California residential fire sprinkler.....

[beach]

http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/pdf/firemarshal ... report.pdf

 

[FM William Burns]

Re: California residential fire sprinkler.....

Very nice Beach! If only other states could work as effeicently as CA in dealing with this hot bed issue. I can only hope our state uses this model in the future, we are working on it. I had the pleasure of meeting and talikng to your ASFM and a couple of her staff. You all are very much on top of things and impressively proactive

 

[beach]

Re: California residential fire sprinkler.....

Thanks FMB, if you talked to Tanya Hoover, she's now our (acting) SFM....real intelligent and nice lady. I think the other states are waiting to see how we fare......

 

[FM William Burns]

Re: California residential fire sprinkler.....

Yep, that's her I have to remember to dig up an old article I wrote about Bridging the gap between suppression and prevention back in the day that we discussed and get it to her. She shares a similar rationale as I do and I can see if she get fullly appointed your state will be doing so much more with regards to fire safety for both state regulated and non state regulated facilities. You all are sure on the ball!

 

[conarb]

Re: California residential fire sprinkler.....

That's only the recommendations of the State Fire Marshal, did anyone really think they wouldn't recommend residential sprinklers? As an aside here is a statement from the report:

To discuss a case in point, a city (not named) in California now charges in excess of $100,000 in local fees for every new home. A new home in this city sells for $250,000-$350,000. The California Building Industry Association contends that there are a great many jurisdictions charging fees at the same rate, or higher.

For some time I've been saying that my largest single line item in my cost breakdowns was the one labeled "Government fees and costs", may here doubted that it costs so much to permit a home in the Golden State.

 

[beach]

Re: California residential fire sprinkler.....

The "recommendations" will be in effect Jan. 1st, 2011.......... :mrgreen:

 

[conarb]

Re: California residential fire sprinkler.....

It's still going to be subject to local amendment even if the recommendations are adopted into statute.

108.6.1 General. Subject to other provisions of law, a city, county, or city and county may make changes to the provisions adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development. If any city, county, city and county does not amend, add or repeal by local ordinance or regulations the provisions published in this code or other regulations promulgated by the Department of Housing and Community Development, those provisions shall be applicable and shall become effective 180 days after publication by the California Building Standards Commission. Amendments, additions and deletions to this code adopted by a city, county, city and county pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.7 and 18941.5, together with all applicable portions of this code, shall also become effective 180 days after publication of the California Building Standards by the California Building Standards Commission. (2007 California Building Code [CBC] and 2007 California Fire Code [CFC)

 

[beach]

Re: California residential fire sprinkler.....

The bottom line is that most, if not all cities, will be adopting residential fire sprinklers into their code in California....most cities have been surveyed and the result are all very positive. Maybe you and Uncle Bob can be roomies in Texas! :lol:

 

[FM William Burns]

Re: California residential fire sprinkler.....

Beach,

That is my understanding also based on my conversations with your SFMO personnel in Baltimore. Maryland and Georiga are doing similar and regardless of what anyone thinks or says, your state fire authority is a model on how to get all affected parties to the table and pound out an acceptable solution. Too bad the people in Sacramento can't do something better about your housing prices and COL.

 

[conarb]

Re: California residential fire sprinkler.....

The fire people have always recommended sprinklers, noting new here, the recommendations go on to say:

The California Building Code required a three-foot side yard setback for homes for many years. The 2007 California Building Code increased the setback requirement to five-feet, increasing the level of safety and property protection. The existing fire loss data in California is exclusively based upon the three-foot setback data.

It is reasonable to state that the installation of the automatic fire sprinkler systems in homes will achieve the same safety and property protection benefit as the five-foot setback when fires start within the sprinklered areas of homes. In instances where fires start on the exterior of structures, in the attics, or in wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas, the fire loss data will remain unchanged to the historical fire loss data in California. Builders are able to reduce lot widths by four feet (two feet from each side lot line) with this setback reduction. The reduction will allow builders to maximize the number of lots when dividing a tract into buildable lots. The market trend is for buyers to purchase larger houses on smaller lots. The reasons for this trend are beyond the scope of this report.

But what about the custom builders like me, I've never built a home with less than a 5' setback, most homes have had 15' to 25' setbacks. In order to sell sprinklers they are recommending cramming people together with 2' setbacks! That's the trade-off, mandate sprinklers to save lives but cram people together like sardines in a can?

 

[FM William Burns]

Re: California residential fire sprinkler.....

ConArb:

I can understand the frustrations with your dilemma. It’s true that the fire service in general has always promoted fire sprinklers but in all fairness the task force alluded to has really done their homework and should be used as a model for other states to follow. They did a remarkable job in getting all interests (or at least as many necessary politically) involved in the very lengthy process to come up with a solution that the majority of stakeholders could swallow. Does it suit everyone; not really but neither does any new policy or procedure and especially when it comes in regulatory code developments.

 

[conarb]

Re: California residential fire sprinkler.....

Marshal Burns:

The problem is the only opposition the fire people have is the home builders, they are all whores who are interested in nothing but the bottom line, sacrifice firefighter safety like I Joists and roof trusses, okay, sacrifice quality of life by reducing side yards to 2' okay, we'll give you your stinking sprinklers as long as it doesn't cost us anymore. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Home Builders will come out way ahead on the deal, the sprinklers will cost them little, they'll come from China, the labor to install them will cost little, it will come from Mexico, the homeowners will shut them off, and that's the end of it.

 

[Min&Max]

Re: California residential fire sprinkler.....

Residential fire sprinklers will cost the homebuilders zero dollars. Just like any added expense, the cost will be passed on to the home buyers.

 

[FM William Burns]

Re: California residential fire sprinkler.....

ConArb: I can see the value in your statement and hopefully licensing initiatives and minimum requirements for installers can be included in future legislations (in all states) to prevent life safety migrant camps/shops from developing further in our lax country. Also as others have mentioned previously on other threads (pwood); I would like to see water purveyor limitation legislation to prevent further greed in their industry. The fire people will need to pick up the efforts in public education to show citizens how easy and necessary maintenance is on these systems also.

 

[Jasper]

Re: California residential fire sprinkler.....

The fire people have always recommended sprinklers, noting new here, the recommendations go on to say:

The California Building Code required a three-foot side yard setback for homes for many years. The 2007 California Building Code increased the setback requirement to five-feet, increasing the level of safety and property protection. The existing fire loss data in California is exclusively based upon the three-foot setback data.

It is reasonable to state that the installation of the automatic fire sprinkler systems in homes will achieve the same safety and property protection benefit as the five-foot setback when fires start within the sprinklered areas of homes. In instances where fires start on the exterior of structures, in the attics, or in wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas, the fire loss data will remain unchanged to the historical fire loss data in California. Builders are able to reduce lot widths by four feet (two feet from each side lot line) with this setback reduction. The reduction will allow builders to maximize the number of lots when dividing a tract into buildable lots. The market trend is for buyers to purchase larger houses on smaller lots. The reasons for this trend are beyond the scope of this report.

But what about the custom builders like me, I've never built a home with less than a 5' setback, most homes have had 15' to 25' setbacks. In order to sell sprinklers they are recommending cramming people together with 2' setbacks! That's the trade-off, mandate sprinklers to save lives but cram people together like sardines in a can?

The report is suggesting 3' setbacks, not 2' setbacks. The 2' mentioned is the difference between 3' and 5' -- in other words, the amount "saved" by returning to a 3' minimum setback.

 

[Jasper]

Re: California residential fire sprinkler..... [bogus "savings"]

My guess is that the suggestion to reduce the setback requirement is an attempt to find some "savings" to offset the cost of the sprinkler systems. My guess is that the suggestion will not result in any savings. Either the state code will stay at 5', or local codes will stay at 5', or people will refuse to buy detached houses with just a 3' setback.

I agree that a 3' setback does not make much sense for detached single family homes. A three-foot wide side yard barely has enough room for a person to walk, let alone use the yard. The property line could be shifted to the edge of one house's rake or gutter, giving one house a 4' or 5' side yard. If there is a fence along the property line, that leaves the other homeowner with too little room to maintain their house. Thus, I expect no Californian nowadays wants to buy a detached house with 3' setbacks. I guess this is why the building industry allowed increasing the minimum setback from 3' to 5'.

I grew up in a city in rural California. As far as I know, all of the detached homes there have at least 5' side yards. This suggests to me that even builders of cheap tract homes know that the market demands enough side yard to be able to maintain the house.

 

[Jasper]

Re: California residential fire sprinkler.....

But what about the custom builders like me, I've never built a home with less than a 5' setback, most homes have had 15' to 25' setbacks.

Reading the report, I get the sense that there was a lot of input from builders of tract homes, fire officials, and building code officials -- but very little input from homebuyers, custom home builders, or economists.

The report frequently discusses issues that only affect tract home builders, such as volume discounts when approving plans for tract homes. I did not notice anywhere that the report mentioned issues specific to custom home builders, such as extra costs for sprinklers in unusually shaped houses. The economic "analysis" was deeply flawed. The report did not discuss how homeowners are likely to "maintain" the systems. (Most homeowners will abandon them in-place; some might bother to drain them first.)

 

[Uncle Bob]

Re: California residential fire sprinkler.....

Reduction of side yard setbacks is a major problem. Many builders put the A/C unit on the side of the house; and, then put the back yard fence gate on the same side. With 3' to 5' side yard allowances it's hard to get anything into the back yard; much less allow Firefighters to get back there with equipment.

Uncle Bob

 

[conarb]

Re: California residential fire sprinkler.....

The Fire Protection Research Foundation, principally sponsored by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), conducted a study to more accurately determine the cost of fire sprinkler installation in new construction nationwide. The average cost was $1.61 per sprinklered square foot, not including offsets or credits *pg. 5, derived from costs ranging from$.038 to $3.66. The average homeowner insurance reduction due to the presence of the automatic fire sprinkler system was 7% *pg. 29.

There is an economy of scale that needs to be applied to the installation of fire sprinkler systems. One-time costs for tracts include project estimation, drawing of plans, and the plan review process.

Also, materials can often be purchased at better negotiated rates when purchased in bulk. Many, if not most, homes today are built in tracts as opposed to the traditional single custom home model. Some savings can be achieved by standardizing plans. Standardization is the equivalent of creating "boiler plate" sprinkler system designs for homes to be constructed by one or more construction companies in more than one jurisdiction.

Jasper:

They admit that they are only addressing tract homes, they are basing the recommendations for California on a national average cost of $1.61 per square foot, this is "expensive California", my prices are in the $9 square foot area plus average $30,000 connection charges, it is disingenuous to base California mandates on South Carolina prices.

They don't even address the problems encountered in custom homes on well water, they don't have to pay the $30,000 connection fees, but in a proposed home I am now working on the fire marshal required a 5,000 gallon tank without sprinklers, with sprinklers he would have required two more of these tanks for a total of three, and an emergency generator system to run the well during a fire, total cost on this project would be around $100,000, one of the reasons is that the industrial hygienist will not allow plastic pipe because of the toxics emitted from plastic. Note that when the owner temporarily moved into the existing old home he wanted a new stainless steel tank because he didn't want his family drinking water from the existing plastic tanks, the fire marshal required the 5,000 gallon tank at that time.

Note that they also talk about 7% average insurance savings, most insurance companies are quoting 4o% surcharges, State Farm will give a 10% discount, but that discount comes with no inadvertent release coverage, no mold coverage, and requires a dully sprinkled building, hardly a cheap 13D system.

The only unified voice we have against sprinklers is the NAHB, all they care about is total cost, give them enough trade-offs and they'll do anything to make money, the cheaper the better for them. The custom builder and his customers are totally ignored in this debate.

They make a point of saying that the vast majority of home built today are tract homes, so why not exempt custom homes, homes built in WUI areas, and homes served by wells?

 

[Jasper]

Re: California residential fire sprinkler.....

They make a point of saying that the vast majority of home built today are tract homes, so why not exempt custom homes, homes built in WUI areas, and homes served by wells?

I can think of a few reasons:

* They might sincerely believe that every house should have this "feature".

* There do not seem to have been any custom home builders on the committee to give their input.

* There might not have been any well users on the committee.

* It is too easy to abuse a "custom home" exemption. Tract home builders have a budget for legal fees, and I am sure they could come up with a boilerplate way to categorize every house they build as a "custom home", no matter how you defined "custom home".

* Do "homes served by wells" have an even greater need for sprinklers? They might be further from fire stations, and harder to bring water to.

* Do homes in "Wildland-Urban Interface areas" have an even greater need for sprinklers? Granted, current codes require that their exteriors be fire-hardened, but they also tend to be further from fire stations, and often burn down in bunches.

 

[Jasper]

Re: California residential fire sprinkler.....

They make a point of saying that the vast majority of home built today are tract homes, so why not exempt custom homes, homes built in WUI areas, and homes served by wells?

* It is too easy to abuse a "custom home" exemption. Tract home builders have a budget for legal fees, and I am sure they could come up with a boilerplate way to categorize every house they build as a "custom home", no matter how you defined "custom home".

The simplest exemption is no requirement at all.

The second best exemption (for your purposes) would be a tax on unsprinklered new homes, just high enough that a tract home builder would rather put in sprinklers, and you can have the "selling point" of a house that is "not designed to flood itself".

If California's Acting State Fire Marshal believes the 1.61 dollars per sprinklered square foot number, then a 2 dollar per square foot tax should be just high enough that a tract home builder would rather put in sprinklers, and you can have the "selling point" of a house that is "not designed to flood itself". If the report's numbers are unrealistic, the tract home builders would point this out by paying the taxes instead.

The first few years' tax money could subsidize fire service and inspection. Being California, after a couple of years the extra taxes would be diverted to cover the state budget deficit . :? And of course, the tax would be called an "impact fee" to get around Prop. 13 and the State Constitution.

 

[conarb]

Re: California residential fire sprinkler.....

* There do not seem to have been any custom home builders on the committee to give their input.

I dropped out of the NAHB in the early 70s, the tract builders held all the power because their dues were much higher (charged by the square foot permitted) and when they started talking building disposable homes for repeat business I got disgusted. There is no organized group of custom builders, the best contractors' association is the AGC but they don't build homes.

* Do homes in "Wildland-Urban Interface areas" have an even greater need for sprinklers? Granted, current codes require that their exteriors be fire-hardened, but they also tend to be further from fire stations, and often burn down in bunches.

Sprinklers do no good when the fire is coming from the outside, I've often wondered why they don't require sprinklers on the outside, I'm sure the reason is that Tyco and the other manufacturers don't make external sprinklers. On the home project I'm working on now I've hired a fire consulting firm, I'm getting all kinds of recommendations, foam systems around the perimeter with special foams on the decks, but no internal sprinklers.

 

[FM William Burns]

Re: California residential fire sprinkler.....

I believe they had representation from the CA Housing and Community Development, CBIA and CABO. Shouldn’t these representatives have addressed those “custom builders” interests? They also had (4) interested parties and a sub-committee category for Local Issues where these types of concerns may or at minimum should have been brought up and addressed possibly.

 

[conarb]

Re: California residential fire sprinkler.....

CA Housing and Community Development: The state agency under Building Standards that approves and then recommends one and two story code provisions, bureaucrats.

CBIA: The California Building Industry Association is the NAHB, joining the CBIA is the way you become a member of the NAHB.

and CABO: To my knowledge CABO has never been active in California, this is ICBO country, what is CABO doing here?