicable to
such building or structure provided by the building
regulations of this jurisdiction, as specified in the
building code or housing code, or any law or ordinance
of this state or jurisdiction relating to the
condition, location or structure of buildings.
4) Whenever any building or structure, because of
obsolescence, dilapidated condition, deterioration,
damage, inadequate exits, lack of sufficient fire -
resistive construction, faulty electric wiring, gas
connections or heating apparatus, or other cause is
determined by the fire marshal to be a fire hazard.
During recent city inspections of the subject building it
was determined that the six story building contains only one exit
stairwell and only one stairwell from the basement. It was
determined that great force, far exceeding the Uniform Building
Code requirement of 30 lbs. was necessary to open the doors into
the stairwell due to icing.
The City ordered the owner to immediately repair and
maintain the doors entering the existing exit stairwells so that
they comply with Section 1003.3.15, swing and opening force of
the 1997 Uniform Building Code.
Additionally, the City ordered the owner within 60 days to
submit plans and receive city approval for the construction of a
second means of egress for all floors and the basement in
compliance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code. The exit may be
an exterior fire escape complying with section 3407.4 of the
Uniform Building Code. The construction of the second means of
egress shall commence within 60 days and shall be completed
within 21 months of the date of this notice.
In addition to the fact that the building was constructed
with only one exit stairwell, two other factors add to the
concern of safety within the structure. Firstly, the building
has an extensive piping network containing ammonia. The low
ceiling heights increase the potential for a forklift rupturing
2
the piping system, thereby releasing ammonia within the
structure. In certain quantities ammonia gas is both explosive
and fatal.
Secondly, the building was constructed with four elevator
shafts. These vertical shafts provide a direct connection
between floors and unlike modern buildings are not fully enclosed
or protected with self -closing fire rated doors. Smoke from a
fire can easily migrate from one floor to the next causing
potential injuries or fatalities to occupants within the
structure. It should be noted that existing buildings with
automatic sprinklers are not required to have their vertical
shafts retrofitted. These two safety concerns only added to the
need for a second means of egress from the structure. .
Lastly, it should be noted that the building code assigns an
occupant load of 80 for each floor based on 40,000 square feet of
refrigerated area.
In a letter dated November 3,.2000 from Patrick Perry of
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP, it is argued that Health
and Safety Code Section 17922(f) provides that, "No local
ordinance may permit any action or proceeding to abate violations
or regulating governing maintenance of buildings, unless the
building is a substandard building or the violation is a
misdemeanor." Also, Section 17920.0(L) of the Health and Safety
Code defines substandard building as "All buildings or portions
thereof not provided with adequate exit facilities as required by
this code, except those buildings or portions thereof whose exit
facilities conform with all applicable laws at the time of their
construction any which have been adequately maintained and
increased in relation to any increase in occupant load,
alteration or addition or change on occupancy." However, Section
17920.3(L) further provides that "When an unsafe condition exists
through lack of, or improper location of, exits, additional exits
may be required to be installed.'
It should be noted that the sections quoted in the Patrick
Perry letter is from State Housing Law and is not applicable to
industrial buildings. In any case, the second part of Section
17920.3(L)-clearly allows for enforcement of constructing an
adequate number of exits.
Patrick Perry -also argues that since the State has not
adopted the code for the abatement of dangerous buildings that it
cannot be enforced by the City without making express findings.
However, in Section 102, Unsafe Buildings or Structure, of
the 1998 California Building Code it states in part, "All
buildings or structures regulated by this code that are
3
structurally unsafe or not provided with adequate egress or that
constitute a fire hazard or are otherwise dangerous to•human life
are, for the purpose of this section, unsafe..." Section 102
further provides "All such unsafe building, structures or
appendages are hereby declared to be a public nuisances and shall
be abated by repair, rehabilitation, demolition or removal in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the dangerous
building code..."
The building code specifically advises agencies to utilize
the dangerous building code. Additionally, the City has adopted
the Uniform Dangerous Building Code for its use.
In addition pursuant to Sections 38660 and 50022.2 of the
California Government Code the City may adopt by reference
regulations for the abatement of unsafe buildings.
The Patrick -Perry appeal letter completely ignores Section
3407.1 of appendix 34 existing structures, which require that
every floor above the first story used for human occupancy shall
have at least two means of egress. .
Finally, Mr. Patrick Perry states that the estimated cost of
adding the second exit would be approximately $726,000 and that
this expense would result in a severe financial hardship severely
affecting the financial viability of the building. In the City's
opinion the mere fact that it will be expensive to add a second
exit is no excuse for not providing a life safety requirement.
Given Mr. Perry's opinion the City was prepared to deny Vernon
Code Storage LLC's appeal.
Given this knowledge, Vernon Cold Storage LLC engaged the
services of Dillon Consulting Engineers, Inc. to perform an
engineering study to determine if the building could be continued
to be used safely. Attached herewith and incorporated herein is
a letter dated January 22, 2001 from Dillon Consulting Engineers
outlining that in Michael Dillon's professional opinion that the
building can be safely occupied given -certain mitigation is
provided.
In brief, the following is Mr. Dillon's findings and
conclusions:
1) The subject building is
constructed in 1928 with
fully sprinklered with a
is 200x200 feet and the
as four separate spaces
square feet. Each floor
a six -story freezer building
12-foot high ceilings and is
dry pipe system. Each floor
floors are divided into as many
with the smallest being 3500
is served by one egress stair.
4
The effective travel distance from the most remote area
to the stairs is 380 feet.
2) A second stairwell would be difficult to construct due
to the building location on the property, the dock
arrangement, the nature of the use of the building
(cold storage) and the thickness of the walls, 46`
inches.
3) From the 6th floor a person could safely exit the
building in 4 minutes 18 seconds. The total elapse
time from ignition to when a smoke layer from a fire
involving the frozen commodity descends to a point 6
feet above the floor in the smallest storage room is 8
minutes 10 seconds. on an undivided floor, the same
conditions are not reached until 72 minutes 36 seconds.
4) Second floors of any use with an occupant Toad of less
than 10 are permitted to have only one exit, per Title
24, Part 2, Section 1004.2.3.2 and Table 1OA. An
aviation control tower with an occupant load of 15 per
floor and a maximum area of 1500 square feet is
permitted to have only one exit even though it may be
unlimited height when of type I-FR construction. The
subject building can be classified as type I-FR and the
actual occupant load due to the nature of the
operations and environmental conditions is
approximately l per floor.
5) Warehousemen are intimately familiar with the building
geography and are equipped with and trained in the use
of an emergency escape mask, which provides them up to
20 minutes of escape time through even poisonous gas
clouds.
6) There is a written procedure whereby the stair doors in
each level are inspected and logged daily to ensure
they are not blocked or closed by ice or other
obstructions.
7) All employees are trained to deal with an ammonia
release as required by the Hazardous Materials
Management Plan and the Risk Management Plan and
Prevention Plan which is on file with the City. All
warehousemen at this facility are provided with and
trained in the use of a two-way transceiver.
8) The likelihood of a release is minimal because of the
piping arrangement and the way the evaporators are
suspended. The mounting is flexible which allows
movement without damage. Any significant leak of
ammonia will be detected by the ammonia detection
system, which automatically cuts off the feed to the
entire warehouse and transmits an alarm to an attended
location. Additionally, the ammonia system operates at
a below atmospheric pressure (vacuum) of approximately
6 inches. Under the unlikely scenario that if a 1/32
5
of an inch crack in the piping occurred and the leak
went undetected, the piping system filled with
sufficient incompressibles to take the compressor
offiine and the system feedback is bypassed and line
pressure built to 150 prig, then it would take 11
seconds after the flow reversal before the IPLH
concentration would be reached in the smallest room.,
9) Flow indication in the sprinkler system sets off a fire
alarm to an attended location and automatically
notifies the Fire Department. Response to the alarms
is immediate evacuation of the building.
Additionally, due to the City's concerns with the building
having only one exit stairwell Mr. Dillon has recommended and the
owner has agreed to furnish the following mitigation:
a) Place emergency escape masks on every forklift
truck, this will assure that the mask and the user
will remain in close proximity to each other.
b) Install notification appliances in every room on
every floor of the refrigerated space to provide
audible and visual alarms to the warehouseman upon
detection of smoke or ammonia gas in the building.
c) Provide a corridor with a 1-hour fire resistive
floor -to -ceiling wall assembly from the stairs to
the lobby. Openings into the lobby shall be
protected with self -closing or automatic closing
assemblies of at least 20 minute rating.
d) Maintain exit signs and mark an area to assure
that no commodities are stored in such a way as to
not block egress. Additionally, a permanent rail
will be installed to preclude the placement of
pallets within 4 feet of the door or its exit
path.
Further, Mr. Dillon argues, under CCR, Title 24, Part 2,
Chapter 34 division, Section 3401, existing buildings, which were
legal at the time of the code, may have their use continued
provided such continued use is not dangerous to life. Given the
extraordinary low occupant load of the upper floors and basement
of the building, the lack of credible ignition, the difficulty of
igniting and sustaining a fire in frozen foods, the presence of a
sprinkler system, the presence of an ammonia detection system
throughout the type of I-FR construction, the familiarity of the
occupants with the space, the vacuum operating condition of the
ammonia refrigeration.system, the routing examination and logging
of the stair door condition, the emergency training and apparatus
provided for employees and the ability to communicate with
employees throughout the building it is Mr..Dillon's opinion that
6
the building is safe to occupy with a single egress and should
not be considered dangerous.
The City is in agreement with this position. Therefore,
under the alternative design provision of the Uniform Building
Code it is recommended that the building be allowed to continue
to be occupied with only one means of egress from the upper
floors and basement under the following conditions:
a) All existing safeguards mentioned in this report and in
the January 22, 2001 Dillon Consulting Engineers,
Inc.'s letter shall be maintained.
b) The above mentioned mitigation shall be installed
within six months of the date of City Council action
and shall be maintained for the life of the building.
c) The owner shall maintain insurance in the amount of
$20,000,000.00 in a form and carrier approved by the
City. The City shall be named as an additional
insured.
d) The type of use of the building shall not be changed.
e) The owner shall execute a hold harmless agreement with
the City in a form approved by the City Attorney.
f) The building shall be available at all times for City
inspection to determine continued compliance of all
conditions.
Failure to comply with any of these conditions may
automatically void this approval. Lastly, the City shall have
the ability to re-examine this issue in 5 years to confirm or
deny the continued occupancy of the subject building.
C:\My Documents\STAFF REPORTSWernon.ColdStorage.doc
7
STAFF REPORT
VERNON COLD STORAGE
4224 DISTRICT BOULEVARD
BUILDING CODE VIOLATION
NOVEMBER 14, 2000
The City of Vernon has determined that the building located
at 4224 District Boulevard is dangerous. The subject building is
six stories and is located on Los Angeles County Assessor Parcel
Number 6304-027-015. Section 302 of the 1997 Uniform Code for
the -Abatement of Dangerous Buildings considers a building
dangerous if one of eighteen enumerated conditions exists
provided that such conditions or defects exist to the extent that
the life, health, property or safety of the public.or its
occupants are endangered.
The building located at 4224 District Boulevard lacks
sufficient number of exits. Section 3401 of the 1997 Uniform
Building Code states "Buildings in existence at the time of the
adoption of this code may have their existing use or occupancy
continued, if such use or occupancy was legal at the time of this
code, provided such use is not dangerous to life." Appendix
Chapter 34, Existing Structures outlines the minimum life safety
requirements for existing buildings. Section 3407.1, Number of
Means•of Egress, states "Every floor above the first story used
for human occupancy shall•have at least two means of egress, one
of which may be an exterior fire escape complying with Section
3407.4. Appendix 1A of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code restates the
exact same requirements for an existing building.
Section 102 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code, Unsafe
Buildings or Structures states, "All buildings or structures
regulated by this code that are structurally unsafe or.not
provided with adequate egress_or that constitute a fire hazard,
or are otherwise dangerous to human life are, for the purpose of
this section unsafe." Section 102 goes on to state "All such
unsafe buildings, structures or appendages are hereby declared to
be a public nuisance and shall be abated by repair,
rehabilitation, demolition or removal in accordance with
procedures set forth in the Dangerous Building Code..."
Section 302 of the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of
Dangerous Buildings considers the following conditions dangerous:
1) Whenever any door, aisle or passageway, stairway or
other means of exit is so warped, worn, loose, torn or
otherwise unsafe as to not provide safe and adequate
means of exit in case of fire or panic.
2) Whenever, for any reason,. the building or structure, or
any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the
purpose for which it is being used.
3) Whenever any building or structure has been
constructed, exists or is maintained in violation of
any specific requirement or prohibition applicable to
such building or structure provided by the building
regulations of this jurisdiction, as specified in the
building code or housing code, or any law or ordinance
of this state or jurisdiction relating to the
condition, location or structure of buildings.
4) Whenever any building or structure, because of
obsolescence,.dilapidated condition, deterioration,
damage, inadequate exits, lack of sufficient fire
resistive construction, faulty electric wiring, gas
connections or heating apparatus, or other cause is
determined by the fire marshal to be a fire hazard.
.During recent. city inspections of the subject building it
was determined that the six story building contains only one exit
stairwell and only one stairwell from•'the basement. It was
determined that great force, far exceeding the Uniform Building
Code requirement of 30 lbs. was necessary* to open the doors into
the stairwell due to icing.
The City ordered the owner to immediately repair and
maintain the doors entering the existing exit stairwells so that
they comply with Section 1003.3.15, swing and* opening force of
the 1997 Uniform Building Code.
Additionally, the City ordered the owner within 60 days to
submit plans and receive city approval for the construction of a
second means of egress for all floors and the basement in
compliance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code. The exit may be
an exterior fire escape complying with section 3407.4 of the
Uniform Building Code. The construction of the second means of
egress shall commence within 60 days and shall be completed
within 21 months of the date of this notice.
In addition to the fact that .the building was constructed
with only one exit stairwell, two other factors add to the
concern of safety within the structure Firstly, the building
has an extensive piping network containing ammonia. The low
ceiling heights increase the potential for a forklift rupturing
the piping system, thereby releasing ammonia within the
structure. In certain quantities ammonia gas is both explosive
and fatal.
Secondly, the building was constructed with four elevator
shafts. These vertical shafts provide a direct connection
between floors and unlike modern buildings are not fully enclosed
or protected with -self -closing fire rated doors. Smoke from a
fire can easily migrate from one floor to the next causing
potential injuries ,or fatalities to occupants within the
structure. It should be noted that existing buildings with
automatic sprinklers are not required to have their vertical
shafts retrofitted. These two safety concerns only add to the
need for a second means of egress from the structure.
In a letter dated November 3, 2000 from Patrick Perry of
Alien Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP, it is argued that Health
and Safety Code Section 17922(f) provides that, "No local
ordinance may permit any action or proceeding to abate violations
or regulating governing maintenance of buildings, unless the
building is a substandard building or the violation is a
misdemeanor." Also, Section 17920.0(L) of the Health and Safety
Code defines substandard building as "All buildings or portions
thereof not provided with adequate exit facilities as required by
this code, except those buildings or portions thereof whose exit
facilities conform with all applicable laws at the -time of their
construction any which have been adequately maintained -and
increased in relation to any increase in occupant load,
alteration or addition or change on occupancy." However, Section
17920.3(L) further provides that "When an unsafe condition exists
through lack of, or improper location of, exits, additional exits
may be required to be installed.
It should be noted that the sections quoted in the Patrick
Perry letter is from State Housing Law and is not applicable to
industrial buildings. In any case, the second part of Section
17920.3(L) clearly allows for enforcement of constructing an
adequate number of exits.
Patrick Perry also argues that since the State has not
adopted the code for the abatement of dangerous buildings that it
cannot be enforced by the City without making express findings.
However, in Section 102, Unsafe Buildings or Structure, of
the 1998 California Building Code it states in part, "All
buildings or structures regulated by this code that are
structurally unsafe or not provided with adequate egress or that
constitute a fire hazard or are otherwise dangerous to human life
are, for the purpose of this section, unsafe..." Section 102
I t ,
t
�t
t
further provides "All such unsafe building, structures or
appendages are hereby declared to be a public nuisances and shall
be abated by repair, rehabilitation, demolition or removal in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the dangerous
building code..."
The building code specifically advises agencies to utilize
the dangerous building code. Additionally, the City -has adopted
the Uniform Dangerous Building Code for its use.
In addition pursuant to Sections 38660 and 50022.2 of the
California Government Code the City may adopt by reference
regulations for the abatement of unsafe buildings.
The Patrick Perry appeal letter completely ignores Section
3407.1 of appendix 34 existing structures, which require that
every floor above the first story used for human occupancy` shall
have at least two means of egress.
The City agrees that the building as currently utilized does
not have.many employees within the structure, that the building
is fully sprinklered and of non-combustible construction and that
the building is used to store frozen products. However, we
disagree that the product stored within the building is non-
combustible. Frozen foods will burn given an ignition source.
Lastly, Patrick Perry states that the estimated cost of
adding the second exit would be approximately $726,000 and that
this expense would result in a severefinancial hardship severely
affecting the financial viability of the building. The mere fact
that it will be expensive to add a second exit is no excuse for
not providing a life safety requirement. Therefore,.it is
recommended that a second exit be required to be constructed.
C:\My Documents\STAFF REFORTSWernon.ColdStorage.doc
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS
I
CITY COUNCIL
LEONIS C. MALBURG
Mayor
THOMAS A. YBARRA
Mayor Pro—Tem
WM. 'BILL" DAVIS
Councilman
H. "LARRY" GONZALES
Councilman
W. MICHAEL MCCORMICK
Councilman
BRUCE V. MALKENHORST V 3 CITY HALL
City Administrator / City Clerk 405 S TA FE AVENUE, VERNON, CALIFORNIA 90058
FAX (323) 581-7924 `� TELEPHONE (323) 583-8811
i
I
February 15, 2001
City Coun--il
City of Vernon
Honcrable Members:
EDUARDO OLIVO
City Attorney
FAX: (562) 927-8722
KEVIN WILSON
Director of Community Services & Water
FAX: (323) 588-2761
KENNETH J. DeDARIO
Director of Municipal Utilities
FAX: (323) 583--1983
DAVE TELFORD
Fire Chief
FAX: (323) 581-1385
BRUCE W. OLSON
Police Chief
FAX: (323) 583-5236
Since the latter part of last year, staff has been meeting with
representatives of Vernon Cold Storage LLC regarding the building
located at 4224 District Boulevard. Staff of the Community Services
Department determined that the building lacked a sufficient number of
exits. Appendix Chapter 34 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code and the
1998 California Building Code Appendix Chapter 34 establishes the life
safety requirements for existing buildings. Section 3407.1 states,
"Every floor above the first story used for human occupancy shall have
at least two means of egress, one of which may be a fire escape." The
six story building located at 4224 District was constructed with only
one stairwell, henceforth, the owner of the building was directed to
have a second egress constructed within the building.
Representatives of the building owner appealed staff's determination.
Submitted herewith is:
1) City of Vernon's letter dated August 31, 2000,
determining that the building located at 4224 District
Boulevard is dangerous and ordering the construction of
two second means of egress.
2) Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble & Mallory, LLP's appeal
letter dated September 27-, 2000.
3) City of Vernon's letter to Vernon Cold Storage dated
October 11, 2000, setting the hearing date and time.
4) Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble & Mallory, LLP's letter
dated November 8, 2000 setting forth their reason for
appeal.
5) City staff report.
3
Vernon Cold Storage
February 15, 2001
Page 2
As a response to our concerns, the owner of the building has agreed to
provide the following:
• a one hour fire resistive exit corridor from the stairs to
the lobby
• provide an emergency escape mask on every forklift truck
in addition to the masks currently being provided in each
room
• placement of audible and visual notification on appliances
in every room on every floor when detection of smoke or
ammonia occur
• mark and place railings in areas around the exit doors to
insure that the doors are accessible at all times
• provide and maintain insurance in the amount of
$20,000,000.00 for the life of the building and name the
City as an additional insured.
Furthermore, Section 104.2.8 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code allows
for alternate designs when approved by the building official.
Engineers on behalf of Vernon Cold Storage are presenting an alternate
design that allows for only one exit stair well. It is hereby
recommended that the alternate design be approved and that the
building not be considered dangerous. This course of action shall be
constructed as a temporary approval and this matter be revisited by
the City in five years to ensure that the safeguards are sufficient.
The City shall have the right to inspect the location at all times to
ensure that all the provisions provided in the January 22, 2001 Dillon
Consulting Engineers' outline are being maintained. Failure to
maintain any of the provisions may void, at the City's discretion,
this alternate design approval.
Very truly yours,
Bruce Vr Malkenhorst
City Administrator/City Clerk
BVM/ng
February 15, 2001
TO: Bruce V. Malkenhorst, City Administrator
FROM: Samuel "Kevin" Wilson, Director of Community Services
& Water
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATION - 4224 DISTRICT BLVD.
The City of Vernon issued a notice to Vernon Cold Storage
LLC, that the building located at 4224 District Boulevard,
Vernon, California was dangerous. It was determined that the
building lacked a sufficient number of exits. Appendix Chapter
34 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code and the 1998 California
Building Code Appendix Chapter 34 establishes the life safety
requirements for existing buildings. Section.3407.1 states,
"Every floor above the first story used for human occupancy shall
have'at least two means of egress, one of which may be a fire
escape.
The six story building located at 4224 District was
constructed with only one stairwell. The owner of the building
was ordered to have a second egress constructed within the
building.
Patrick A. Perry, of the law firm of Allen Matkins Leck
Gamble & Mallory LLP, on behalf of the building owner, Vernon
Cold Storage LLC, has appealed my determination and, therefore a
hearing was set to consider the appeal of November 21, 2000.
Attached herewith is:
1)
City of Vernon's letter dated August
31, 2000
determining that the building located
at 4224
District Boulevard is dangerous and
ordering the
construction of two second means of
egress.
2)
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory
LLP's appeal
letter dated September 27-, 2000.
3)
City of Vernon's letter to Vernon Cold Storage
dated October 11, 2000, setting the
hearing date
and time.
4),
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory
LLP's letter
dated November 8, 2000 setting forth their reason
for appeal.
5)
Dillon Consulting Engineers, Inc.'s
letter dated
January 22, 2001.
6) Revised City Staff Report.
The owner of the building has agreed to provide, in addition
to the existing safeguards in place at the subject building, a
one hour fire resistive exit corridor from the stairs to the
lobby, provide an emergency escape mask on every forklift truck
in addition to the masks currently being provided in each room
and placement of notification on appliances in every room on
every floor to provide audible and visual alarms to the occupants
when smoke or ammonia are detected. The owner will also mark and
place railings in areas around the exit doors to exclude storage
in order to insure that the doors are accessible at all times.
Lastly the property owner will provide and maintain insurance in
the amount of $20,000,000.00 for the life of the building and
name the City as an additional insured.
Section 104.2.8 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code allows for
alternate designs when approved by the building official. Given
the age of the building, type of construction and the safeguards
currently in place and proposed to be employed and maintained, as
outlined in the Dillon Consulting Engineers letter dated January
22, 2001, it is recommended that the alternate design be
approved, that the one exit stair well be deemed acceptable and
that the building not be considered dangerous.
The owner of the building shall commence the above mentioned
improvements immediately and all safeguards and insurance shall
be in place within six months. Additionally, the owner shall
execute a hold harmless agreement with the`City in a form
approved;by the City Attorney and the cold storage use of the
building shall not be changed.
This course of action shall be construed as a temporary
approval and this matter may be revisited by the City in five
years to ensure that the safeguards are sufficient. The City
shall have the right to inspect at all times to determine that
all provisions outlined in the January 22, 2001 Dillon Consulting
Engineers are being maintained. Failure to maintain any of the
provisions may void, at the City's discretion this alternate
design approval.
SKW/ca
Enclosure
c: City Attorney
S '
.w
CITY COUNCIL
LEONIS C. MALBURG
Mayor
THOMAS A. YBARRA
Mayor Pro-Tem
WrrL "BILL" DAVIS
Councilman
H. "LARRY" GONZALES
Councilman
K MICHAEL McCORMICK
Councilman
BRUCE V. MALKENHORSC
City Administrator / City Clerk
FAX (323) 581-7924
DAVID 9. BREARLEY
City Attorney
FAX: (626) 330-5818
KEVIN WILSON
Director of Community Services & Water
FAX: (323) SW2761
CITY HALL
4305 SANTA FE AVENUE, VERNON, CALIFORNIA 90058
TELEPHONE (323) 583-,8811
August 31, 2000
CERTIFIED MAIL
Vernon Properties
P.O. Box 1929
Studio City, California 91604
Gentlemen:
KENNETH J. DeDARIO
Director of Municipal Utilities
FAX: (323) 583-1983
DAVE TELFORD
Fire Chief
FAX: (323) 581-1385
BRUCE W. OLSON
Police Chief
FAX: (323) 593-5236
The Building Official of the City of Vernon has. determined
that the building located at 4224 District Boulevard is
dangerous. The subject building is six stories and is located on
Los Angeles County Assessor Parcel Number 6304-027-015. Section
302 of the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous
Buildings considers a building dangerous if one of eighteen
enumerated conditions exists provided that such conditions or
defects exist to the extent that the life, health, property or
safety of the public or its occupants are endangered.
The building located at 4224 District Boulevard lacks
sufficient number of exits. Section 3401 of the 1997 Uniform
Building Code states "Buildings in existence at the time of the
adoption of this code may have their existing use or occupancy
continued, if such use or occupancy was legal at the time of this
code, provided such use is not dangerous to life. Appendix
Chapter 34, Existing Structures outlines the minimum life safety
requirements for existing buildings. Section 3407.1, Number of
Means of Egress, states "Every floor above the first story used
for human occupancy shall have at least two means of egress, one
of which may be an exterior fire escape complying with Section
3407.4. Appendix lA of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code.restates the
exact same requirements for an existing building.
Section 102 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code, Unsafe
,Buildings or Structures states, "All buildings or structures
regulated'by this code that are structurally unsafe or not
provided with adequate egress or that constitute a fire hazard,
or are otherwise dangerous to human life are, for the purpose of
this section unsafe." Section 102 goes on to state "All such
unsafe buildings, structures or appendages are hereby declared to
be a public nuisance and shall be abated by repair,
x
Vernon Properties
-2- August 31, 2600
rehabilitation, demolition or removal in accordance with
procedures set forth in the 'Dangerous Building Code..."
Section 302 of the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of
Dangerous Buildings considers the following conditions dangerous:
1) Whenever any door, aisle or passageway, stairway or
other means of exit is so warped, worn, loose, torn or
otherwise unsafe as to not provide safe and adequate
means of exit in case of fire or panic.
2) Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or
any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the
purpose for which it is being used.
3) Whenever any building or structure has been
constructed, exists or is maintained in violation of
any specific requirement or prohibition applicable to
such building or -structure provided by the building
regulations of this jurisdiction, as specified in the
building code or housing code, or any law or ordinance
of this state or jurisdiction relating to the
condition, location or structure of buildings.
4) Whenever any building or structure, because of
obsolescence, dilapidated condition, deterioration,
damage, inadequate exits, lack of sufficient fire -
resistive construction, faulty electric wiring, gas
connections or heating apparatus, or other cause is
determined by the fire marshal to be a fire hazard.
During recent city inspections of the subject building it
was -determined that the six story building.contains only one exit
stairwell and only one stairwell from the basement. It was
determined that great force, far exceeding the Uniform Building
Code requirement of 30 lbs.; was necessary to open the doors into
the stairwell due to icing.
You are hereby ordered to immediately repair and maintain
the doors entering the existing exit stairwells so that they
comply with Section 1003.3.15, swing and opening force of the
1997 Uniform Building Code.
Additionally, you are hereby ordered within 60 days to
submit plans and receive city approval for the construction of a
second means of egress for all floors and the basement in
compliance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code. The exit may be
an exterior fire escape complying with section 3407.4 of the
Uniform Building Code. The construction of the second means of
egress shall commence within 60 days and shall be completed
within.21 months of the date of this notice.
Failure tocomplywith this order will be grounds for
termination of the occupancy permit for the structure. The
Building Official will order the building to be vacated and
t
+ A
tI
Vernon Properties
-3-
August 31, 2000
posted to prevent further occupancy_until the work is completed
and may proceed to cause the work to be done and charge the costs
thereof against the property or its owner.
Any person having any record title or legal interest in the
building may appeal this order and any action of the Building
Official to the Board of Appeals, which is the Vernon City
Council, provided the appeal is made in writing as provided in
the Uniform Code for the abatement of dangerous buildings and
filed with the Building Official within 30 days from the date of
service of this notice. Failure to appeal will constitute a
waiver of all rights to an administrative hearing and
determination of-the.matter.'
Very ruly yours,
'$~ u Kevin W lson, P . E .
Director of Community Services & Water
SKK:ps
c: P.O. Cold Logistics
C:\My Documents\LETTERS\vernon.properties
�O 1wdVor2foraddU W*wv1m-
■ Cortipl■M Nems 3, 4a. w4 4b
pdntyoaw fuwos and address on the reverse Df tlds toms so that we Mom tlis
o d� 1hM"b the front a #w msWew. or on the beck 8 specs doss not
■ R ed'on p, below the Wilds number
4 a Receipt vA slaw to wt mn ttroWe was d*-,ed and the date
de
S. Aide Addressed to ag_ Arti
VERNON PROPERTIES
P.O. BOX 1929
$ STUDIO CITY, Ct M
11,
I also wish to receive the
foilotMng services (tor an
extra fee): 8
1 ❑ Addressee's Address
2. ❑ Restricted Delivery
Consult postmaster for fee. rL
am
P445461732
91,604 j',3
I ..
r �
wmgfflt��.-�-�;
a
E
Certified cc
❑ Insured
❑ COD
0
0
if requested
or
X
PS Form 3811, Deoeira r less
Receipt
Allen Matkins
September 27, 2000
VIA MESSENGER
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP
attomeys at taw
515 South Figueroa 7th Floor Los Angeles California 90071-3398
telephone. 213 622 5555 facsimile. 213 620 8816 www.allenmatkins.com
writer. Patrick A. Perry t. 213 955 5504
file number. V8965-002M529504.01 e. pperry0ailenmatklns.com
Mr. Samuel Kevin Wilson, P.E.
Director of Community Services and Water
City of Vernon
4305 Santa Fe Avenue
Vernon, California 90058
Re: Appeal of Vernon Cold Storage, LLC
Before the Board of Appeal for the City of
Vernon
Dear Mr. Wilson:
ReceI V=0
SEP2810�
This firm represents Vernon Cold Storage, LLC (the "Owner"), owner of the building
located at 4224 District Boulevard (the 'Building") in the City of Vernon (the "City"). We are in
receipt of your letter to the Owner, dated August 31, 2000, in which you require the Owner to
provide two means of egress from every floor above the first story and from the basement of the
Building pursuant to certain requirements set forth in the 1997 Uniform Building Code. On
behalf of the Owner, we hereby appeal this determination on the grounds that compliance with
these requirements would impose an undue hardship on the Owner.
The Building was constructed in 1924, and contains a basement as well as five stories
above the ground floor. Each floor consists of approximately 40,000 square feet of floor area.
The Building is constructed of poured in place concrete and conformed to all applicable building
code requirements at the time it was constructed. The Building is fully sprinklered and is used as
a cold storage warehouse. The Building has operated in its current form for 76 years. During
that time there has never been any incident that constituted a threat to the health or safety of the
Building occupants. Nor in all that time has the City ever found it necessary to initiate any
enforcement action against the Building for noncompliance with applicable building code
requirements.
The existence of only one means of egress from each floor does not pose a significant
risk to the health or safety of the Building occupants because the public is strictly prohibited
from entering any of the upper floors, and there is never more than one employee on any upper
floor at any time. There are approximately eight employees who work at the loading dock on the
Los Angeles Oranec Countv
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP
attormys'at taw
Mr. Samuel Kevin Wilson, P.E.
September 27, 2000
Page 2
ground floor and three employees who work in the Building office, also located on the ground
floor. The safety of the employees who work in the Building is of paramount importance to the
Owner. However, because of the small number of occupants, the nature of the use, the solid
concrete construction, and the existing fire sprinkler system, the Building constitutes a minimal
threat to life safety in the event of a fire or other catastrophe.
On the other. hand, compliance with the requirement to provide two means of egress from
every story except the ground floor would be prohibitively expensive. The Owner has obtained a
bid of $726,000 for.the construction of an exterior fire escape for the Building. The extremely
high cost is due to the fact that because of the use of the Building as a cold storage warehouse,
the solid concrete exterior walls of the Building are approximately 4.5 feet thick. To create
openings in these walls for the construction of a fire escape is therefore extremely difficult as
well as costly, thus imposing an undue burden on the Owner out of all proportion to the level of
risk involved.. .
Because of the extremely low risk posed by the existing configuration of the Building to
the health and safety of the Building occupants and the extremely high cost to the Owner to fully
comply with the requirements set forth in your letter of August 31, 2000, we therefore
respectfully request that you set aside your determination that the Owner provide two means of
egress from each floor or work to find a less onerous means for the Owner to continue its
operations in. the Building without incurring severe hardship and expense.
After you have had a chance to review this letter, we. would appreciate an opportunity to
meet with you to discuss mutually acceptable solutions to address the issues raised in your
determination. In the meantime, please call with any questions or if I can provide any additional
information with respect to this matter.
Very truly yours,
PAP:kt Patrick A. Perry
cc: Mr. Frank White
Peter J. Roth, Esq.
Sonia J. Ransom, Esq.
DECLARATION OF FRANK WHITE
1, Frank White, declare as follows:
I am the president of Vernon Cold Storage, LLC, owner of the building located at 4224
District Boulevard in the City of Vernon, California, and am authorized to make this declaration
on its behalf. 1 have read the foregoing Appeal of Vernon Cold Storage, LLC Before the Board
of Appeal for the City of Vernon and verify the truth of the matters stated therein.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: 1'0 oU
Frank White
P.O. Box 1929
Studio City, California 91614
5""5.01"
VOW-00W-28-MpWp p
t
" CITY COUNCIL
LEONIS t:MALBURG
Mayor
THOMAS A. YBARRA
Mayor Pro-Tem
Wm. -BILL" DAVIS
Councilman
H. "LARRY" GONZALES
Councilman
W. MICHAEL MCCORMICK
Councilman
BRUCE V. MALKENHORST
City Administrator / City Clerk
FAX (323) 581-7924
0. 0
CITY HALL
4305 SANTA FE AVENUE, VERNON, CALIFORNIA 90058
TELEPHONE (323) 583-8811
October 11, 2000
Via Certified Mail
Vernon Cold Storage, LLC
Post Office Box 1929
Studio City, California 91604
Re: 4224 District Boulevard
Dear Gentlemen:
DAVID B. BREARLEY
Gcy Attorney
FAX (626) 330-5818
KEVIN WILSON
Director of Community Services & Water
FAX (323) 588-2761
KENNETH J. DeDARIO
Director of Municipal Utilities
FAX: (323) 5&3-1983
DAVE TELFORD
Fire Chief
FAX: (323) 581-1385
BRUCE W. OLSON
Police Chief
FAX: (323) 583-5231i
Pursuant to your request, you are hereby notified that
an appeal will be held before the Vernon City Council at the
Vernon City Council Chambers at 4305 Santa Fe. Avenue, Vernon,
California 90058 on November 21, 2000 at 5:00 p.m., or soon
thereafter as possible upon the notice and order served upon
you. You may be present during the appeal. You may be, but
need not be, represented by counsel. At -the time of the appeal
you will have an opportunity to present any relevant evidence
that you believe is necessary to support your appeal.
I expect to provide the City Council with a background
of this matter and to explain the basis for my decision. A
representation from the City's Fire Department may also•make a
presentation. You will have an opportunity to ask relevant
questions. I do not, at this time, anticipate the need for any
other witnesses on behalf of the City. If you believe that
additional witnesses from the City will be necessary for your
appeal, please advise me so that we may make arrangements for
their appearance. You should also advise me of any documents
October 11, 2,600
Page 2
that.you will require so that those items will be introduced
into the record at the time of 'the hearing.
It would be helpful if you could provide me with any
briefs or arguments that ,you plan on presenting during the •
appeal as soon. as possible. The City will consider all of your
arguments and/or proposed solutions. 'To the extent that you are
able.to provide me with such information before the appeal, the
City's,staff will have a better opportunity to fully consider
Your position and formulate any appropriate recommendations,
once you have formulated your position, I will make myself
available to meet with you and your attorney in order to discuss
this matter. .
Since • ely,
a e son, P.E.
Director of Community Services & Water
cc: Patrick Perry
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP
City Attorney
_� SENDER:
• �OW� aed�and,b.
ioyou adae.s oe tn. wwi.. a w. +orm,o a�a «. am main, ar.
.NO.cH f�isamn b tlw Bart a rha nWpi,o., or on ih. e+.ac R,p.o. eo« not
•M +1x/tsgrrr�p'onlM aawft - da.a.rdW.
ooku
FMaipt wM Naw b whom u�. artfda0°ws d*mW aw mn (me
s. Adlde �lddreseed tp; 4a Artk)w f"" ,��(Jyi z
-e'�.c( �CN.07 ,e, •C''�'t✓'' 4b. seMce
fQ 6i q. O
I also wish to receive the
services (for an
extrafee):
1. ❑ Addressee's Address
2.13 Resdfated Depveq,
C,onsuft postrnaster for fee.,
❑'��tered
❑ fcrwm Mail
r //� 0 ❑ ROW Receipt for Ma dwdse
7. Date of Delivery
(PIft
J 8. Addressee's Address (Only
and lee Is paid)
( or
PS!" 3817, Qeoember 1994 10259546434M Domestic Red
"C%
D a,
lit Ce md
O insured g'
❑ Coo S
requested :Y
- ` L
r
(•� Allen Matkins. Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP
attorneys at law
Allen Matkins
November 8, 2000
VIA MESSENGER
515 South Figueroa 7th Floor Los Angeles California 900713398
telephone. 213 622 5555 facsimile. 213 620 8816 www.allenmatkins.com
writer. Patrick A. Perry t. 213,955 5504
file amber. V8965-002AA533165.01 e. pperry0allemmatkins com
Mr. Samuel K. Wilson, P.E.
Director of Community Services and Water
City of Vernon
4305 Santa Fe Avenue
Vernon, California 90058
Re: 4224 District Boulevard, Vernon, California
Dear Mr. Wilson:
RECEIVED
Community Services
We are in receipt of your letter of October 11, 2000, in which you have requested
additional information with respect to the appeal by Vernon Cold Storage, LLC (the "Owner"),
owner of the building located at the above -referenced address (the "Building"), of your
determination that the Building is required to have two exits from each floor above the first
story. As we stated in our letter of September 27, 2000, the Owner's appeal of your
determination is based on the grounds that the Building was constructed in 1924, of poured in
place concrete and conformed to all applicable building code requirements at the time it was
constructed. Section 17922(f) of the California Health and Safety Code provides that "No local
ordinance may permit any action or proceeding to abate violations of regulations governing
maintenance of existing buildings, unless the building is a substandard building or the violation
is a misdemeanor." Section 17920.3(1) of the California Health and Safety Code defines
substandard buildings as "All buildings or portions thereof not provided with adequate exit
facilities as required by this code, except those buildings or portions thereof whose exit
facilities conformed with all applicable laws at the time of their construction and which have
been adequately maintained and increased in relation to any increase in occupant load, alteration
or addition, or any change in occupancy."
Your determination relies on the definition of dangerous buildings contained in the
Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. However, the Uniform Code for the
Abatement of Dangerous Buildings has not been adopted by the State of California for inclusion
in the State Building Standards Code. (see, Health and Safety Code § 17922). It is well settled
that the State Building Standards Code preempts local building regulations except to the extent
that a local jurisdiction makes express findings that modifications to the requirements of the
State Building Standards Code are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or
Los Angeles Orange County San Diego San Francisco West Los Angeles
V
t _ Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP
afforneys at law
Mr. Samuel K. Wilson, P.E.
November 8, 2000
Page 2
topographical conditions. (see, Health and Safety Code § 17958; Briseno v. City of Santa Ana, 6
Cal.App.4'' 1378 (1992)). Absent such express findings in connection with the City's adoption
of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, the City cannot enforce the
definition of dangerous buildings contained therein against the Building.
Section 17920.3(l) of the Health and Safety Code further provides that "When an unsafe
condition exists through lack of, or improper location of, exits, additional exits may be required
to be installed." However, due to the nature of the construction and use of the Building, -the
existence of only one means of egress from each floor of the Building above the first story does
not constitute an unsafe condition. As you can see from the drawings attached hereto as Exhibit
A, the Building is constructed entirely of poured in place concrete. The exterior walls consist of
double concrete wall construction varying in thickness from 12" to 16", with a 12" space in
between. Ile concrete floor slabs are 9-1/2" thick. Except for a small office and loading dock
on the first floor, the entire Building is used -as a refrigerated warehouse for the storage of frozen
meat, fish, and produce. A list of the products stored in the Building is attached hereto as
Exhibit B. The Building is fully sprinklered, and no combustible materials are stored inside the
Building.
There are approximately eight employees who work at the loading dock on the ground
floor of the Building and four employees who work in the Building office, also located on the
ground floor. In addition, there are seven warehousemen assigned to the Building, each of whom
is assigned to one floor. As a result, there is never more than one employee on any upper floor at
any time. Moreover, members of the general public are strictly prohibited from entering any of
the upper floors. Accordingly, there is only a minimal risk that anyone could be injured under
existing circumstances in the event of a fire or other catastrophe because the only people present
on the upper floors are employees who are fully aware of any risks associated with their
occupancy of the Building and who are thoroughly familiar with the existing configuration of the
Building exits. The Building has operated in its current form for approximately 76 years.
During that time there has never been any incident that constituted a threat to the health or safety
of the Building occupants. Nor in all that time has the City ever found it necessary to initiate any
enforcement action against the Building for noncompliance with applicable building code
requirements.
Even if the Building were to be considered unsafe, Section 104.2.7 of the State Building
Standards Code allows building officials to grant modifications to the provisions of the Code
where practical difficulties prevent strict adherence to Code provisions. Given the nature of the
construction of the Building, construction of an additional means of egress from the upper floors
definitely constitutes such a practical difficulty. As shown in the photographs attached as
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP
attorneys at law
Mr. Samuel K. Wilson, P.E.
November 8, 2000
Page 3
Exhibit C, the Building has no openings in the exterior walls above the first floor. Access to a
fire escape would require cutting new openings in the double exterior concrete walls of the
Building, at an estimatedcost of $726,000. This expense would result in a severe financial
burden that would seriously affect the financial viability of Building operations. The protection
of Building occupants is of the utmost importance to the Owner. If the configuration of the
Building posed a serious threat to the health and safety of the Building occupants, the Owner
would be the fast to initiate all necessary measures to remedy any unsafe conditions. However,
given that the Building complied with all applicable building code requirements at the time it
was constructed, that it is constructed entirely of poured in place concrete, is fully sprinklered, is
not open to the public, and does not allow for the storage of combustible materials, we feel that a
modification to current building code requirements is justified to permit Building operations to
continue under present conditions.
Under the circumstances, we feel that strict compliance with the current egress
requirements of the State Building Standards Code is neither mandated nor warranted.
Nevertheless, we would welcome an opportunity to discuss the matter further and appreciate
your offer to meet with us to discuss these issues once you have had an opportunity to review
these materials. In the meantime, please call with any questions or if I can provide any
additional information with respect to this matter.
PAP:kt
Enclosures
cc: Eduardo Olivo, Esq.
Mr. Frank White
Very truly yours,
p4z'�-'/�
Patrick A. Perry
A
4--1,..�*1-%.-,%:,.i�,� -',aq--,',-t ,!TI ,...�.I,,-"i,—.!!,F:*--. ,. "-
� "--.ii"��"'rIc;,-,,,"q In"II....7r�',I1I,.
114"
.,.)l
v,,�V,':�6,,
e
j 1;z�
I
.
.
.."-I:—..1
r
, ".:I0;I l 4! � ' I ,"�i��47�li—Jj.tJo ,V"i I.% ,� �, ' I
,1.
, �1o1
t,", , , , J,�jo,;i-4o.;�i.".4""A�-
;I..-
..�,
�.
,
-
t F�
, �;IJ� , ��,�',J- i �
!';w-�,.;i,,;"'11�`iI V',t -4;.,o� , 4I4"'i; �eVi" 6 ,4!,k45n�PL)t
i., ;,4i " 7 JWI jjj"-q-W-Irrt;SIdII11�k..,,t - ,�,,-i�i%1T,1t -j�A,�A",P�4-311, 0";i• , f , 11J
.�;-v-� xo�w�!I;'."F,/'T�i,,-y40I i"i v "
�t"!";J", --1-",-f-I "�t;;W-i%i�.* -j,9; '" , 1!
Yj!,t; 1 II74 e";,4jjjj,IIIw#o'4� -/ ,r -1
i
1,-
,
,
�
..,
�.
,:r ��..xV.W,J, , ,. k.,..t.,,
:
II
,
—
; .,%-�,i"�,l
, 6C�.• ,�
0. ,
,
?;
Z; ,
M
�. ."i0i�-��
" %I
% .l.� --4� . 8 s
.�6
V �
-.4:,6
ve
,9�Y
"-
-
�� ,f,f,1,Q�l, 1
4 W
: 1 I
,I.4 �..I4-4Iv.t . {
l
�."11 � ,, o��X�,W
-
�.
.I . �"�?
— t"
j-I
�I � . 4w&wm"
,.
.:
�
.-
,..:..-
It"'
. �z
�
�.,:
.-.�.
",
i.I
, %tiki
I
.4.:
I
, ,I.
i
.�;
!-,
'4(: ,:',
S :')-JO
I"J,,�,
'
1,-
!- .-r
,;'i
1. -"i�a.i."..r.t.v zk.
&1
.t1
,-
t
,--.
1
#
"
I? ,
I �
. ,-�!
i r
,I
k11i1".
1
i,�
1I"
ofto ,
�
:.
.
j
1I4"xI-Ai 4 xz < 1,4-
-.
I4
41-
�,'f, ,-! --
"
i w,I
I i 1
I )..
...�
so
1,
.1_�.
""
��1
:
-.�
..
t
91.
n v-, _ L..i
"
-:, dd:�"f &." m.A
,,cf ;)-
!�,iY6O�
-
i
kt .
�- ,
-,
�,
r-: ;
MZ,`,
,.-
"
I " I. I'll -
--
11, I , " , : , . , ,
,I..., ", , ,I , , .1 , �'..- � ,; �, ;" . : F. .
, . : - ,, , �.. , , ,
.�.�-,"�!-�:,,�.,�� "'7;;`i�i *-' '. �, ; . ..... . .
. ''.
z �111 1, 11", J't", I., . , �
��:��:�;� :
� I
, , i I , t - . - � .. ,,, ! �
i - -, - , "-::, , ". * �
* ,
- � , , . 1 . I
� .-
I .--
::, - .--"� , , � �---�.
" , � I
��,
., , 1. , . _A
- -
,�,,.N ,��!,,. i',*, I i, �� , ,:�'�
i � ,� , , --.�..�,
, - , `�,!.�- "
q
�, , , �.
�;;�.� ��,:. .
- - .- -
1, " �.> � ,:. � 1! 1.11-1 I, , i� . .. �. ", .
. ., ,
, -�4% : �. -_.,!-,�- : � ,.. , - �
.. I , , - , . .
,�
`. I ;,- .: �, ". I . �..� I .1 ,� :--� "'? I-- .. ` : , , t
I
.., 111 , . , � ,,, -*;-:,� ,
I t
.1 ;
I 11, " - .''.": ,- .. I � I ,
, ..I.. i'l i " � .��";�.!;�,;: 1. � � � ,:.; 4 I -,j ,;,!, � -4,!;!,� ", .--. . , G;
i. ,
:; - � -
, " �-, : , , �,' :- � - k �. ,: i�-,i;t,,-, � 7 *%,--e� 1- .1,
! I "
. 1: . � , ... " .1 .. .,...: - .�. .i'. �- �,,I ,
-
4, ."ti �",
o . -1111,41",-,
1,--,—";-,.:�- il.
,-.�..;,:-.*,-",(",",,:,!,I, z�
l-1
.. " I , I I -
i1�.,.�",.',-�'..
'�"."',,qi,
. I . i
�4 ji",�v .,
A -iii", U"1%*,, 6 �H"
-�ne�-
--.'.. ". -. -:.. -----�,
, —� * '�Jl. ,, . .
N �1�i-�
�
:�r-. .. � 11. I �',•,,�l
,,.-�,4�� �, � , .- qI
.
.1
.1�01- 1-1 1. i
.1 .! ,-�� I ,,, - �
:x��-',4�;�
.
Z; - , -�:.-
- '. ,� "'i I " 1". - I".... , 1, .; . . . . . .
i . . . . . . �� '! ,. ,
i I, ,". .; .�4 , ,�
� .. 1. -
, , 21 1.11 I
- ., -,; �
A&�4�11L&'Z�!-� ,
etvl,kx�yjjm *.O�-Z§
.
�-
I... ,r.-..,-i�,-,T,,'-,!�, ".
I I ,
.. ... , . ., ,
. ..
.. I �-�,-':, .11. E. � "
.1 , .
; .�,
� — . .:
, to:." .
&,
0 ',� .. - .�'4,-
. �i:�,
Ill
I . I 1."I
.".- .1 , .. ! t'
" 1,
- -
,�hfiW;.4filo�.k': �
1-
. -.-
:�,�41-f
.',t�:
, :. I "-!"".t. I". 4 6 � .
. - -♦- -,-,
I*
,
i,--,�,-�mI,,.',".1�.m,!-,YN-'l:,"!i1,�v.-.i-�'i.�.,:..-"",.,,-�i.��,,I.',...,-�,r�L,�I,—w�;-.,�'-;,.. i.m,r.ir�.,.r 1'!
4
Ai v'a-I,pi,i "0U.',."`I,,
, ja.y,l
r, j1 -
,
i i.
,Y'`i
.4-iiU,�
�,;�W "Wj_,
",4;�",11V-,
flilt ";i,A,,1;P 0I I-.'q,:-.,'.-;3�.�-,".-,,�
-
zS
�-
I%
:.
�
:t
.�
,-
�.o . , �-, ; j� ,��%�6�'( .i , i,
i,I -";I, I .1 1
,
;
;':, .!�.��,,,��.,.,i;.�.:,;:""i�.,,
I,- .IT,.,.. , . _ ..�, - " ,�� ,; �� !.-�.,�,, .:��'-':':�'
- , , . -, � . i � - � ,.` �, �
, , - , I , , , , , .-
,
, , , I
_-,�-,- ...). -,.; �-;-v-��, L - I 4 '.
,.." I , -
: ..%
, I
, * , . I
41k L � i , 1. � , 4--'� , " . i -;,',,��, ,� 1, 4
1. I.L..-!,,'. -a .. � �1. ,.--. , . , � , ,.
.. " - � � -
�11,,,��
�,"',*.1"', j 1'. ; , "..... :4-:�. 1 I- , ro....; . i.,
, * ,
�-: - � ,w ,- - , . a
;
I * -
--i .
-�!"I".ill"'; . ` � I �
� 4
. '...:..,.:: � I. p! i,--" ". — I
I . ! ... � I
� 1 Z
I .. I.. � .� —
-1-l" I - - � � ! ,�,--
, � I
, , - — , —
—', .
�-- , I. . —i,;;;Vc� ...V��
I ".
. :;: ":,"... . ...
� - � , . I — � F, : L.,
�----� , , , "' - .31' ..w.,.�
Crrri`
:." ".. r , ,
. " "
.�
; Z,
A -
;f 1,
- -
I
it �..
�
. ,
1 I -
, ...
�
�
C,
,
..'-.-,,.:
�,.,,
l��,r..
,-i
4�
I �I
Qo" l
:-
:- f.;",
, -!---��.-
�':.:,,�,;--'
.. . I - - '
� � .
'. 1, .1 ,:;.,k�.:.t�t
,;
I
r. ,-' --�,!� ,
- .
I ,
- , - . � .
�. ,
: :.
,-,---- �.."
12
j q V 1 rRT r , *) q'
r ( t I-. ay r. to , �a} i■ti3 r
.'� r i J1. ! i t +- > \d.ri Yrr ? V:' .} v \..: v �.+ tr JR
(s`: •au .I.?q" .ai �. V }-i{Y.afi a.n. $ .!'�L4 .3 GIe iMTFAiR +'•• K'.f" ..w .
I
~I i• ■ • e, •�+ .� • p. i - Au t r 4 1' '.t - • ✓.>.h t • p,� O.n ii r
1 r 6 , • ta., 5• f 1 s y r. •r "I I.
j • + `t• i ! ,:
L• • 1 b .. t a � i. r y'Al..,.,!.-,.t a V Z} Tt1.' th t i ✓� 1) •) ,+ r• •+) tit i
a '• • > ■ y. t W y:r • ,• - t r. 1 •j' Q •xr i- { 6)t r' �Sl..
,< f 1 m- r CS )t 1 tcM It i2 t "Ill."
C_1 y f 't •
i i.i i �•
�'. / ! i• i. �i l . • 6t,Nti ti p 1 r t �' 7 ' ll \ \41.
i • • a • .{ t i r l l • ` ! 1{ • y�; it t • Y:'
r - a-:'Y .1+t I• Y '7i i Ja� S b a. et I r iR O'i:• f
i i • ) g I • 1 .11. { ti�S• - r t
1.
"riir aia• tr.r•f ,"- A1. f w ..+ �. ♦rf ... irf �,.. • , ..jer y n •tyv / V • tir • i • • sl; ifii
t t t i :'r f/ �' S 1 ti J 1 f 1 ::
r \ ' i{.mot n r" )J \ , 1t.J of \ C-J rk f tr. tY 1
s".. �f Ii ` r , t ; 4r t tj !' t, r f y61Id� riSC�JJ [ I r>jia wh
u%«..><M..s.r.Y r r t....f` IT a rE ,a , l` 9 44 T i,',7 Y ! • •■ t: !.. �A n
'l w'� rr r.o it riii ,r.... r:r ■Ill�i ti•� �� i e t' ';S ), a \' •T Jr; j. t 1 �s tliar7 • • 6 ■ ■' t .•Y • 1 i •• \ :1 ^t a a _ Q> 1 f ,aa Y.:` a \ ':ar•• i�r irar V.
4 J r���■I■r�ll�■t�
t i r• t -• t • 0 a E a +t,1 a:
v I b• G• •:{ p• i} Y 7 - I 1 '.tL G7 ij d 1 r t? t i+ d • '` • n y/ a t r. t?4 eq'Y lr,
1:. e + . �: 5 !o i i Y i o,Ir 3+ "fiyt]• ,a?ty�i?.�"ya'cji� "y.5j�� r y'i aS• �•{•{ bt�r • ► • •r r s YJ:
t �,! • ,• 1 + la •�•• 1+• i r•- q. r flibj ill:�� jp,.� _.p Yri��rlIM�7 i:�[ Y 0 • r; xt • t c •. t ° w E 5.
f / t ',}r 4�T it - e tF' b
1 ,-.r iq. sy • s r�, r e 1': Gt a a Gt ,F ti+' Y. M fy a t TF. �.k l it ybfj • £ , . t •. r i•[+t.,
*t.9 srt t17'1` tit ti a-. 7` a 1"f'I'i Ya - C ♦wYMJr rt stir a.,t it i = t+• b: b �t •ii !•C6J'.x'
f w t J..' 1 t - v \ G rt ", a r r r h }Jra •♦ .i'\L Gu t ) °i{ li_ j'✓t A
t a JI. t k y', -. a` a ,. _t"1. • 0 2 do L •J
i } 1 i / ry.
t I. t rR r J ,} G r :rAj•: tr tiii.'tn it :wt + 4 1 ly Xt 1 r i )i yf is ti,;
i g, t ,J T. 5 F r' r e s >- i tr jl �'� i
ii �a v•i c., } 1 r t .... ,.: a Ft iPX 1 n,`. µ!t �t i i Yet t' f }.{ Y. ',6
6.S 4 c ! i
>/ j 4 p t i
f,, r ! . y �Irar I- <i > t jt t,r • :c t I { \ �� �+ rY i iatXiti r.
i i t i e� r \ r � : « r •ra try ai !. t. 9 t,. i b ,n. wel• r 4 I -1 w, a ¢ � Y.,, µ
s, l� t - .. q r \ .c l r. .ia fi i !tit t
1• r• .ry r } d .f r.. 4 a f. y 4 J S i.af Y t J F {;. i 1 1. - J+ d Y S 1 ) ! N Y.uv &
14 t '. t g r iiY- I 'Fi2 5d v 4. i `t%V 7.s A tit- y k 1% +i? nkirr ti i v •l tl Y NtG ,h/"IAFSif
t t L y', '�M1 / .:t 40 • }y.}M 9 t t y Y� $ + t{ t 1 \ , 1. � f' j . ! tfi ! I i i 1
1 i i- i t i h 1 fa a ]Y.G. t21,1V}. Y }'h xJ t '} Af Y t 1'M4J ! i5Y is i 1 {r t }j {i 4 F rpV f ,,
7�i •W �1• i" I�1 Wr �y1 •W rr �j 'W Ids r■ ••• w 2 at' M V i 1 i t :A as t ra } 7 -. J \ ta.:-. -,! t o 4•A4N a M- %� >• r,5 t 1 s a I ,, 4 rn: r
te'i t 'x -� pays
-'e t .ao ax �.>r 1:, u+ x i n, a{ ••ti►+tk ar laaiuhtuv ar.w a i'a, oI y. n r i e r•, `e ro nr a lr i s 'v! ! 'Y r < t s((.i at
tit f� A }l i:/ t ` L f 't ?M H 7f t t 1 9 iH r(,t 1F �LAkY }t
i . n r 1 Ni tt't M Bit? na !ti
1 );� t i J „ '?, Z A f 2{ '�..t i f > G.�riT > ? }, .
:* a } , �1.! k y z r i r t, t\ i 1 tt 2'. t 'f > �• 4 r a o
)i I.a L a { N I: i J i . i J ['r•r4 {� J,L t.a.Y tjw, r x1 iII. i{ . 4 {. 1 r\ti• 4 \ � i J .,✓,aV
Tl
A J I y J :Sl 1 ,t t a !{ tit , % ''r} v �1 \ ) 4 xt -t Ji,� v
w t a, .,, i .... a... ,.;rl.�f• ,rr y.a ,s, .sr*rbi'u+ kr { ro �t� v 1. r`.,`9 a a 1.+ �`�1 i" ) st b: It
1.i t J + t ', f �. ,: ::.. } r .:. 1? t'! ,!) attl'xMt t f a V' .ai }r r: y i t } r t• / ifiJTa ,.S i 1^7Mr t�•a
'! Y a M N a �' \ aT., ,{ \ .{' k r t 1 V t Qi, ;3 ! 4n9 R k! \i •M fl Y a. 1 ..< 4 t- 1 (.
{ 1 t W } .tti { •rt PPv ✓! .: � a Z• i V ■f•��I • � I r f ! 1 M /Y' t t f l^X I, p
i tl ='. f a f b•.
S r ' - �■ \ is Y. t' y
1.. t 1 a F1. .J li y a tit . j' a '= `t it 1 r;.
, V
i
/ r f 11.a rt14 '.�W.
f - $., ' ➢'
_ ifha t t Py J a r e, � ! A t r s r W -,f9 > rdl r'.
r ' « Vj p
v rr .0 .+< r r h i r f 7 4 a -a [ 6 1 6 •. iv w
} V )„ \ x
i •' t sr r r it tat •. O� r ! ( •Yu,,Q rQ'I O \ I f i t i t t ' ;',!! { 1` ti �� 1 ._/ ) t a5 rt ✓r t
tY S141-. ' 3 , t i \ \ It !� } � M� V • •Li {' n 1� t y {•
e r t t. ' y I V.ii ;r a yiyr die. e r rf .�
a n r� '� t t s Y y
C` 7) J > t � ,� 1.i i 4
$� 3� r F
? t ,, f t M y + T r. t J t
It .t { Y z 1 w s vat d A 1s 1.S. p arcx vF
Y r/ t l I t a vi .
t!` r a I y °'.. -� t i Y I vC, r
r A i / r oxy
\ T r a r t _ :1 t- w 12.-«+ r r : r t.4 at ett•
i f r I .1. f t' r c Y t It:., r t t h f/ •• t l
K T �l t n �'.! rr s a ..rwa t.0.t ! 'P'f r<"6_.f't ) ta. y\r
t e s a t Sr' i -'
y, i'��t re rq..v� A.t +h a'tt t
L ; ..,y nod. Z/ k y !
, • w S:
1 i ) b
1 r b
Y E .a j
• a .iet i - 1.
• f
r t t i )' t <f. n
l P a^ 4 1.t \ t \ 72 a.r\.r 1R
i ?
•� ) \ s r 4
i y
PN.:T t ! i r d Nl ifi j{ 1 Y1 1 J �'_ 1 A a
t i t+i 4 r dS, rl 7 I a
IE a - a y.
....t Y:. ..:...)':.. rf .: ....; s•,:-.,•.;.r:..v a• w.. ;f a. • tM. 1 1n-+.v:F?'•9..rT t
S
H : i :- .
.. n./ . }rC•a.Xat..: y ir.-.v.; .$si J.J. f{.1... J i. v{w..;t•IJd JV• v t.w.. . M:• •: !.' a S,N , f. ,Y .. ,v rf , t' `'!j,
4' f • rr �i.ybh i�:
# a Y g. i ,{
L J t vr/ + rt'•i .r k l 1 j1Y^';If3 •t kr xt,,, A, �Ws9ay.aS!.�'Ca.+ir..� 'TIY.. �.#.ai' .0 :. Et J.. ia.:�d..., L(...t,}
Ccipornln Fspress 12-1412
I
I
w
w I
I
i
f,
_ •.�
:.
jII
�
C,
07
.. ft, �
j i 1 V V rn rl)
r r
to
'.r R,
A k ill.
UI
.ti rJ
R fj4 F.
�`tr
-r. t.
Lb 4.,
C.
ra V
T
I
O I
N 0•
r, G
Gv
.• V
rn rn r,� iQ
ii
R 7 !!r r1 Cn
C.
p, i ,
u1
0,; ^, .�
9
�CG
}r r
n i� .I�
:tAomr•, rVf1r
.F. n t
ra 1 r
0`7}
.I
r.t
Cn Cr, ,
V N
CCCttt (71 0+ '
.A
V -,G
1
Cn UI
V r•.a
iCt:; V O
CJ
0n1 '
r' Vyatr
4ki:
VVr•
I
MG ' OVR
0
rfltil0)
+Ut
GCn
I
I
I
to I
I
V I
i
M
�.�: •
ja
V r-.
V
1 fV O.:
p
, ,T P1
N)
u�
a tX
tto ' J0I Cn w.
w VI
r,t.
3
N,
V V
cn ry
Cn u
s
r Cy V
ra .r
f7 A
CO t4,
G I
RCn• II
? 07 '.4
,R'
AI,f�? 'i
rV UI
4C
W N
07 M f
7 r
G 0] L.
M
1
40
• G
N
,A;W
O P
0'W
UI Cn
�'
AQ7
OVh30N'.
�.,+0R7E yCCrRT7�VOti0
UOr
4O
a
-JOE
. '� � �'� a� i mc. �- K ,' { t. � xi '� d h y', d � ! .t`',.
22 January 2001
Samuel Kevin Wilson, P. E.
Director
RECEIVED
VAN 2 4 2001
Community Services
Department of Community Services & Water
City of Vernon
4305 Santa Fe Ave
Vernon, CA 90058
RE: Federal Cold Storage, dba
Pacific Cold Storage, a division of P & O Cold Logistics
4224 District Boulevard
Vernon, CA 90058-3108
SUB: Request for Modification under CCR Title 24, Part 2, Section 104.2.7
Dear Mr. Wilson,
?01LLon
CONSULTING
ENGINEERS
INCORPORATED
As a result of the meeting in your office and our recent telephone conversation, I am
submitting this revised formal Request for Modification with regard to the egress
arrangement for the storage floors at the above referenced building.
DESCRIPTION OF BUILDING
The referenced building is a six -story freezer warehouse, within which are stored frozen
foods. The ceiling height on each floor is approximately 12 feet. The facility is fully
sprinklered, using a dry pipe system due to the below freezing conditions. The facility
was built in 1928. The overall exterior dimensions of the building in plan are 200 feet by
200 feet. The floors are divided into as many as four separate spaces, with the smallest
being about 3500 square feet.
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
As constructed in 1928, the facility was equipped with a single egress stair serving floors
2 through 6, located in the northeast corner of the building. On each floor, this stair
incorporates a 2'0" x 6'0" insulated door as the means of entry to the stair. These doors
swing opposite to the direction of egress, which is allowed under Title 24, Part 2, Section
1003.3.1 for occupant loads of less than 10, as is the case here. The stair itself has a tread.
width of 3'6" and an effective egress width of 35". The stair has an 8" riser height and a
1165 East San Antonio Drive • Suite D-1 • Long Beach, California 90807 0 Tel (562) 422-2205 * Fax (562) 422-0054
Samuel Kevin Wilson, P.E.
22 January 2001
Page 2 of 7.
9-1/2" tread depth. The stair enclosure is equipped with lighting fixtures served from the
main power, having battery backup for emergencies. Internally illuminated exit signs
identifying the location of the exit doors are placed above the doorways so as to be seen
from within the storage room. The storage rooms are also provided with emergency
illumination in the form of fixtures with battery backup.
The code -measured travel distance on the storage floors is approximately 283 feet;
however, the actual effective travel distance from the most remote location on any floor
is approximately 380 feet. At the base of the stair, the occupant must leave the stair
enclosure, enter the office area, then travel another 20 feet to the exterior. The office area
is also sprinklered with a wet system and is completely separated from the refrigerated
warehouse.
There is a practical difficulty involved in establishing a second stair enclosure within the
building to serve the upper floors. Such an enclosure must be constructed of masonry or
concrete if it is to be of the required fire resistive time period since drywall construction
cannot sufficiently exclude the penetration of water vapor into the wall assembly under
the extreme vapor pressure differences encountered in this type of facility. Water vapor
intrusion will necessarily result in ice build-up within, under, above and around the wall
assembly, eventually rupturing its attachments and causing its failure. The environmental
conditions under which a reinforced concrete or masonry stair and enclosure would have
to be constructed are incompatible with pouring concrete or laying up masonry. It is
completely infeasible to vacate and warm the building for construction purposes and then
chill it down again for service. Even if temporary insulated walls were erected to enclose
the work area and allow only the enclosed space to be warmed up to an acceptable
temperature for concrete and or masonry work, there still remains the logistical difficulty
of getting concrete or mortar into the space without first having to pass through the
freezers. Moving workers and less temperature sensitive materials presents other practical
difficulties in that these too must traverse the subfreezing portions of the building in order
to enter the work area and thus reduce the temperature within the temporary work
enclosure to below freezing again requiring a period of time to reheat the work space. It
would also be difficult to locate such a second stair inside the building, as the enclosure
would either terminate on the loading dock or entail construction of an extension of the
enclosure to the exterior, significantly impeding normal operations (see attached sketch.)
There are also practical difficulties involved in establishing a second exit on the exterior
of the building (either a fire escape or a stair.) There are limited locations where such an
exterior exit could be placed without terminating on the loading dock and creating a
similar problem as discussed above or requiring the occupants to exit across the
processing area roof prior to descending to grade and then exiting to the public way
across the railroad easement. In fact, the only other place to put such an exterior exit is
directly on District Boulevard, which would create a security problem for the building.
More importantly, the exterior wall actually consists of two concrete walls spaced o
�11 k
a1LLon
Samuel Kevin Wilson, P.E.
22 January 2001
Page 3 of 7
foot apart, giving a total wall thickness of 46". There are no freezer doors made in this
configuration and it presents extraordinary practical difficulties to rework a large enough
portion of the exterior wall in order to accept the more commonly manufactured freezer
doors intended for exterior applications.
REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION
The requested modification due to practical difficulties is to permit the existing exiting
condition, which has served the building adequately for 72 years, to continue in use as is,
subject to the conditions described below.
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND JUSTIFICATION
This proposed modification, for this individual case, does not in any way affect the
degree of structural integrity nor does it lessen any fire protection already afforded the
building.
The issue then becomes whether the intent and purpose of the code is still maintained.
The purpose and intent applicable in this instance is that of life safety of the occupants.
Because of the nature and arrangement of the storage, there is only one warehouseman on
each of floors 2 through 6. An analysis of the exiting time required for these 5 individuals
to walk from the most remote location on a floor to the stair, pass through the door, and
then descend to the first floor; leave the stair enclosure, and traverse the office to the
exterior of the building is as follows:
It takes 2 minutes 54 seconds* from the 2nd floor
It takes 3 minutes 18 seconds* from the 3`d floor
It takes 3 minutes 36 seconds* from the 4d' floor
It takes 4 minutes 00 seconds* from the 5t' floor
It takes 4 minutes 18 seconds* from the a floor
*all times are approximate based on the calculations performed using NIST's FPETOOL
NIST is the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a division of the United
States Department of Commerce. It was formerly known as NBS or the National Bureau
of Standards and its main research campus is in Gaithersburg, Maryland. FPETOOL,
ASET-B and a number of other fire, life safety, and building related programs have been
developed by NIST over the years and, after extensive internal review and testing and
extensive external peer review and testing, these programs are made available in the
public domain. Copies of these and more along with the support documentation are
available for free at htty://www.nist.gov or from their ftp site.
-446L
.,l
orlLon
Samuel Kevin Wilson, P.E.
22 January 2001
Page 4 of 7
Total elapsed time from ignition to when a smoke layer from a fire involving the frozen
commodity descends to a point 6 feet above the finished floor surface in the smallest
storage room is 8 minutes 10 seconds*. On an undivided floor, the same conditions are
not reached until 72 minutes 36 seconds* after ignition. 6 feet above the finished floor
was used in the analysis because it corresponds with the height of the top of the doors
into the stair tower. Any smoke that descends below this level poses the risk of
contaminating the exit path within the stair. Furthermore, NFPA 92B uses 6 feet as the
height above the floor for determining viable exiting conditions under smoke control
mode.
* all times are approximate based on the calculations performed using NIST's ASET-B
Assuming that a delay in discovery and recognition of need to evacuate for an individual
in a non -fire space is 4 minutes, then the stair itself remains safe since the smoke layer
has yet to descend below 9 feet 6 inches above finished floor in even the smallest space,
and the stair door head is 6 feet above finished floor. The time to traverse a floor from the
most remote point and enter the stair, including a one minute effort to pass through the
stair door, is only 2 minutes 31 seconds. So even if the worker is as far away from the
stair as possible and the fire is in the space adjacent to the stair, there is sufficient time for
the worker to safely exit the floor and enter the stair enclosure before the smoke layer
descends to the top of the door.
With respect solely to the number of exits on the upper floors, the code's basic premise is
that two exits are to be provided; however, there are exceptions to this that take into
account the number of occupants and the nature of the use of the space. For example,
second floors of any use with an occupant load of less than 10 are permitted to have only
one exit, Title 24, Part 2, Section 1004.2.3.2 and Table 10-A. Even an aviation control
tower with an occupant load of 15 per floor is permitted to have only one exit even
though it may be of unlimited height when of Type I-FR construction. As this building
can be legitimately classified as Type I-FR and as the actual occupant load, due to the
nature of the operations and the environmental conditions therein, does not exceed 1 per
floor on the upper floors (5 persons total for floors 2 through 6), it would not be
inappropriate to apply the express intent of the code for these unique situations to this
particular case.
The exiting condition from the stair requiring personnel to leave the stair and pass
through the office space does present a reasonably foreseeable problem in that the office
space represents the more probable ignition and fire scenario for the building than do the
refrigerated storage spaces above. Insofar as this is the only exit path for the personnel
using the stair, fire protection for this area assumes a special importance. Since this office
area is fully sprinklered and very small, it is reasonable to accomplish this protection by
the construction of a 1-hour fire resistive floor -to -ceiling wall assembly to create a
Samuel Kevin Wilson, P.E.
22 January 2001
Page 5 of 7
corridor from the stair to the lobby. Openings into the lobby should be protected with
self -closing or automatic -closing assemblies of at least 20 minute rating.
Another basic premise of the code is that existing buildings which were legal at the time
of adoption of the code may have their use continued provided such continued use is not
dangerous to life, cf. CCR, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 34, Division I, Section 3401. In this
case, while continued use may present some minor risk (the possibility of harm), it does
not rise to the level of dangerous (the likelihood of harm.)
It is also worth noting that the individual warehouseman on a particular floor is
necessarily intimately familiar with the building geography. This is his daily place of
work. He is also equipped with and trained in the use of an emergency escape mask,
which provides him up to 20 minutes of escape time through even poisonous gas clouds,
let alone the few minutes of travel below a smoke layer he would have to endure. The
placement of such emergency escape masks will be revised so that there will now be a
mask on every fork truck on every floor. This assures that the mask and the user will
remain in close proximity to each other.
Arrangements are proceeding to install notification appliances in every room on every
floor of the refrigerated spaces to provide audible and visual alarms to the
warehousemen. Additionally, each warehouseman will continue to be equipped with a
two-way radio transceiver, the use of which is a normal and ordinary part of his routine.
There is a written evacuation notification and implementation procedure in the event of
either a fire or an ammonia leak.
Finally, there is a written procedure whereby the stair doors on each level are inspected
and logged daily to ensure that they are not blocked open or closed by ice or other
obstructions. The possibility of installing electric heating devices to automatically
accomplishing jamb de-icing at each of these doors was investigated. It is my
professional engineering opinion and the opinion of the warehouse operator that such
electric heating presents an unacceptable risk of fire due to the presence of cork and pitch
insulation in the doors and walls, and that proper adherence to the written procedure will
accomplish the intended level of personnel safety.
With respect to the potential of harm from an ammonia leak within the facility, not only
are all the employees trained to deal with an ammonia release as required by the
Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP) and the Risk Management and
Prevention Plan (RMPP), of which it is a part and was prepared in 1994 and is on file
with the City of Vernon Fire Department, but the likelihood of such a release on any of
the floors is minimal because of the way the piping is arranged and the evaporators are
suspended. The mounting is flexible which allows for movement without damage during
seismic, thermal, and mechanical displacements. Mechanical displacements by material
handling vehicles or the like would almost certainly have to be intentional. Even then,
?�k
DiLLon
Samuel Kevin Wilson, P.E.
22 January 2001
Page 6 of 7
most likely result would be a half circumferential crack at a joint. Since the piping is 2"
nominal diameter and such a crack would be approximately 1/32nd of an inch in width.
That would correspond to an air leakage rate of 16.08 standard cubic feet per minute
(scfin) into the pipe since the system is operating at below atmospheric pressure
(vacuum) of approximately 6 in. Hg. Assuming the unlikely scenario where the leak went
unnoticed until the piping system filled with sufficient incompressibles to take the
compressor off line and the system feedback somehow bypasses the system check valves
and other safeties and thus raises the line pressure up to 150 psig, then the leakage of
ammonia into the space would be approximately 114 scfin of NH3. Using the volume of
the smallest room, this would indicate that there is 11 seconds after this flow reversal
before the IDLH concentration could be reached in that room. Even this concentration is
not that serious to individuals who have worked around ammonia, have access to a safety
mask, and are trained for such emergencies. For the larger spaces, this time becomes an
even more acceptable 32 seconds, again after flow reversal. It must be pointed out that
these acceptable access -to -mask times or escape times are computed only after an
improbable event has taken considerable time to precipitate a near impossible event by
changing the pressure conditions within the entire system from that of a vacuum to that of
the high pressure receiver. Furthermore, these times only involve the room in which this
extraordinarily improbable event occurs.
Any significant leak of ammonia will be detected by the ammonia detection system
which automatically cuts off the feed to the entire warehouse, transmits an alarm to an
attended location and results in both the radio and intercom contact of all warehousemen
ordering an immediate evacuation. Similarly, flow indication at the sprinkler system
transmits a fire alarm to an attended location and the Vernon Fire Department and results
in the same immediate evacuation response. All warehousemen at this facility are
provided with and trained in the use of two-way radio transceivers, which are a necessary
part of their ordinary work functions.
At the stair doors, there are exit signs and the area will be appropriately marked to assure
that no commodities are stored in such a way as to block egress. Additional measures are
being taken to further assure that commodities cannot be placed in front of the doors.
These measures consist of the installation of a permanent rail to preclude the placement
of pallets within 4 feet of the door or its exit path. As a part of the daily logging of the
stair door condition to assure its continued usefulness as an exit, an examination of the
immediate vicinity for compliance with maintaining the egress path and the logging of
the conditions observed will be incorporated.
Attached to this letter are some of the relevant documents from P&O concerning
notification procedures, logging protocols, ammonia leaks, and emergency exiting.
In summary, the extraordinarily low occupant load on not only any but all of the upper
floors, the lack of a credible ignition scenario, the difficulty of igniting ' and sustaining
0k
c�iLLon
` Samuel Kevin Wilson, P.E.
22 January 2001
Page 7 of 7
fire in frozen foods, the presence of sprinkler systems, the presence of an ammonia
detection system throughout, the Type I-FR construction, the familiarity of the occupants
with the space they in which they routinely carry out there daily duties and tasks, the
operating conditions of the ammonia refrigeration system, the routine examination and
logging of stair door condition, the emergency training and apparatus provided the
employees, and the ability to communicate with them all speak strongly in favor of the
continued use of this building as it is currently configured as a safe and reasonable
alternative to the practical difficulties involved in retroactively carrying out the
provisions of the present day code.
In conclusion, it is my professional engineering opinion that, subject to the conditions
described above, the continued use of the freezer storage building with a single egress
stair provides reasonable safety to the occupants
Very truly urs,
-8
i ael ar illon, .E., C.Eng. �i. �oNgN►c�:?f
-OF CAO
attachments: (previously submitted)
cc: Robert W. DeVillez (by fax or email only)
William Duffy (by fax or email only)
Patrick A. Perry (by fax or email only)
Frank White (by fax or email only)
REVISED
STAFF REPORT
VERNON COLD STORAGE
4224 DISTRICT BOULEVARD
BUILDING CODE VIOLATION
FEBRUARY 15, 2001
On August 31, 2000 a letter was sent to Vernon Cold Storage
LLC, the owners of 4224 District Boulevard, requiring them to
abate a dangerous condition. The subject building is six stories
and is located on Los Angeles County Assessor Parcel Number 6304-
027-015. Section 302 of the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement
of Dangerous Buildings considers a building dangerous if one of
eighteen enumerated conditions exists provided that such
conditions or defects exist to the extent that the life, health,
property or safety of the public or its occupants are endangered.
The building located at 4224 District Boulevard lacks
sufficient number of exits. Section 3401 of the 1997 Uniform
Building Code states "Buildings in existence at the time of the
adoption of this code may have their existing use or occupancy
continued, if such use or occupancy was legal at the time of this
code, provided such use is not dangerous to life." Appendix
Chapter 34, Existing Structures outlines the minimum life safety
requirements for existing buildings. Section 3407.1, Number of
Means of Egress, states "Every floor above the first story used
for human occupancy shall have at least two means of egress, one
of which may be an exterior fire escape complying with Section
3407.4. Appendix lA of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code restates the
exact same requirements for an existing building.
Section 102 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code, Unsafe
Buildings or Structures states, "All buildings or structures
regulated by this code that are structurally unsafe or not
provided with adequate egress or that constitute a fire hazard,
or are otherwise dangerous to human life are, for the purpose of
this section, unsafe." Section 102 goes on to state "All such
unsafe buildings, structures or appendages are hereby declared to
be a public nuisance and shall be abated by repair,
rehabilitation, demolition or removal in accordance with
procedures set forth in the Dangerous Building Code..."
Section 302 of the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of
Dangerous Buildings considers the following conditions dangerous:
1) Whenever any door, aisle or passageway, stairway or
other means of exit is so warped, worn, loose, torn or
otherwise unsafe as to not provide safe and adequate
means of exit in case of fire or panic.
2) Whenever, for any reason the building or structure, or
any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the
purpose for which it is being used.
3) Whenever any building or structure has been
constructed, exists or is maintained in violation of
any specific requirement or prohibition applicable to
such building or structure provided by the building
regulations of this jurisdiction, as specified in the
building code or housing code, or any law or ordinance
of this state or jurisdiction relating to the
condition, location or structure of buildings.
4) Whenever any building or structure, because of
obsolescence, dilapidated condition, deterioration,
damage, inadequate exits, lack of sufficient fire -
resistive construction, faulty electric wiring, gas
connections or heating apparatus, or other cause is
determined by the fire marshal to be a fire hazard.
During recent city inspections of the subject building it
was determined that the six story building contains only one exit
stairwell and only one stairwell from the basement. It was
determined that great force, far.exceeding the Uniform Building
Code requirement of 30 lbs. was necessary to open the doors into
the stairwell due to icing.
The City ordered the owner to immediately repair and
maintain the doors entering the existing exit stairwells so that
they comply with Section 1003.3.15, swing and opening force of
the 1997 Uniform Building Code.
Additionally, the City ordered the owner within 60 days to
submit plans and receive city approval for the construction of a
second means of egress for all floors and the basement in
compliance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code. The exit may be
an exterior fire escape complying with section 3407.4 of the
Uniform Building Code. The construction of the second means of
egress shall commence within 60 days and shall be completed
within 21 months of the date of this notice.
In addition to the fact that the building was constructed
with only one exit stairwell, two other factors add to the
concern of safety within the structure. Firstly, the building
has an extensive piping network containing ammonia. The low
ceiling heights increase the potential for a forklift rupturing
2
the piping system, thereby releasing ammonia within the
structure. In certain quantities ammonia gas is both explosive
and fatal.
Secondly, the building was constructed with four elevator
shafts. These vertical shafts provide a direct connection
between floors and unlike modern buildings are not fully enclosed
or protected with self -closing fire rated doors. Smoke from a
fire can easily migrate from one floor to the next causing
potential injuries or fatalities to occupants within the
structure. It should be noted that existing buildings with
automatic sprinklers are not required to have their vertical
shafts retrofitted. These two safety concerns only added to the
need for a second means of egress from the structure.
Lastly, it should be noted that the building code assigns an
occupant load of 80 for each floor based on 40,000 square feet of
refrigerated area.
In a letter dated November 3, 2000 from Patrick Perry of
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP, it is argued that Health
and Safety Code Section 17922(f) provides that, "No local
ordinance may permit any action or proceeding to abate violations
or regulating governing maintenance of buildings, unless the
building is a substandard building or the violation is a
misdemeanor. Also, Section 17920.0(L) of the Health and Safety
Code defines substandard building as "All buildings or portions
thereof not provided with adequate exit facilities as required by
this code, except those buildings or portions thereof whose exit
facilities conform with all applicable laws at the time of their
construction any which have been adequately maintained and
increased in relation to any increase in occupant load,
alteration or addition or change on occupancy." However, Section
17920.3(L) further provides that "When anunsafecondition exists
through lack of, or improper location of, exits, additional exits
may be required to be installed.
It should be noted that the sections quoted in the Patrick
Perry letter is from State Housing Law and is not applicable to
industrial buildings. In any case, the second part of Section
17920.3(L) clearly allows for enforcement of constructing an
adequate number of exits.
Patrick Perry also argues that since the State has not
adopted the code for the abatement of dangerous buildings that it
cannot be enforced by the City without making express findings.
However, in Section 102, Unsafe Buildings or Structure, of
the 1998 California Building Code it states in part, "All
buildings or structures regulated by this code that are
3
structurally unsafe or not provided with adequate egress or that
constitute a fire hazard or are otherwise dangerous to human life
are, for the purpose of this section, unsafe..." Section 102
further provides "All such unsafe building, structures or
appendages are hereby declared to be a public nuisances and shall
be abated by repair, rehabilitation, demolition or removal in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the dangerous
building code..."
The building code specifically advises agencies to utilize
the dangerous building code. Additionally, the City has adopted
the Uniform Dangerous Building Code for its use.
In addition pursuant to Sections 38660 and 50022.2 of the
California Government Code the City may adopt by reference
regulations for the abatement of unsafe buildings.
The Patrick Perry appeal letter completely ignores Section
3407.1 of appendix 34 existing structures, which require that
every floor above the first story used for human occupancy shall
have at least two means of egress.
Finally, Mr. Patrick Perry states that the estimated cost of
adding the second exit would be approximately $726,000 and that
this expense would result in a severe financial hardship severely
affecting the financial viability of the building. In the City's
opinion the mere fact that it will be expensive to add a second
exit is no excuse for not providing a life safety requirement.
Given Mr. Perry's opinion the City was prepared to deny Vernon
Code Storage LLC's appeal.
Given this knowledge, Vernon Cold Storage LLC engaged the
services of Dillon Consulting Engineers, Inc. to perform an
engineering study to determine if the building could be continued
to be used safely. Attached herewith and incorporated herein is
a letter dated January 22, 2001 from Dillon Consulting Engineers
outlining that in Michael Dillon's professional opinion that the
building can be safely occupied given certain mitigation is
provided.
In brief, the following is Mr. Dillon's findings and
conclusions:
1) The subject building is
constructed in 1928 with
fully sprinklered with a
is 200x200 feet and the
as four separate spaces
square feet. Each floor
a six -story freezer building
12-foot high ceilings and is
dry pipe system. Each floor
floors are divided into as many
with the smallest being 3500
is served by one egress stair.
4
The effective travel distance from the most remote area
to the stairs is 380 feet.
2) A second stairwell would be difficult to construct due
to the building location on the property, the dock
arrangement, the nature of the use of the building
(cold storage) and the thickness of the walls, 46
inches.
3) From the 6th floor a person could safely exit the
building in 4 minutes 18 seconds. The total elapse
time from ignition to when a smoke layer from a fire
involving the frozen commodity descends to a point 6
feet above the floor in the smallest storage room is 8
minutes 10 seconds. On an undivided floor, the same
conditions are not reached until 72 minutes 36 seconds.
4) Second floors of any use with an occupant load of less
than 10 are permitted to have only one exit, per Title
24, Part 2, Section 1004.2.3.2 and Table 10A. An
aviation control tower with an occupant load of 15 per
floor and a maximum area of 1500 square feet is
permitted to have only one exit even though it may be
unlimited height when of type I-FR construction. The
subject building can be classified as type I-FR and the
actual occupant load due to the nature of the
operations and environmental conditions is
approximately 1 per floor.
5) Warehousemen are intimately familiar with the building
geography and are equipped with and trained in the use
of an emergency escape mask, which provides them up to
20 minutes of escape time through even poisonous gas
clouds.
6) There is a written procedure whereby the stair doors in
each level are inspected and logged daily to ensure
they are not blocked or closed by ice or other
obstructions.
7) All employees are trained to deal with an ammonia
release as required by the Hazardous Materials .
Management Plan and the Risk Management Plan and
Prevention Plan which is on file with the City. All
warehousemen at this facility are provided with and
trained in the use of a two-way transceiver.
8) The likelihood of a release is minimal because of the
piping arrangement and the way the evaporators are
suspended. The mounting is flexible which allows
movement without damage. Any significant leak of
ammonia will be detected by the ammonia detection
system, which automatically cuts off the feed to the
entire warehouse and transmits an alarm to an attended
location. Additionally, the ammonia system operates at
a below atmospheric pressure (vacuum) of approximately
6 inches. Under the unlikely scenario that if a 1/32
5
of an inch crack in the piping occurred and the leak
went undetected, the piping system filled with
sufficient incompressibles to take the compressor
offline and the system feedback is bypassed and line
pressure built to 150 psig, then it would take 11
seconds after the flow reversal before the IPLH
concentration would be reached in the smallest room.
9) Flow indication in the sprinkler system sets off a fire
alarm to an attended location and automatically
notifies the Fire Department. Response to the alarms
is immediate evacuation of the building.
Additionally, due to the City°s concerns with the building
having only one exit stairwell Mr. Dillon has recommended and the
owner has agreed to furnish the following mitigation:
a) Place emergency escape masks on every forklift
truck, this will assure that the mask and the user
will remain in close proximity to each other.
b) Install notification appliances in every room on
every floor -of the refrigerated space to provide
audible and visual alarms to the warehouseman upon
detection of smoke or ammonia gas in the building.
c) Provide a corridor with a 1-hour fire resistive
floor -to -ceiling wall assembly from the stairs to
the lobby. Openings into the lobby shall be
protected with self -closing or automatic closing
assemblies of at least 20 minute rating.
d) Maintain exit signs and mark an area to assure
that no commodities are stored in such a way as to
not block egress. Additionally, a permanent rail
will be installed to preclude the placement of
pallets within 4 feet of the door or its exit
path.
.Further, Mr. Dillon argues, under CCR, Title 24, Part 2,
Chapter 34 division, Section 3401, existing buildings, which were
legal at the time of the code, may have their use continued
provided such continued use is not dangerous to life. Given the
extraordinary low occupant load of the upper floors and basement
of the building, the lack of credible ignition, the difficulty of
igniting and sustaining a fire in frozen foods, the presence of a
sprinkler system, the presence of an ammonia detection system
throughout the type of I-FR construction, the familiarity of the
occupants with the space, the vacuum operating condition of the
ammonia refrigeration system, the routing examination and logging
of the stair door condition, the emergency training and apparatus
provided for employees and the ability to communicate with
employees throughout the building it is Mr. Dillon°s opinion that
6
the building is safe to occupy with a single egress and should
not be considered dangerous.
The City is in agreement with this position. Therefore,
under the alternative design provision of the Uniform Building
Code it is recommended that the building be allowed to continue
to be occupied with only one means of egress from the upper
floors and basement under the following conditions:
a) All existing safeguards mentioned in this report and in
the January 22, 2001 Dillon Consulting Engineers,
Inc.'s letter shall be maintained.
b) The above'mentioned mitigation shall be installed
within six months of the date of City Council action
and shall be maintained for the life of the building.
c) The owner shall maintain insurance in the amount of
$20,000,000.00 in a form and carrier approved by the
City. The City shall be named as an additional
insured.
d) The type of use of the building shall not be changed.
e) The owner shall execute a hold harmless agreement with
the City in a form approved by the City Attorney.
f) The building shall be available at all times for City
inspection to determine continued compliance of all
conditions.
Failure to comply with any of these conditions may
automatically void this approval. Lastly, the City shall have
the ability to re-examine this issue in 5 years to confirm or
deny the continued occupancy of the subject building.
C:\My Documents\STAFF REPORTSWernon.ColdStorage.doc