HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 1 UPDT UFC MODS 06-07-93AGENDA -'
OLD BUSINESS NO. 1
6-7-93
DATE:
JUNE 7, 1993
Inter-Com
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
WILLIl%M ~. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEP~RTMENT
PROPOSED ~DOPTION OF THE UPDATED EDITION OF THE UNIFORM FIRE
CODE WITH LOCAL MODIFICATIONS
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the city Council provide staff with
direction regarding proposed residential sprinkler requirements.
FISCAL IMPACT=
The adoption of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Fire Code with
local modifications does not have fiscal impact upon the City. In
the event that the City Council chooses to require residential fire
sprinklers in single family dwellings, there is an additional
service cost of $230.00 per building for Fire Department plan check
and inspections. This cost is paid by the applicant and service
provided by the Orange County Fire Department.
BACKGROUND:
At the May 3, 1993 City Council meeting, Resolution 93-14 and
Ordinance No. 1104 were presented to the city 'Council. The
resolution and ordinance relate to the proposed adoption of the
updated edition of the Uniform Fire Code with local modifications.
After discussion by the city Council of the various options
relating to residential sprinkler requirements, Resolution 93-14
was approved and Ordinance No. 1104 was introduced requiring
residential fire sprinklers in single family detached homes when
the combined floor area including the garage exceeds 3,600 square
feet or when the first responding fire station is more than five
minutes or 2.5 miles from the structure.
At the May 17, 1993 city Council meeting, a number of builders and
the Building Industry Association spoke in opposition to the
additional fire sprinkler requirements. Orange County Fire
Marshal, Sam Husoe was available to respond to questions from the
City Council. The Council voted to continue the matter to the June
7, 1993 City Council meeting.
May 24, 1993
Residential Fire Sprinkler Amendment
1991 Uniform Fire Code
Page 2 of 12
The costs of options or amenities were not mentioned in the
survey, with the exception of fire sprinklers. Consumers were
surveyed as to "lheJikeJiht;f;d~'pttlrha$illgJnle~orfi;~ ~lk&~ ~th~,were
offered atapprt;.rima~e~$2,000." Attaching a cost figure may have
created a disincentive to consider residential sprinklers.
Sixty-four percent (64%) of the surveyed population answered
that they would not be likely to purchase residential
sprinklers if offered, while thirty-three percent (33%) would.
FSABSC's 1989 California Showcase educated consumers on fire
problem facts, sprinkler system performance and cost.
Consumers also toured three model homes equipped with
residential fire sprinklers. Results of those surveyed
indicated the following:
o 81% of potential' home buyers would install a fire
sprinkler system in their new home if the option was
available; 6% would not.
o 68% were impressed by the appearance of the fire
sprinkler system; 5% were not.
o 58% would consider fire sprinkler installation if the
price was $1.25 per square foot or less; 16% would not.
Consumers in the survey may have been more receptive to
sprinklers as a result of being educated about, the benefits
and having had the opportunity 'to see homes in which fire
sprinklers were installed.
A 1993 survey by the FSABSC found that seventy-two communities
in California, with a total population of 4,185,765, require
the installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems in all
new single family dwellings, R-3 Occupancies.
The added cost of an automatic fire sprinkler system will make
many potential home buyers unable meet qualifying
requirements for a home loan.
According to the records of a local fire sprinkler contractor
on bids submitted on current single family tract homes and
custom homes, the cost of installing a residential sprinkler
system, including plan check fees, permit fees and
engineering, averages $0.862 and $0.999 per square foot
respectively.
May 24, 1993
Residential Fire Sprinkler Amendment
1991 Uniform Fire Code
Page 3 of 12
Automatic residential sprinkler systems are less expensive to
install in a home than carpeting. In the Sunday, May 23,
1993, issue of The Orange County Register there are two
advertisements for carpet sales. The sales prices in these
adds include free pad, free installation, free disposal of old
carpet. The first offer is by Budget Carpet with prices from
$6.99 (regular price is $12.00) to $28.99 per square yard.
That equates to a price range of $0.78 to $3.22 per square
foot. The second offer is by Home Carpet Warehouse with
prices from $9.99 (regular price is $15.99) to $23.99 per
square yard. That equates to a price mange of $1.11 to $2.66
per square foot.
If a cost of $1o00 per square foot is used as an example, an
automatic fire sprinkler system for a 3000 square foot home
would be $3000. According to the Vice President of Loan
Administration for Queen City Bank in Newport Beach, this
would represent an increase in the monthly loan payment of
$22.02 for a 30 year loan with an interest rate of 8% per
annum. The 30 year finance charges for the additional $3000
would be $4,927.20 making the total cost of the sprinkler
system $7,927.20.
The Bank Vice President further stated that based on
conservative qualifications for a mortgage loan, the payment
variance created by the additional cost of an automatic fire
sprinkler system is not significant enough to make an impact
in the qualifying ratio for a conventional 30-year mortgage
loan.
Competition in the housing market is such that the additional
cost of an automatic residential sprinkler system may have to
be paid for from the developer's profit margin.
According to Mr. Tom Williams of the Greystone Group in
Newport Beach, developers operate on an average of a twelve
percent (12%) profit margin on tract homes and ten percent
(10%) on large custom homes. Some developers can operate at
a lower profit margin as the result of very favorable land
acquisitions.
The New Home Guide section of the Sunday, May 23, 1993 issue
of the Orange County Register has several advertisements of
new homes for sale. The matrix below shows the impact on the
developer's profit margin if the cost of an automatic
residential sprinkler system, at $1.00 per square foot, is
absorbed by the developer. The figures used are based on the
advertisements.
May 24, 1993
Residential Fire Sprinkler Amendment
1991 Uniform Fire Code
Page 4 of 12
PROFIT
SALES APPROX. ESTIMAT. SPRNK. MARGIN
PROJECT: SO.FT: PRICE: PROFIT: COST: LOSS:
Bear Braud 3,518 $600,000+ $60,000 $3,518 0.57%
San Juan Cap.
Alicante 2.604
Homes
Tustin
California 1,283
Ridge Ito,n~
Mission Vi~jo Area
San Marin 2,738
Home~
Laguna Niguel
$350,000 $42.000 $2,604 0.74%
$189,990 $22,790 $1,283 0.68%
$350,00 $42,000 $2,738 0.78%
Providence 2,457 $289,900 $34,780 $2,457 0.85%
The installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system would
result in the necessity to upgrade water meters and water
mains.
The minimum water meter sizes required by water districts in
the City of Tustin and the surrounding area are:
WATER DISTRICT
Capistrano Valley
E1 Toro Water
Irvine Ranch
Moulton Niguel
Santa Margarita
WATER FRICTION
WATER METER FLOW* LOSS**
5/8-inch 33-gpm 28-psi
3/4-inch 33-gpm 15-psi
1-inch 33-gpm 5-psi
3/4-inch 33-gpm 15-psi
1-inch 33-gpm 5-psi
NOTE:
* A vertt,~e water, flow reqtdremen! ill ga/hms per minttte (gpm) based on a two head
fire sprinkler activation. Tl~ix incbule.x' a domcxHc water demand of 5 gpm.
** Avertt,k,e.fi'ictitm /os.~' in /)otmd.~ per .w/irate ;~('1, (p.vi) based on a two bead fire
sl)rink/er bead {l('l/V(lliOII. 77fix illCJilde3' dolll('Slic water.flow.
Tbe.figllres i~1 lb~' above labJe ~lre ba.¥cd o1~ ti WOl[~7 C~lSe scellarJo llsJll~ a free
piping sys(eln with collcetllt,d xl)rJl#;lvr il~'od.¥ i~VlI1 I~i.~her flow rates alld pressure
re(]tlirelllenL¥. Ulldvr ibt'M' COlldJlJo113, o11J¥ ibc 5/8-incb J['(i[(~l' i11eler Woldd ~of be
~Ideqllale; bowevel', [bis 3'Jlll(l[JOll c(111 ill Ii1(111v case3' be aJJevJated b), lt.vi~l,~ a Jar~er water
line.[k;m Ibc 111eJ~,r, cYpo.Yvd sprinkler heads alld/ol' i(;oping fl~e .v;rinkler pipe system.
May 24, 1993
Residential Fire Sprinkler Amendment
1991 Uniform Fire Code
Page 5 of 12
The additional water demand placed on a water meter by the
installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system is
basically determined by the type and number of sprinkler
heads, the water flow characteristics of the sprinkler heads,
friction loss calculations in the sprinkler piping and the
water pressure available at the water meter. The service
water line from the street main to the property meter box, in
most cases for a domestic system, is a 1-inch line; therefore,
if required, the installation of up to a 1-inch water meter on
new construction does not present additional excavation and
piping replacement problems.
The fire code allows for a fifty percent (50%) reduction in
the required fire flow (water availability for fire
suppression) in one and two family dwellings if they are
equipped with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
Amendments to the 1991 Uniform Fire Code, in detached one and
two family dwellings protected by an approved automatic fire
sprinkler system, allows the distance to the nearest fire
hydrant to be increased to 300 feet. In subdivisions where
such dwellings are so protected, the distance between fire
hydrants may be increased from 300 feet to 600 feet. These
allowances potentially represent significant savings for a
development by reducing the required size of water mains in
the street and decreasiDg the number of fire hydrants required
in a subdivision.
Very few insurance companies give credit for an automatic
residential fire sprinkler system.
According to a 1987 insurance report by the California State
Fire Marshal's Residential Sub-Committee, 20 insurance
companies offer a five to 15% discount on insurance polices
for residential occupancies protected by an automatic fire
sprinkler systems. A more recent survey in the December 1992
issue of the FPC/Fire Protection Contractors magazine shows
the following thirty-two (32) insurance companies as offering
discounts for homes equipped with a residential sprinkler
system:
Aetna Casulty
Ail West
Allstate
American National
Associated Indemnity
Blue Ridge
Cal Capitol
Mayflower
New York Underwriters
Ohio Casualty
Phoenix
Prudential
Republic
Sentry
Eay 24, 1993
Residential Fire Sprinkler Amendment
1991 Uniform Fire Code
Page 6 of 12
Cal Casualty
Continental
Crum & Forster
Federal Insurance
Fireman's Fund
Great American
Hartford
Liberty Mutual
Maryland
St. Paul
State Farm
Travelers
Twentieth Century
Unigard Security
United Pacific
USAA Casualty
Vanguard
West American
The following is a list of some examples of insurance policies
offered in California which do give credit for an automatic
residential fire sprinkler system:
NO. WITH
SEP. PERS. LOSS SPKLR. SPKLR. SPK~L,R.
COMPANY DWLNG. BLDG. PROP. OF USE PREM. PREM. ~AV.
American Econumy 150K 15K 112.51( 45K 380 346 8.9%
3XL
American Econnmy 1501( 151( 1051( 45K 455 414 9.0%
American Stat~*q 150K 151( 105K 45K 711 641 9.8%
Continental Link + 270K 451 391 13.3%
Firemans Fund Prestg. 1501( 301( 751( 519 471 9.2%
Firemans Fund Pti'. 1501;. 151( 105K 30K 454 410 9.7%
Firemans Fund Re,,/,. I501< 151< 105K 301( 562' 507 9.8%
Republic Blueridge 150K 151( 105K 30K 428 381 11%
Republic Vangum'd 15{1K 151< 105K 301( 465 414 11%
Republic Standard 150K 151( 1051( 301,. 530 472 10.9%
NOTE: All lite examples above are based tm a $250 deductible aud $300,000 in persunal liability
insurance covera~2e, hd'urmalion provided by I(e]meth S;twycr Insurance Broker ul' San Diego.
The insurance industry will not cover losses or damage
from the accidental activation or the failure of a residential
fire sprinkler system.
The loss record of Factory Mutual Research indicates that
annually only 1 in 16 million sprinklers in service will
discharge due to a manufacturing defect.
According to Kenneth Sawyer Insurance Broker of San Diego,
accidental discharge and ~ater damage from a residential
sprinkler system is covered under most homeowner type
insurance policies.
May 24, 1993
Residential Fire Sprinkler Amendment
1991 Uniform Fire Code
Page 7 of 12
The homeowner will be subject to fire sprinkler maintenance
and inspection requirements.
There are no Federal, State or local codes or regulations
which require any type of periodic inspection or
recertification of an automatic fire sprinkler system in a one
and two family dwelling. The Fire Sprinkler Advisory Board of
Southern California has made available to the public, through
their sprinkler contractor members, a pamphlet which guides
the homeowner through a voluntary self-inspection program.
The maintenance of a residential fire sprinkler system would
be similar to that of any built-in utility; i.e., electrical,
natural gas and domestic water systems.
The cost to clean up from a fire sprinkler activation in a
dwelling fire is greater than the damage caused by the fire.
A 1982 study of sprinklered and unsprinklered dwellings in the
City of Scottsdale, Arizona and the U.S. Fire Administration
showed property savings of eighty-five percent (85%) where
protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system.
Operation Life Safety reports that since 1983 there were 379
reported residential activations of residential sprinkler
systems in the United States. Due to this type of built-in
fire protection, it is estimated that approximately 1000 lives
were protected from injury or death.
According to national statistics, in ninety-one percent (91%)
of reported fires in residential occupancies protected by an
automatic fire sprinkler system, only one sprinkler head
activated and successfully controlled or extinguished the
fire.
A residential quick response sprinkler head discharges
approximately 16 to 18 gallons of water per minute. A 1-3/4
inch fire department hose line, normally the type of pre-
connected hose line used on dwelling fires, discharges between
150 and 200 gallons of water per minute, which is nine to
eleven times more water than the sprinkler head.
In an unsprinklered occupancy, the time lag from the discovery
and reporting of a fire, to the arrival of the fire departnent
and placement of hose lines on the fire, is somewhere from
eight to ten minutes. The preburn time, length of time from
fire ignition to discovery, is in most cases an unknown
May 24, 1993
Residential Fire Sprinkler Amendment
1991 Uniform Fire Code
Page 8 of 12
variable factor. This type of fire typically develops at a
rate producing an unsurvivable atmosphere in the room of fire
origin within seven to eight minutes. This critical stage of
a fire leads to a phenomenon known as "flashover," where the
room of fire origin instantaneously becomes completely
engulfed in fire. In most cases, fire suppression forces will
not arrive prior to "flashover". In this type of a fire
scenario, most fatalities occur prior to the arrival of the
fire department.
A residential quick response sprinkler head will activate
somewhere within thirty seconds and two minutes of fire
ignition and will have the fire under control within four
minutes, some time before "flashover."
In a sprinklered residence fire, assuming a worst case
response scenario, the fire department response and set-up
time would be ten minutes, and the sprinkler head would have
discharged a total of 180 gallons of water before the system
could be shut off. In an unsprinklered residence fire,
assuming the best case response scenario, the fire department
would arrive within five minutes and apply only one 1-3/4 inch
fire attack hose line for fifteen minutes on a much larger
fire. This would equate to about 2250 gallons of water, which
is over twelve (12) times as much water as from'the sprinkler
head and clearly indicates a corresponding potential for water
damage.
The following two recent fires illustrating the above
scenarios:
(1) Calle Riata Residential Fire, San Clemente - 1989
Equipped with a Residential Sprinkler System.
The owner h~d' added an office space above the garage without
extending the existing residential sprinkler system. The fire
originated in this office area and extended into the den area
which was protected by the sprinkler system. The fire-
fighters made an interior attack but were driven back by the
heat of the fire until the sprinkler heads in the den
activated. The sprinkler system held the fire to the den. No
occupants were at home at the time of the fire. Even with
structure modifications which compromised the sprinkler
system, the fire loss %.?as limited to $100,000; however, the at
risk valuation %~as %?el! over $3,500,000.
May 24, 1993
Residential Fire Sprinkler Amendment
1991 Uniform Fire Code
Page 9 of 12
(Z) Turtlerock Residential Fire, Irvine - 1993
Not Equipped with a Residential Sprinkler System.
In the early afternoon a garage fire started as the result of
a malfunctioning lawn sprinkler timing device. "Flashover"
occurred in the garage prior to the arrival of the fire
department. The fire quickly spread into the attached two-
sto_~; dwelling. Occupants were at home during the fire.
There were no injuries. The $300,000 dwelling sustained a
structural fire loss of $250,000 and a content loss of
$75,000. In addition there was a structural fire loss of
$100,000 and a content loss of $50,000 to an exposed dwelling.
10.
Current regulations-requiring fire retardant roofs and smoke
detectors make new residential dwellings very fire safe
negating the need for any automatic fire sprinkler systems.
Roof coverings and assemblies are classed according to how
they perform when exposed to an exterior fire and do not
protect the structure, content or occupants from an interior
fire. They are not tested or classed for an interior fire
exposure. Interior fires are usually related to fire loading
(furnishings, etc.), system failure (utilities and appliances)
and/or inappropriate human behavior (improper use of flammable
and combustible liquids, unattended open flame devices,
misuse of appliances, discarded smoking materials,
combustible materials too close to a heat source, etc.).
Until adopted into State law, the building industry was
strcngly opposed to any requirements for smoke detectors in
residential occupancies. Smoke detectors very effectively
alert the occupant to a fire; however, they do not curtail or
extinguish any fire. An automatic fire sprinkler system will
activate during the incipient stage of the fire, restrict it
to its place of origin and greatly limit the generation of
fire gases and heat, thus greatly limiting property
destruction and providing the occupant the ability to evacuate
the dwelling safely.
Ninety percent (90%) of residential fires occur in old housing
stock, therefore there is no justification for requiring
automatic fire sprinkler systems in new dwelling construction.
The new homes of today will be the old homes of tomorrow, in
approximately ten years. However, most residential fires are
not related to the age of the building, they are the result of
inappropriate human behavior in conjunction with combustible
May 24, 1993
Residential Fire Sprinkler Amendment
1991 Uniform Fire Code
Page 10 of 12
contents, utility systems, built-in equipment, household
appliances and electrical~ tools. Those factors are equally
present in old and new dwellings.
The following chart indicates, by rank of severity, the major
causes of fires, civilian fire deaths and injuries in
residential occupancies. 'These causes are based on
malfunction and/or improper use of equipment and systems, home
repairs and system modification by unqualified individuals,
unattended cooking, etc.
MAJOR CAUSES OF FIRES, CIVILIAN FIRE I)EATItS AND INJURIES
(Residential Occt'~pancies, NFPA Stalistics 1983-1987)
FIRE DEATII INJURY
]. Healin~ Equipmeu[
2. Cookiu~ Equipment
3. Arsun/$uspicious
Electrical Etluipmenl
Other Equipment
6. Smokin~ Malerials
Smokin~ Materials
I leatiu~ Eqt, ipmenl
Arson/Suspicluus
Electric:ti Equipment
Children v.'ilh Matches
Cuokiu~ Equipmt:n!
Cooking Equipment
Smuklng Materials
1 leafing Equipment
Arson/Suspiciuus
Children with Matches
Other Equipment
According to the 17th edition of the Fire Protection Handbook,
published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
in July of 1991, of all the categories of reported fires,
excluding outdoor fires, residential occupancies had the worst
fire record. For the period of 1983 to 1987, the statistics
show that over forty percent (40%) of all fires occur in
residential occupancies which resulted in over eighty percent
(80%) of the fire deaths, over seventy-one percent (71%) of
the injuries, and over fifty percent (50%) of the direct
property fire loss.
During 1991, the City of Tustin had forty-seven (47) structure
fires which resulted in six (6) injuries to civilians and a total
fire related property loss of $556,200. During 1992, there were
May 24, 1993
Residential Fire Sprinkler Amendment
1991 Uniform Fire Code
Page 11 of 12
forty-six structure fires with four (4) injuries to civilians, four
(4) injuries to fire fighters, and a total fire related property
loss of $933,265.
The Orange County Fire Department has an ongoing public information
and education program throughout its service area. Below is a list
of some of the programs. Please refer to the attachment for more
details:
Junior Fir·fighter Program: Offered on an annual basis to 5th
graders.
Safety Sitter Program:
sitters.
Offered to potential and active baby
Home Fire Safety Program: Offered to homeowners associations,
neighborhood watch groups, school PTA's, etc.
Fire Extinguisher Program: Offered to business and civic
groups, homeowners associations, etc.
Juvenile Fir·setter Program: Offered to families with
children involved in fireset~in? behavior.
6. Business Safety Program: Businesses and business
associations.
Child Care Provider Program: Offered to licensed child care
providers and through the Orange County Adult Education
Program and Day Care Association.
The Orange County Fire Department also is involved in special
safety campaigns and community events such as Fourth of July and
summer safe%y campaigns, fire season and ~ild!and safety campaigns,
Fire Prevention Week, fire station education tours, fire engine
school program and community safety events.
The Fire Department strongly supports the position of the League of
California cities, which on Octcher 11, 1989, stated in a
communique its support of automatic sprinkler systems.
An automatic residential fire sprinkler system is very affordable
and cost effective; but most importantly, it saves lives and
minimizes property fire damage because:
May 24, 1993
Residential Fire Sprinkler Amendment
1991 Uniform Fire Code
Page 12 of 12
An automatic fire sprinkler system automatically detects and
operates only in the area of fire origin, preventing the fire
from growing undetected to a dangerous size while
simultaneously sounding an alarm, alerting the occupants and
public.
An automatic fire sprinkler system keeps the fire small and
prevents it from developing intense heat, smoke, and hot gases
which are capable of trapping, injuring or killing the
occupants.
By eliminating flame'and smoke, an automatic fire sprinkler
system immediately reduces the danger of asphyxiation, burns
and carbon monoxide poisoning, thereby saving the lives of
those who may otherwise be unable to escape.
An automatic sprinkler system provides a means of safe exit
for the occupants.
o An automatic fire sprinkler system greatly reduces property
losses due to a fire and the water needed for extinguishment.
SincerelY,
Sa~ Husde
Fire Marshal/Division Chief
pc:
Jim Radley, Assistant Fire Chief
Bernie O'Neill, Assistant Fire Marshal
Pat McIntosh, Assistant Fire Marshal
Dennis Hirschberg, FSS I, Project Development
RESIDENTIAL FIRE FACTS
CITY OF TUSTIN
The following table shows statistics for structure fires.
STATISTICS FOR STRUCTURAL FIRES 1991 - 1992
1991 1992
STRUCTURE*
FIRES 47 46
CIVILIAN
INJURIES 6 4
CIVILIAN
DEATHS 0 0
FIREFIGHTER
INJURIES 0
4
FIREF1GHTER
DEATHS 0 0
DOLLAR
I_OSS $556,200.00
$933,265.00
RESIDEN;rlAL FIRE FACTS
CITY OF TUSTIN
1993 POPULATION 57,454
The following table shows the breakdown of structure fires by type.
FIRE STATISTICS BY STRUCTURE TYPE
1991 1992
TYPE OF 1991 1992
STRUCTURE
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 1 3 1 1
DUPLEXES 1 2
APARTMENTS 3-6 UNITS 5 1 0
APARTMENTS 7-20 UNITS 2 4
APARTMENTS > 20 UNITS 1 2 8
HOTEL/MOTELS O O
DORMITORIES ~D ~
OTHER RESIDENTIAL O ~D
ASSEMBLY 2 1
PUBUC ~P~X~L 1 ~
PRIVATE SCHOOL ~D (D
INSTITUTION ~D ~D
RETAIL/OFFICE 6 9
INDUSTRY/MANUFACTURING ~ ~D
~ 3 ~D
SPECIAL STRUCTURES ~. 1
NOTES: > INDICATES GREATER THAN;
APARTMENT CATEGORY INCLUDES CONDOMINIUMS
SPRINKLER ORDINANCE SURVEY
(April 15, 1993)
- 1993
Does your fire jurisdiction have sprinkler requirements which
require "ALL" newly constructed single-family dwellings to be
sprinklered?
ANSWER [ YES ]
County
Alameda
01065
01070
01115
Livermore Fire Department
Newark Fire Department
Union City Fire Department
19010
19025
19030
19045
19050
19060
19075
19110-01
19110-12
19110-17
19110-48
19155
19165
19185
19225
Marin
21015
21040
21055
21075
Los Angeles
Arcadia Fire Department
Beverly Hills Fire Department
Burbank Fire Department
Covina Fire Department
Culver City Fire Depaxtment
E1 Monte F~re Depa~h~,ent
Glendale Fire Department
Agoura Hills
Claremont
Glendora
West Hollywood
Redondo Beach Fire Department
San Gabriel Fire Depa~[~ent
Sierra Madre Fire Department
La Habra Heights Fire Department
Corte Madera Fire Depa~ht,ent
Mill Valley Fire Department
Novato Fire District
San Rafael Fire Department
A JOI~T COOPERATIVE EFFORT FOR Bt;l l ~:R FIRE PROTECTION BY
NATIONAL FIRE SPRINKLER ASSOf3AT1ON, INC.
U.A. SPRINKLER FI'I-FERS LOCAL 709 AND U.A. LOCAL 709 EMPLOYERS
SPRINKLER ORDINANCE SURVEY
(April 15, 1993)
1993
Coun _[~
County
County
County
County
21100
21105
Monterey
27010
27065
27070
27075
Napa
28010
Orange
30005
30065-02
30065-10
30065-12
30065-13
30073
Riverside
33040
33054
33075
33085
Tiburon Fire Protection District
Matin County Fire Department
Carmel Highlands FPD
Pacific Grove Fire Department
Salinas Fire Department
Salinas Rural Fire Department
Napa Fire Department
Anaheim Fire Department
Dana Point
Placentia
Seal Beach
Stanton
San Clemente Fire Department
Hemet Fire Department
Moreno Valley Fire Services
Riverside Fire Department
San Jacinto Fire Department
San Bemardino
36050
36107
36125
36140
36180
Fontana Fire Department
Highland Fire Department
Loma Linda DPS/Fire
Montclair Fire Department
Redlands Fire Department
(~ A JOIIqT COOPERATIVE EFFORT FOR B~ ~ ll:,R FIRE P ROTEC'~I Ot~ BY ~
NAT1Ot'~AL F]KE SPRINKLER ASSOCIATIO~, INC_
U.A. SPRi?qKLER .~l I 1LRS LOCAL 709 AND U.A. LOCAL 709 EMPLOYEP~
SPRINKLER ORDINANCE SURVEY
(April 15, 1993)
1993
County
County
County
County
County
36185
36195
San Diego
37057
37075
37150
37165
Rialto Fire Department
San Bernardino City Fire Department
Elfin Forest/Harmony Grove Fire Dept'.
North County Fire Protection District
Santee Fire Department
San Miguel Consolidated FPD
San Luis Obispo
40060 San Luis Obispo Fire Department
San Mateo
41035
41040
41060
41105
41115
Santa
42005
Santa
43010
43040
43100
43105
Santa
44005
44055
44065
44085
Daly City Fire Department
Foster City Fire Depa:ta,ent
Point Montara Fire Protection District
Woodside Fire Protection District
San Mateo County Fire Department
Barbara
Carpinteria-Summerland Fire Protection Dist.
Clara
Gilroy Fire Department
Morgan Hill Fire Department
Saratoga Fire District
Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety
Cruz
Aptos/LaSelva Eire Protection District
Santa Cruz Fire Department
Central FPD of Santa Cruz County
Salsipuedes Fire Protection District
JOINT COOPERATIVE EFFORT FOR B~:l l ~.R FIRE PROTECTION BY f4r~
NATIONAL FIRE SPRINKLER ASSOCIATION, INC.
U.A. SPRINKLER FITTERS LOCAL 709 AND U.A. LOCAL 709 I~IPLOYERS
SPRINKLER ORDINANCE SURVEY
(April 15, 1993)
1993
County
County
County
Solano
48065
48070
Sonoma
49080
49115
Ventura
56010
56025
Yolo
57075
Vacaville Fire Protection District
Vallejo Fire Department
Healdsburg Fire Department
Petaluma Fire Department
Oxnard Fire Department
Ventura Fire Department
Woodland Fire Department
JOINT COOPERATIVE EFFORT FOR B,': 1 l,?.R FIRE PROTECT'lOb/BY
NATIO~4AL FIRE SPRINKLER ASSOCIATIOn, INC. ~
U.A. SPRINKLER E~ ~ ~ERS LOCAL 709 ~WD U.A. LOCAL 709 EMPLC;¥ERS
CFIRS No
All Residential Sprinklered
Department Name Population
37057
27010
49040
48065
19225
41060
21090
21015
44085
49080
19185
21100
41105
27065
42005
36125
19110-01
21040
33085
43040
30065-12
43100
36140
44005
27075
30065-13
41040
43010
19025
30065-02
19110-12
19110-48
1916S
36107
Elfin Forest/Harmony Grove Fire Dept.
Carmel Highlands FPD
Cloverdale Fire Department
Vacaville Fire Protection District
La Habra Heights Fire Department
Point Montara Fire Protection District
Sausalito Fire Department
Corte Madera Fire Department
Salsipuedes Fire Protection District
Healdsburg Fire Department
Sierra Madre Fire Department
Tiburon Fire Protection District
Woodside Fire Protection District
Pacific Grove Fire Department
Carpinteria-Summerland Fire
Loma Linda DPS/Fire
Agoura Hills
Mill Valley Fire Department
San Jacinto Fire Department
Morgan Hill Fire Department
Seal Beach
Saratoga Fire District
Montclair Fire Department
Aptos/LaSelva Fire Protection District
Salinas Rural Fire Department
Stanton
Fo. ster City Fire Department
Gilroy Fire Department
Beverly Hills Fire Department
Dana Point
Claremont
West Hollywood
San Gabriel Fire Department
Highland Fire Department
1,000
3,O0O
4,500
5,000
6,400
7,000
7,500
8,800
10,000
10,000
10,800
12,000
15,000
18,000
20,000
20,000
20,390
22,000
22,000
25,000
25,075
29,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,752
31,000
31,000
32,000
32,429
32,503
36,118
37,000
37,087
CFIRS No
01070
19050
30065-10
30073
37075
19045
40060
49115
57075
44065
30065-01
19110-17
19010
21105
44055
33040
01115
37150
21055
37090
21075
19155
28010
41115
36180
01065
36185
41035
19030
36050
56025
19060
37165
27070
All Residential
Department Name
Sprinklered
Population
Newark Fire Department
Culver City Fire Department
Placentia
San Clemente Fire Department
North County Fire Protection District
Covina Fire Department
San Luis Obispo Fire Department
Petaluma Fire Department
Woodland Fire Department
Central YPD of Santa Cruz County
Cypress
Glendora
Arcadia Fire Department
Marin County Fire Department
Santa Cruz Fire Department
Hemet Fire Department
Union City Fire Department
Santee Fire Department
Novato Fire District
Lakeside Fire Protection District
San Rafael Fire Department
Redondo Beach Fire Department
Napa Fire Department
San Mateo County Fire Department
Redlands Fire Department
Livermore Fire Department
Rialto Fire Department
D~ly City Fire Department
Burbank Fire Departraent
Fontana Fire Department
Ventura Fire Department
E1 Monte Fire Department
San Miguel Consolidated FPD
Salinas Fire Department
39,000
40,0O0
41,254
42,000
42,500
43,000
45,000
45,000
45,000
45,000
45,384
47,828
49,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
53,000
53,800
55,000
55,000
58,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
65,000
66,000
79,000
90,000
93,645
100,000
100,000
109,000
110,000
113,000
CFIR$ No
48070
43105
33054
56010
36195
19075
33075
30005
All Residential Sprinklered
Department Name Population
Vallejo Fire Department
Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety
Moreno Valley Fire Services
Oxnard Fire Department
San Bernardino City Fire Department
Glendale Fire Department
Riverside Fire Department
Anaheim Fire Department
115,000
120,000
132,000
149,000
172,000
200,000
230,000
275,000
4185765
(714) 841-2066 · FAX (714) 842-2078
17752 Metzler Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92647
May 14, 1993
Jon Robertson
California Pacific Homes, Inc.
Five Civic Plaza, Suite 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Jon,
The following is random pricing of the actual automatic fire sprinkler contract amounts for R-3 single family
residences, These prices include plan check fees, and/or permit fees when required, and engineering..
Ail automatic fire sprinkler systems share the domest~ water supply, water meters in IRWO are minimum
1" and sufficient for most single family homes. Our price includes the check valve, local bell, and all
signage.
OWNER BUILDER CITY PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT NAME
Irvine Company California Pacific TusUn Tuatin Ranch Presidio
Type Tolai C~:~! Square Foetag® Price Per Sq. Fool
Plan 1 $2,012.07 Each 2,133 mi. IL .943 pe~ sq. fL
Plan 2 $2,172.67 Each 2.268 mi. it. .958 pa~ sq. fL
Plan 3 $2,014.17 Each 2,306 mi. IL .873 pe~ sq. fL
Plan 4 $2,259.97 Each 2,555 mi. IL .882 per mi. IL
NOTES: Nice home~ with slight/up-graded head.~ (R-1M/White).
OWNER BUILDER CITY PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT NAME
Irvine Company California Pacific Orange County Newpo~ Coast Newport FUdge, Lo~ 2
Type Total Co~t Square Foe~ge Price Per Sq. F~ml
Plan 1 $2.650.88 Each 2.682 mi. IL .99 pet mi. fL
Plan 2 $2,930.88 Each 2,750 mi. fL 1.066 per mi. fL
Plan 3 $3,190.88 Each 3,063 ~q. tt. 1.042 per sq. fL
OWNER BUILDER CITY PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT NAME
Irvine Company California Pacific Tustin Tuslin Ranch Montecito
Plan Total Co~t Square Footage Price pe~ Sq. Ft.
Type 1 $3,033.10 Each 3,089 sq. ff. .982 per sq. ft.
NOTES: Very expensive heads {GBR-Concealed and R-1M Heads).
OWNER BUILDER CITY PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT NAME
RGC Group RGC Group Newport Coast Newport Coast Santa Lucia
Plan Total Cost Square Foolagn Price per Sq. Ft.
Plan I $2,777.63 Each 3,476 sq. ft. .799 per sq. ff.
Plan 2 $2,827.63 Each 3,807 se. ft. .743 per SCl. ft.
Plan 3 $2,977.63 Each 4,242 sq. ft. .702 per sq. ft.
Plan 4 $3,277.63 Each 4,152 sq. It. .789 per sq. ft.
NOTES: These are production prices per contract; owner options can add to prices. Homes are very high-
end, starting at $750,000. Custom homes using R-1M Heads.
OWNER BUILDER CITY PROJECT LOCATION
Christopher Shaw Ch~topher Shaw San Juan Marbella
& Associates & Asaociata~ Caplatrano
Plan Total Co~t Square Footage
Custom Ho~e $7,201.00 Each 7,102 sq. ft.
PROJECT NAME
Conway Residence
Price Per Sq. FL
1.014 per sq. ft.
NOTES: Ve~/expensive custom residence with high ceilings, e[c. House using R-1M Heads.
OWNER BUILDER CITY PROJECT LOCATION
AM/Greystone AM/Greystcx~e Placentla AJta Vista
Plan Total Co~t Square Fo¢Xagn
Plan 1 $2,048.00 Each 2,961 sq.
Plan 2 $2.312.00 Each 3,211 sq. lt.
Plan 3 $2,390.00 ~ 3,264 ~q. ft.
NOTES: Single famSy
PROJECT NAME
The Masters
Price p~' Sq. FL
.703 per sq. ft.
.72 per sq. lt.
.725 per sq. It_
OWNER BUILDER CITY PROJECT
LOCATION
Marc Kaptan Briggs Deveto~nent Santa Aha Heighla Santa Aha Heighta
Plan Total Co~t Square Foot. age
Custom Home $5,401.00 Each 5,487 sq. ~
NOTES: 2-sto~/custom homes. Veq' expensive with high-vaulted ceilings.
cc:
Sieve Hart. Fire Sprinkler Advisory Board
Chief Sam Hosoe, Orange County Fire Del:,a~ment
Kenneth Delisle. Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc./Vancouver, WA
PROJECT NAME
Kaptan Residence
Price Pm' Sq. FL
.984 ~ sq. ·
Queen City Bank
April 9. 1993
Richard J. Witesman
Division Chief
Orange Coun:y Fire Department
180 South Water Street
Orange, Ca 92606
Dear Chief Witesman,
In reference :o your le:ter da:ed April 8, 1993 regarding fire
sprinklers, the following is a breakdown for :he increased cos= of
:he fire sprinklers:
Additional Loan
Amount
Monthly Paymen:
Increase
Finance Charge
$1,000.00 $ 7.34
2,000.00 14.68
3,000.00 22.02
$1,642.40
3,284.80
4,927.20
These figures are based on a 8% fixed rate for a conven:ional loan,
fully amortized for 30 years.
Sased on conse~-~ative qualifications for. a loan,, the paymen:
variances are no= significant enough to make an impact in
qua!if¥ing ratios for a conventional 30 year mot:gage loan.
The Construction Loan Departmen: will take fire proteotion systems
in=o ¢onsidera:ion as par= of the loan decision in financing :he
cons=~action of a project. In addition, Queen City Bank may
require fire pro=mc=ion systems as a condition o~ the loan,
depending on the location o: the property.
if you have any questions, or need further information, please feel
free :o con=ac= me.
L~,tn:on R. Wor=hin~on
Vice President
Loan Adminis=ra:ion
~$ ~ CA 90~02
(310) ,~35-4409
B Lv.l~ Knolls,
4ZOX Long ~:h Boulevard
Lon~' ~ CA 90807
(3 I0) 595-877
18020 Broolr..hu~t
~otm,'.in Va.Ll~, CA 92708
(714) 96'4-6636
2523 Eas~luff Drive, 5u~te C
Newport ~.h, CA 92660
(714) 644-7173
HUD Grant for Sprinklers
ll~ C~e¢ ~ G. lenn, Port An~ele~ {WA) Fire DepL
Thc, C,~ll"m CouMy I lousing Au-
tho~.ty (CCHA) r,Jc~ntly r~eivccl a
~ll ~r~nt f~m t~, ~rlmcn~
o~ H~lng n~
to ~flt 1~ ~nlor clt~n r~i-
d~l u~ ~ith ~tdnnt~l fire
I~kle~.
ca~ In Porl Angul~, W~hlngton,
Jnclud. u~ 46~ ~. ft. four.~to~;
o~ 26,~ ~, It.
~etvin~ t~ f~er~ 8rant
~t un.ual, However, the m0th~
~ which it w~ j~tffJ~ to HUD
~6ht ~ wo~h ~n~n~.
After ex~den~nff
in ~ of t~ st~c~r~, we r~li~
~w dlffi~t,
wo~ ~ to ~ely evn~t~ th~ r~i-
den~ In t~ ~t of · la~ fire.
~ ~ ~t ~t with the
dir~mr of ~ ~HA mhd inform~
~ ~ ~e ~ef w~ld ~ ~ulrin~
~fitt~n8 ~ t~ ~ st~c~s
u~er ~. l.l~(b) (~ttn8
~in8 renditions ~tJ~) of
t~ 1~ Untform
UFC Sec. 'lO.r~7(h) (hotel, re. tel,
apartment sprinkler rcquircm.n.t).
H,, ~1~ provid~ the di~tor with
the n~ infor~tton on how
to file an ap~al of the fire chi~f'~
d~ini(m with theCo~tmctk,n
~nrd of Ap~als.
A gentla~n's agn~ment wa~
reach~ ~tw~n CC}.IA's attorney
and thc City'~ ~ttorney that:
1) Thc CCHA would apply ~or
n federal 8rnnt outlining the
quiremcnt~ o% the fi~ chiefs;
2) CCHA would waive the
s~y hearing r~ulrement and
instead ~t the ~a~n~ %or n dat~'
shortly after C~A would know
IIUD funds would ~ made ,vail.
able tot the proi c
3) The Ci~ would waive the
np~al illin8 k~ unfit, i~ and when,
the ap~al was actually heard.
To ma~ a long ~to~ shoM.
HUD invati~tor vltl~ Port
gel~, lound out we were
a~ut what wc ~rc t~ulrin~ nnd
~ommendc~ approval ~ the grant.
379 Aotivatlons
W{th thc a.'.sistance of Rep. Ai.C;wlft's
off,c,.,, thc' ,grant was approved and
thc pro~%'t iS ItOW boing prupared to
go out for btd. This whol* process
has taken approximately one year,
With thc ~'ipt of the [cdera}
gmat. the r~ident~ of all large
nior citix~,n r~ldentl~l facili~i~ in
Po~ Angek~ cnn definitely ~l
surr~. All ot these ~'cu~ncl~,
whether rest home, senior
m~t complex, or ~.ni.r
fatality, will now be protc~t~ by
the ~inatant fircfig~tcr."
~e ~uccoss of th~ c~rative
yen:ute rcinforcm my ~Jief that,
like Chief Dan ~mler's project in
getting many .f Washington
Umversitk~' dorms retrolii~ with
fire sprinkler~, sometlm~ we must
be willing to tnk~ n risk nnd not
panic just becn~ we re.ired a
letter from ,an att~ney th~atening
to take us to couP.
A ~ent fire in a ~niOr retire-
ment home in ~'at0e took the
of tour ~idents. All the fi~ englne~
in the world ~mding to the fi~
pm~bly wouldn't have made
d ifk~nce, howevcr, one fire
~t~ head probably would Imve.
10
12
4?
t27
Room of Origin
kitchen
bedroom 32.4%
living room 7.4%
~u~ ~ 2.6%
m~K~ 1.8%
dtfltng nnnn 0.5%
2 Februan./ 1993 OLS Newsletter
ORANGE COUNTY, C. ALIFOI~IIA SUNDAY, k~e~y
L~XURY FOR LE
Custome
CARPET SALEI
TODAY ONLY, SUNDAY 5/23. HURRY! SALE ENDS AT 6PM
·
· ) ,
_~ FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE.
m · FREE one ard for eve~ five · FREE padding
· Y ....
· · FREE installation · FencE hfetlme installation
~ guarantee · FREE no ~x · FREE furn~ure removal ~
~ ~ ~ FREE dispo~l of old ~arpet · FREE metal strips I
~ I~ FREE bo~le of ~p~ml ~r~t cleaner · FREE~
~ w on r r
[ GUARANTEED:
· HUI(11NQTON BF,.J~I- F.¥: SJUITA ~A ur, J NJUIGE-,qJLIJIE~I . CORO~DF _m
· 1211 Warner 64~ * 2135 S. B~toI 4,18-1111 · 1411 IL IE~a 139-2222 · 2211 [~ --
~m m d~1~ ~m. ~~. m m~'~'m~!~ i'~ m m m m m m m m=
Why Johnny
Can't Afford a House
by Tom )ohnson
Fire Marshal
City of Napa
Napa, California
Chlef johnson has over 20 years
of experience in the fin service and
is currently the fire marshal for the
City of Napa, California. He
received a bachelor of science
degree in business administration
from Sacramento State College in
1968.
In 1990, Mr. Johnson represented
the League of California Fire Chiefs
in the passage of.Senate Bill 1830
and Assembly Bill 2666, which clarified the ri~h~s of cities,
counties and fire-protection districts to enac~ more stringent
fire- and life.safety regulations than those adolxed by the
state fire marshal. As fire marshal for the City of Napa, Mr.
Johnson was instrumental in enacting a Class B roofing and
siding ordinance and a full residential fire sprinkler ordinance
/or the City of Nape.
Officials.
The May-June~ 1990, issue of Building Standards magazine ~n-
eluded an article entitled 'Building Codes versus Affordable Hous-
ing: The Silent Conflict" by Alhed Goldberg. Mr. Goldberg would
have us believe that the building codes are responsible for the high
cost ol housing in California. This is comparable to blaming the
cocktail ice on board the Titanic Ior its sinking.
Mr. Goldberg cites the City of San Francisco's investment in fire-
fighting capability and the city's use of four separate water supply
systems as justification for not having to provide residential sprin-
kler systems or require fire-resistive separations in ,certain mixed-
use occupancies. AS many will remember from the Loma Prieta
earthquake on October 17,1989, that philosophy of multiple water
systems and a large firefighfing force did not provide the solution
to the Marina District fire. Instead, the lirefighters were needed for
valiant rescue efforts, and the fireboat Phoenix saved the day after
the water system collapsed. The teat savior ol the disaster, however,
was the fire-resistive roofing required by ordir)ance that did not al-
low the fin Io spread from roof to roof. I am sure Mr. Goldberg
would have faulted the roofing ordinance as another fire-safety
code requirement that unnecessarily raises the cost of affordable
housing.
We are all aware that the First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los
Angeles, California, could'have been extinguished immediately
with automatic fire sprinklers which were not required by code. Mr.
Goldberg's conclusion that traditional compartmentalization is
sufficient fire protection was disproven during that fire. in tact, re-
pairs to correct the estimated $ ! 00 million in damages may cost as
much as the structure's initial cost. Is that affordabie~
The followin8 analysis is the result ol a frustration with these
myths concerning the alleged relationship between the cost of resi-
dential fire protection and the cost of affordable housing. AS J~hr,
F. Kennedy once said, 'The great enemy of the truth is very often
not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest; but the myth, per-
sistent, persuasive and unrealistic.~
Local governments are constantly under criticism regarding
building requirements, permit fees and environmental impact mid-
gation measures, and their effect on affordable housing. However,
reducing these costs will not substantially alter the cost of housing.
Figures NOS. I and 2 ilJustrale this point and are based on actual
homes constructed in Napa. Costs have been listed in descending
order and are believed to reflect statewide patterns. Several other
conclusions may be drawn from these simple diagrams, and sever-
~ myths may be dispelled:
I. Actual material and construction costs may be assumed to be
fairly constant throughout the state; therefore, costs per
square foot as shown reflect a statewide average.
2. Lot costs do fluctuate widely throughout the state and may dif-
fer from the lot cost represented on the diagram. Lower land
costs can result in lower selling prices os increased developer
profits. Without local or state government intervention, any
savings probably will be reflected in increased developer
profits.
3. Real estate fees are also a large cost factor in the diagram.
while officially negotiable, commissions tend to average
around 6 percent in the California residential sales market.
The total commission has been escalating sharply in the past
several years along with the substantial increase in housing
costs. Real estate fees will only continue to increase, to the
detriment of the possibility of affordable housing, until there
is a consistent voluntary effo~, or legislation, to control them.
4. Financing costs for the land and cons~'uction of houses vary
with the market. Reducin8 the cost of financing can provide
some assistance to those seeking affordable housing. How-
ever, as shown on the ce~t~ea~.down accompanying the fig-
utes. the amount that can be saved is a small percentage of
the total cost of a house. A minor reduction in financing rates
will have little effect on the sales price of a house.
5. Permit fees do vary by location, but once again represent a
minor ponion of the sales price of a house. Reducing permit
fees will not substantially alter the production of affordable
housing in a community and may result in developers not
paying their fair share for municipal services.
6. The cost of fire protection is the issue that is, as quoted above,
"the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.' The figures
show that providing life-safety fire protection at the local level
is the least costly factor in the affordable housing budget. In
fact, the application of fire~retardant roofing and the installa-
~L~LDING STANDARDS/Iulv-August, ~991
tion of residential fire sprinklers, smoke detectors, and other
fire- and life-safety systems will permit increased densities in
housing developments, thus decreasing land costs per house.
7. A very substantial factor in the affordability dilemma is the
amount and pereentage of profit realized by developers. This
factor does fluctuate throughout California as costs fluctuate
and the supply and demand equation comes into play. With-
out governmef~tal intervention to address developer profits as
they affect affordable housing, we will continue to see an es-
calation of profit as any of the other cost factors decreases.
Hopefully, this article and the accompanying figures will dispel
some of the myths regarding fire= and life-safety protection and its
relationship to affordable housing, and will highlight the real
stacles to affordable housing---escalating land costs, real estate
fees and developer profits.
As one example of the power of the myth, the City of Vallejo is
currently being sued by the Building Industry Association of North-
ern California regarding its residential fire sprinkler ordinance
which was adopted according to all provisions of the State of CaE-
fomia law. The association alleges that ~automatic sprinklers in
Target Group:
Pre-Teen, Teen-Age, Girl/Boys Scouts
Program is conducted in hospitals, schools and community settings.
Home Fire Safety Program:
The Home Fire Safety Program is designed to provide a complete package
that includes visual aids for instructing the community on home fire safety.
Special educational handout materials are provided by OCFD and include:
"Fire Safety in the Home," "About Smoke Detectors, .... About Fire Escape
Plans," "Apartment and Condo Safety," "Firesafety Tips for Older ~Adults,"
and "Home Fire Safety Slide Guide."
Objective:
The objective of the Home Fire Safety Program is to instruct the community
on how to reduce home fire hazards; the proper installation, maintenance
and testing of smoke detectors; and how to conduct exit drills in the home.
Target Group:
Homeowners Associations, Apartment Dwellers, Neighborhood Watch
Groups, Adult Education, School PTA's and Associations, Civic Groups
(Kiwanis Club, Rotary, Soroptomist etc), Special Interest Groups (Retired
Naval Officers Wives).
· Fire Extinguisher Program:
The Fire Extinguisher Program is designed to instruct the community and
businesses on the proper use of fire extinguishers. Special "hands-on"
demonstrations and educational materials are provide by OCFD and include:
"Portable Fire Extinguishers: Fighting Small Fires," "Firesafety on the Job,"
and "EXIT."
Objective:
The objective of the program is to provide '~asic f~re chemistry information;
criteria on when to fight or not to fight a fire; the selection, maintenance and
proper use of a fire extinguisher.
Target Groups:
Businesses with ten employees or more, Civic Groups, Community Groups,
Homeowners Association, Apartment Dwellers and Special Interest Groups.
· Juvenile Firesetter Program:
The Juvenile Firesetter program is designed to provide families who have
been identified, referred or called in themselves, with fire safety education.
Those attending this special fire education program are families who have a
child who has been involved in some typo of fire setting behavior, ~i~her
witnessed by a parent or referred from another source such as: the school,
the probation department, a mental health professional or OCFD.
Objective:
The objective of the program is to educate families on how to reduce home
fire hazards; information on firesetting behavior, responsibility and
consequences of child's actions and parent liability.
Target Group:
Families and children involved in
through age 13. Monthly workshops.
firesetting behavior.
Preschool age
· Business Safety Program:
The Business Safety program is designed to provide employees with
information on how to prepare for and respond to a workplace fire. Special
business request for a spedfic need, are also addressed. ( Example would be the
storage and handling of hazardous materials.)
Objective:
The objective of the program is to instruct employees on how to develop an
Emergency Action Plan, know when and how to evacuate a burning building
safely, how to extinguish a small fire, how to prevent and minimize losses if
a fire does occur.
Target Group:
Businesses, Business Associations (include:
restaurants, etc.)
retail, banks, industry, medical,
· Child Care Provider Program:
The Child Care Provider program is designed for child care providers, who
care for children in either a home day care setting or in a preschool facility. A
complete fire safety package including visual aids and "hands-on" fire
extinguisher demonstration is used.
Objective:
The objective of the program is to instruct child care providers on how to
develop an escape plan, eliminate fire/injury hazards in the home;
guidelines for proper placement, maintenance and use of fire extinguishers;
maintenance of smoke detectors; methods for teaching basic fire safety to pre-
school children including "Stop, Drop and Roll," and "Matches are Tools"
concepts.
Target Group:
Orange County Adult Education, Child Care Providers Licensing Program,
Orange County Day Care Association.
Special Department Safety Campaign~
Fourth of July and Summer Safety Campaign: This campaign includes a
safety flyer (150,000 printed) with specific information on the liabilities
incurred from the illegal use of fireworks, guidelines on the use or launching
of model rockets and summer safety tips. Media interviews for both
electronic and print media are conducted.
· Target groups: public and' private elementary and secondary schools,
neighborhood watch groups, local businesses (grocery, laundry etc) and the
community.
Holiday Safety Campaign: This campaign includes special educational
materials on Halloween safety' tips, home heating equipment fire safety,
Holiday cooking safety information and Christmas Tree safety tips. Press
releases and public service announcements are developed for print and
electronic media. Radio and cable pre-recorded interview are also conducted.
· Target groups: elementary schools, senior citizen groups, day care
providers, city newsletters, homeowners associations, apartment dwellers,
businesses.
Opening of Fire Season and Wildland Campaign: This campaign includes a
flyer outlining the fire closure areas along with a press release sent to all
electronic and print media, radio and cable pre-recorded interviews are also
conducted. Special fire safety flyers are developed and distributed to the
community on clearing of the brush and vegetation around the home.
· Target groups: residents living in wildland interface areas, general
public.
Department and Community Event~
· Fire Prevention Week- is conducted every year in October and is sponsored
by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). An official Fire
Prevention theme is selected each year which includes a fire safety message.
Department activities include; parades, station open house with displays and
activities; special educational programs are conducted in the scho~ls for
preschool age to third grade students.
· Station Educational Tours- designed to provide safety information and
display of equipment to preschool through sixth grade students, overseas
students, community groups, special needs children.
· Fire Engine School Program- designed to provide basic fire safety
information to preschool through third grade students and is done at the
elementary schools.
· Community Safety Events- involves an engine company display with
special fire safety educational handouts for community sponsored events.
Examples include: Health Fairs, Safety Fairs, Special Children's Event, etc..
· FADD Friends Against Drinking and Driving- involves OCFD, law
enforcement and the medical community, educating high school students
and young adults about the dangers of drinking and driving. A mock
exercise and scenario is done at the high school level.
· Drowning Prevention/Pool Safety- information on pool safety and
drowning prevention through media interviews, also includes a mock
drowning rescue presentations inconjuction with the Orange County Pool
Safety Network.
· Career Day-involves firefighters presenting to secondary level students
(Junior and High School) career exploration information on the fire services.
· SAFERIDES- a national program dedicated to educating high 'school students
about the dangers of drinking and driving. A mock exercise and scenario are
presented at the high school level.
Report on Fire Sprinklers
~UTIV~$IJMM~Y
This report has been prepared by the Orange County Fire Depa~h~ent
to provide in-depth information on automatic fire sprinklers as they
pertain to the fire problem: life safety, property conservation, and
related issues.
Death. injury, and property destruction due to fire has increased an-
nually throughout the United States and here in Orange County. The
fire service effectively combats and controls fires when they occur.
However. the incidence of fire continues to increase due to insufficient
fire prevention methods and systern~.
Over the years. Jurisdictions have added more restrictive construction
requirements through model'code ~mendments in order to reduce the
devastating effects of fire. Many revisions have been aimed at the
development of structural methods for coarsening fire uniil the fire
depaxt~xxent's arrival. For example, a recent reg, sl~tjon, adopted in
1984. mandated hard-wire smoke detector il-~t~ ll~ tion in all new dwell-
ings throughout California.
Although somewhat effective, existing code requirements have not ac-
complished the long-term fire service goal of min~ng losses to life
and property caused by fire. Builders have not been able to offer homes
that are "fireproof.' Compm tmentation has proven to have lh-nitatlons.
as have smoke detectors, which do nothing to contain or extinguish the
fire and thus. offer no protection to property or to those who need
assistance to escape a fire. In addition, their installation, operability.
and rn~ntenance are unrelmble and dlfllcult to regulate.
One proven method for signlitcanfly reducing life and property loss
from fire is the inst~11~tion of an automallc fire sprinkler system.
Distinct advantages of fire sprtnklers include fire detection, contain-
ment or extinguishment, rell~bflity, savings through insurance rate
reduction, and builder alternatives which reduce construction costs.
Report on Fire Sprinklers
A fire sprinkler ordinance would impact both housing and fire protec-
tion COSTS. There is the l.ln. Jtt~l inst~llntion cost which represents less
than 1% of the total purchase price ora home. Builders and property
owners r~altTe savings through construction alternatives, construction
and building owner insurance rates, and taxpayer savings from a
reduction in fire protection costs.
Rising fire losses force commensurate increase is fire protection costs.
The installation of fire sprinklers would allow the Orange County Ftre
Department to mlnlrnt=e engine and truck company protection (appa-
ratus and st~ng) without decreasing the level of fire protection to
Orange County citizens. These benefiTS and savings are illustrated in
this report with documentation from four Jurisdictions with active fire
sprinkler ordinances.
Eight alternatives and their impacTS on the quality of ktfe for Orange
County citizens are presented in this report. Several alternatives may
be considered when addressing options for mitigating the growing fire
problem in Orange County. The alternatives covered in this reprot
include options to:
~--~st~11 sprinklers in all buildings (new and retrofit);
4. Inst~ll sprinklers in all new buildings and retrofit at time of
sale or when they reach ten years of age;
4- Inst~ll sprinklers in all new buildings (no retrofit);
4- Inst=ll sprinklers in all new residential buildings;
Ir. st=Il sprinklers in all new multi-£~mtly homes;
4- Offer sprinklers as an option in new residences;
Mandate more stringent smoke detector ordinances;
4- Preserve the status quo.
The alternatives presented cover a broad spectn,rn of options for con-
sideration by the Board of Supea-visors. Acting now. will affect the
future of Orange County citizens by reducing the des/a-uctive impacTS
of fire on llfe, property, and County government.
_ Repor~ on Fire Sprinklers
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
DEFINITIONS ........................ 1
PROBLEM STATEMIKNT ............................................................................ : ...... 2
Lit. t: SAFETY AND PROPERTY CONSERVATION
Traditional Methods of Fire Pro.etlon ........................................................... 3
Building Codes .................................... 3
Smoke Detectors ........................ 3
Sprinklers in Comn~rcidi B~,ildlngs ........................................................ 4
C'urmnt Technology and National Trends ....................................................... 5
New Building and Fire Codes Using Sprinkler Technology .................... 5
Sprinklers with Smoke Detectors .............................................................. 6
How Sprinklers Operate .................................................................................. 6
Sprinkler System Benefim .............................................................................. 7
RI~-Al'ED ISSUF-~
Housing Affordability ..................................................................................... 8
Current Hornt and Sprinkler Installation Costs ....................................... 8
Resider~nt Sprinkler Installation Costs ................................................... 9
Construction Cost Savings Through Construction Alternatives .............. 9
Homeowner Insurance Discounts ................ 10
Consumer Attitudes Regarding Sprinlders ............................................. 10
Government Cost Savings ............................................................................ 11
Cost Avoidance .................................................. ~ .................................... 12
Reduction in Water Usage ...................................................................... 12
Benefits and Savings to Jurisdictions with a Sprinlder Ordinance ........ 12
San Clemente ................................................................................... 12
Fresno .............................................................................................. : 13
Scottsdal¢, Arizona .......................................................................... 13
Disney World/Epcot Center, Florida ............................................... 13
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS
Install Sprinklers in All Buildings (New and Retrofit) ................................. 14
Install Sprinklers in New Buildings and Retrofit at Sale or at 10 yrs. old ... 15
Install Sprinklers in All New Buildings ........................................................ 15
Install Sprinklers in All Residential Property ........................ 16
Install Sprinklers in New Multi-family Homes ........................................... 17
Offer Sprinklers As An Option to Consumers .............................................. 17
Mom Stringent Smoke Detector Ordinances ................................................. 18
Status Quo ................................................................................................... 18
Report on Fire Sprinklers
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 19
ATTACHMF-..N~
ATI'ACH.MENT A: Deaths due to F~re - NFPA
A'FFACI-IMENT B: Fire FactdKids and Fire
ATYACHMENT C: Orange County Cities with Sprinkler Ordinances
ATTACHMENT D: Construction ARernalives - Cobb County, Georgia
A'FFACHMENT E: 'I~ae vs. Combustion
ATTACHMENT F: Sram F'tre Marsl~'s Report tm Construction Alternatives
ATrACH_MENT G: Common Mytl~s About Sprinklers
ATTACHMENT H: Case Studies
ATTACHMENT I: League of California Cities Report
Report on Fire Spriniders
DEFINITIONS
FLASHOVER:
When fi~ sp~__~tt~ across the c~iling, heat build-up (1200-1400 degrees F.)
continues throughout th~ room unril sudden ignition of most other combustible
m ~.erials occur.
HOMES:
Private dwellings (one or two family), including mobile homes, aparunents
(three or more f~mi{i~$), ara5 cx~lldomillinms.
MODEL CODES:
Minimum building and tim codes, writmn by national organizations, to be used
by local jurisdictions. ~y, there are thee model codes used in the
United Sta~s:
1. BasicyNaric, nal Building Code is used as fl~ model cod~ in 14 states.
2. Souri~m Standard Building COd~ is used as the model code in seven states.
3. Uniform Building Cod~ is ~ as tbe model code in 16 st_~tes.
NOTE: All mod~l code gtonps provide a pro.as so that a j~ction may
NAHB:
Narional Association of Home Builders
NATIONAL CODES:
Codes, standards, and recommended practices published by the NFPA and
rifled the National F/~ Code. A model code may rexluir~ the installation of
a fire sprinkler system where the National Fire Code defines how the sprinkler
syst~n will be installed.
NOTE: Otbex examples of "National Codes" or standards are publish~ by:
1. National Bureau of Standards
2. Underwriters Laboratories
3. American Petroleum Institute
NFPA:
National FL~ Protection Association
ORDINARY SPRINKLERS:
Thcrmos~msitive d~vices designed to matt at predetermined temperatures
(135-650 degt~.s F.) by automatically releasing wamr in specified
p?ems over designated aruas.
RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS:
Similar to ordinary sprinklers except that they react four to 14 ~mes faster to
predetermined temperatures (135 to 200 deg~es F.), use less water, and are
aesthetically de. signed to be less obtrusive in the home setting.
Page 1
Report on Fire Sprinklers
PROBLEM STATEMENT
The United States has the worst life and property loss record among a~l
tndust~lt~ed nations of the world. Greater than 6000 deaths result
from fire tn the United States every year. This death rate is 20% higher
than the average annual death rate suffered by all U.S. Armed Forces
during the Vietnam War.~
In 1988. natior, vdly 80% of the 6,200 fire deaths occurred tn residen-
tisl fires {Attachment A). The residential property loss for that year was
$4 billion.
During the nine-year period from 1981 through 1989. the Jurisdictions
protected by the Orange County Fire Department suffered 69 /Ire
deaths and $96.8 million ii1 properly losses,a The total fire loss tn unba-
corpornt~.dOrange County during this .~me period was S42.5 million.
The fire experience tn residences ~lone was: a
12 fire f~t~lttles
· 136 CiVtlt~rl fire tnJtxries
· 2,009 fire incidents
· $18.9 ii~tlllon tn property and contents loss
These losses do notInclude the indirect costs of burn injuries, medical
expenses, loss of personal employment, loss to the community in tax
revenue, or the loss of cherished and priceless family, possessions.
Indirect losses incr~se the costs due to fire by a factor of 2 to 5.4
The Orange County Forecast and Analysis Center projects that 54. 167
more housing units will be built tn unincorporated Orange County by
theyear 2000. At that time, these homes will represent 30% of the total
n~,rnber of homes in the unincorporated area which ~11 further con-
tribute to the fire problem and rising fire protection costs?
Page 2
Report on Fire Sprinklers
LIFE SAFETY AND PROPERTY CONSERVATION
'~ad~tional Methods of Fire Protection
HistorLc~lly. Jurisdictions have responded to past tragedies by incorpo-
rating new construction methods, technologies, and requirements
such as flre-retardant building materials, area limitation, separation of
structures, and automatic detection and suppression systems into
their building ~odes. For the most part. building codes are developed
with the understanding that fires will occur and that compm Lmenta-
tion will cordtne a fire to the room of origin until the fire deparhaent
arrives to extinguish lt.
Orange County Fire Depax I~uent statistics, however, show that in 22%
of all structure fires, flaraes burned beyond the room of origin. Smo,ke
and heat migrated from the room of origin thus causing further dam-
age in 42% of all fires,e The fire, heat. and smoke spread causes
damage, and on n~rnerous ocr~ntons, injury and death.
Codes often fail to address the human factors which contribute to fires.
Residential occupancies have not. therefore, benefited from the saxne
degree of fire protection offered by code requirements as have commer-
cial occupancies. As an e~mple, residential occupancies are almost
always exempt from requirements for built-in fire protection systems.
Since their introduction in the ~rty seventies, smoke detectors have
helped reduce fire f~tallties by Iq~rly 50% (12,000 to 6,200} nationally.
In 1984. their inst~llation be~rne mandaWry in C~ltfomia in new
single family and multi-family dwellings.
Although smoke detectors have reduced the incidence of fire deaths.
they have done little to reduce property damage. The smoke detector
is only effective if the alarm is audible, the occupant is able to
comprehend the danger, and is able to escape. If the occupants are not
at home, there is a delay in fire department notification which may
Page 3
Repor~ on Fire Sprinlder~
result in total property destruction. In any event, smoke detectors do
nothing to contain or suppress fire.
There is also the issue of rn~tntenance and reliability of smoke
detectors: Arecent studyby the League of California Cities estimates
that 75% of homes In C~]tfornta have smoke detectors. However,
according to the study, 40-50o/o are Inoperable because of improper
n~tntenance or worn-out batteries. Experts feel that due to misuse
and lack of w~tntenance, fire death reduction from smoke detectors
has leveled out over the past several years. This is evidenced by the 8%
increase In residential fire deaths In 1988. 7
Over the years, the O~ge County Fire DepaxLment has attempted to
mitigate these problems by promoting widespread smoke detector use
through public education and detector m~tntenance programs. How-
ever. these programs have had only limited success.
Further, there is a segment of the population including the very young,
the very old. and the handicapped (hearing, sight, mentally or physi-
r-nlly impaired) that even when warned by a smoke detector are unable
to escape a fire. This group comprises 60% of the fire deaths in homes?
Even ff a smoke detector is fully functional, these Individuals would
require further fire protection to survive a fire (Attachment B).
Sorinklers tn Cornmerdal Buildtnos
Fire sprinklers have proven their effectiveness in businesses and
cornmer~l buildings for over one hundred years. Their use in com-
merr~! occupancies of certain types and sizes has been mandated by
codes and encouraged by insurance companies for many years. The
systern.~ were originally recognized for their economic value, i.e. savings
in insurance premiums as well as reducing property loss. business
los.s, losses in tax revenue, and unemployment when fires occur.
As more systems were lnst~lled and their effectiveness in extinguish-
lng fires was observed, the value of sprinklers was further promoted.
The Nation=! Fire Protection Association states, 'The simple opera-
~ and control function of the sprinkler makes it the most practicalfire
Page 4
Report on Fire Sprinklers
protection tool ever developed. The record of carnage in unsprinklered
b~,ltrltngs ts forwlrlnhle. It stands as irreJi,tnhle testimony to the case for
o.tt~mt~ttt, fire spt'b'Oclers." 9
Current Technology and National Trends
In 1973. the Natio.~al Co'~rnlasion of Fire Prevention and Control
was fo~ reed to address the growing problem of life and property loss by
fire. Their publication, entitled ~. focused the attention
of the fire service on prevention and public education. As stated in their
letter of transmittal to the President of the United States. "The recom-
menrlnttorts emphasize prevention of. fire through local programs. This
is in keeplrlg with the very nature of the fire problem which is felt hard-
est at the community level. ,a~dltionoIIL~ the recommendnanrts empha-
size b.ilt-in Jire safety measures which can detect and extinguish J~e
before it grows large enough W c..~.e a major rlt-naster.'w
Nationwide the fire service began to look, at ways to improve fire
protection in their communities. Efforts began to shift from traditional
reactive firefighting to proactive fire. fighting emphasizing improve-
ments in building and fire codes to provide built-in fire extinguishing
systems for all buildings (Attachment C).
In Orange County, a policy statement in the Safety Element of the Or-
ange County General Plan {1987) directs the Fire Service "to improve
building code regulations to provide increased built-in fire protec-
tion."n
New B.itrlino and Fire Codes Usina Svrinkler Technoloou
Building and fire codes currently recognize the benefits of sprinkler
systems and allow their use to reduce code restrictions such as require-
ments on construction type. height limitations (an additional story can
be added] and area limitations (up to three times the area). The grow-
ing trend of fire and building department policies is to allow the use of
built-in fire protection systems in all buildings, including residences.
as an alternative method of meeting the intent of model code require-
merits. For example. Cobb County. Georgia allows the inst~11~tion of
fire sprinklers as an alternative form of protection, thus eilmlnating the
Page 5
Report on Fire Sprinlders
need for fire protection offered by certain construction methods at a
savings of$23/1000 sq. fL to $8.345 per 4-hour rated wall (Attachment
~ortnklers with Smoke Detectors
The value of fire sprinklers for the protection of life as well as property
has recently been recognized, resulting in expansion of their use from
commeretnl btflldings to residential structures. While smoke detectors
alone have increased the chance of survival in fire by 50%. when used
in conjunction with fire sprinklers the survival rate is increased to
Ten years ago. the City of San Clemente. an early leader in the residen-
tial sprinkler progrnm; adopted an all-inclusive ordinance on fire sprin-
klers. The City of Anab~m passed a .~tmtlnr ordinance in April. 1989.
followed by five of the Orange County Fife Depar ~ .,,ent's contract c/ties:
Cypress. Dana Point. Placentia. Seal Beach. Stanton. The City of Yorba
Linda passed the ordinance at the first reading, and Los Al~raitos re-
qtttres sprinklers because of the limitations of their water system.
There ~re an est/anated 8.000 - 10.000 homes with residential fire
sprinkler systems within the Orange County Fire Department's Juris-
diction. This is a result of builders' choosing this alternative form of
protection when faced with fire-flow (quantity of water), fire equipment
response nme. and fire apparatus access problems.
How Sprinkler~ Operate
The Fire Sprinkler Position Paper issued by the League of California
Citie~ concludes. 'Most fotoltttss occur prior to the arrival of the fire
dep~ b~er~.~ Once a fire starts, within as little as 2-3 minutes, it can
'fl~shover.' consuming all combustibles within the room and increas-
ing the potential for prope, r~y damage, injuries, and even death (Attach-
ment E).
An automatic fire sprinkler system discharges a water spray in the
event of a fire. When the fire occurs within a given space, the heat
build-up activates each head individually at a predetermined tern-
Page 6
Repor~ on Fire Sprinklers
perature setting (norwnlly 135 to 165 degrees F.). When the fire
grows more intense, additional heads activate. 9nly in the area of
the fire. to prevent 'flashover' and the buildup of heat. smoke, and
hot gases. Ninety-one percent (91%) of home fires are controlled by
a single sprinkler head and eight percent (8%) are controlled by the
discharge of only two heads, using 90% less water than fire hose
stl-eRzns.~
Sprt~lrler System Benefits
Fire sprinkler systems save lives and mlx~lmtze property damage
because:
· They automatl~lhf detect and operate only in the area of fire
origin, preventing fires from growing undetected to a danger-
ous size while simultaneously sounding an alarm, alerting
the occupants, public, and fire department.
They keep fires sm~ll and prevent fast-developing fires
(flashovers) with intense heat, smoke, and hot gases which
a. re capable of quickly trapping, injuring, or ldlling building
occupants.
By diminating flame and smoke, they immediately reduce the
danger of asphyxiation, bums and carbon monoxide poison-
ing, thereby saving the lives of those who may be physir~lly
unable to eseape.
· They protect exits and provide a means of escape for
occupants.
Oc~tonally. the reliability and chance of accidental discharge or
leokmge of a sprinkler is questioned. Fire sprinklers have been used for
more than one hundred y~rs and loss records of Factory Mutual
search state that the chance of a sprinkler head's fmilirlg is one in every
16 million m~nufactured.~5
Additionally, there is a common misconception that. even in sprin-
klered structures, most fire deaths occur from the effects of toxic gases
and smoke (asphyxiation). A five-year study conducted by the NFPA
concluded that asphyxiation fatalities in sprinldered buildings are rare
(1% of the wtal deaths)? This is due to the sprinkler system's ability
Page 7
Report on Fire Sprinklers
to control the fire. limiting the travel of heat and smoke. However. in
non-sprinklered structures, people frequently die from the effects of
hot gases and smoke. They are trapped or overcome by heat. smoke.
and gases even ff the tlames do not reach them.
Related Issues
Housing Affordability
Current home and s~rtnkler lnstnllntton costs
The cost of a sprinkler system in the average home is estimated to be
$2,000 or $1.00 a square foot. In Orange County, where the new home
median price is approximately $250.000, the cost ora sprinkler system
(at $2,000) is less than 1% of the Wtal purchase price?
A report by the National Association of Home Builders cites 22.000
(1.4% of the 1.557.000 surveyed) as the number of families.' naUo.911y,
that would potentt911y be priced out of the. new housing market by a
$1,000 increase in cost of a home. However. mortgage lenders con-
tacted state that most home buyers fail to qualify for a home loan
because of a bad credit rating. They state a $1,000 increase in the cost
ora new home only adds $8.00 to the monthly payment which should
not significantly impact a buyer's ability to qualify for a loan.l?
The report also contends that a sprinkler policy, in in~easing the cost
of new homes, will cause fnratlies to relrmir~ in 0r to purchase older
structures where prices are not affected by the same factors as new
homes. But, a recent article on County home sales in the LATlmes (No-
vember 1, 1989) stated that. due to the rising costs of homes, many
fnrntltes are already forced to purchase the older structures.
The report further states that new homes are more fire-safe, while
homes older than 15 years become a "fire bnTnrd". However. research
by the Orange County Building industry Association has shown that
over 90% of all fires occur in housing stock over ten years old.~8 in Or-
ange County, 76% of the housing stock is currently over ten years old.
Consequently, thousands of homes annunlly will fnll into the category
of older homes and. therefore, become "fire l'mT~rds." The installation
Page 8
Report on Fire Sprinklers
of an automatiC fire sprinkler system in new residences will prevent
homes from becoming "fire l~rds" regardless of the age of the home.
Residential Sorinkler Instnttntlon Costs
In January. 1990, local fire sprinkler installers were surveyed regard-
lng fire sprinkler installation costs. Following is a .~mple of the prices
quoted for single f~mlly homes:
Installer Cost/~. ft.
Fire Stop $ .95
{Santa
Baker Construction Co.
{Santa
JIS~F Home Fire Sprinklers
(Yorba Llnda)
So. Coast Fire Protection
(Irvme)
$1.25
Construction Cost Savlr~s Through Conslruction Alternatives
The demonstrated success of residential fire ~prinklers has allowed
building and fire ofl~taln throughout the country to offer construction
alternatives as a way to offset the cost of sprinkler inst~llntlon. In Or-
ange County, developers frequently rely on construction alternatives as
a way to mitigate access and fire-flow problems.
A fire sprinkler ordinance within Orange County would allow officials
to consider more varied construction alternatives to developers design-
lng a planned community. Fomrnples of such alternatives include:
· Fire flow - fire hydrant spac/ng c~n be increased and water
ra~irl size reduced.
+ Access - length of fire apparatus access roads c~n be
reduced.
· · Area separation ~ reduction in rating of fire resistive-w~lln,
Page 9
Repor~ on Fire Sprinklers
Further alternatives are included in Attachment F (State Fire Marshal
Report on alternatives).
HOmeowner Insurance Discounts
The insurance industry of C~llfornia recognizes the advantages of ln-
stnlltr~g residential fire sprinkler systems. According to a 1987 insur-
ance report by the C~liforl~ State Fire Mn~hal's Residential Sprin-
kler Sub-Committee, twenty insurance companies currently offer a five
to 15% discount for resident/al occupancies protected by smoke
detectors and fire sprinklers?
In March, 1988, the Allstate Insurance Company announced its plan
to offer a 10% discount on homeowner's insurance for all homes
equipped with residen~l sprinklers. Allstate's discount applies to the
entire homeowner insurance pr~rntum and not Just to fire coverage. If
insurance premiums were $350 - $500 per year on the average resi-
dence, the savings would range from $17.50/$52.50 to as much as
$25.00/$75.00 per year. Over the life of a 30-year loan. the homeowner
could real~e a savings of $525 to $2,250.
Consumer Attitudes Reoardtno Sprinklers
There were two recent studies on consumer attitudes regarding fire
sprinklers in homes, one by the Building Industry Research Council
on behalf of the Building Industry A.sso~tion (BIA), the other by the
Southern C~l~'ornta Fire Sprinkler Advisory Board.
The BIA study (1988 Cons,~rner Attitude Survey) states that the aver-
age new Orange County residence is a single-f~mtly home of 1,925
square feet with a monthly payments of$1,311. The study, based on
a s~mple of 283 recent home buyers in Orange County, reveals that the
primary incentive to buy a home in Orange County is the flnan~l
appreciation poten~l (88%). The study goes on to measure consumer
satisfaction with home ~menities such as ceramic tile counters (92%),
walk-in closets (80%) and upgraded appliances (76%).
The costs of options or amenities were not mentioned in the survey.
with the exception of fire sprinklers. Consumers were surveyed as to
"the likelihaod of purchasing tnterior f~e sprinklers if they were offered
Page I0
Report on Fire Sprinlder$
at appraxtmnt~,~y $2,000.* Attaching a cost figure may have created a
disincentive to consider resldenH~l sprinlders. Sixty-four percent of
the Orange County single-family home buyers surveyed answered that
they would not be likely to purchase residential sprinklers if offered.
while 33% would.2~
The Fire Sprinkler Advisory Board 1989 C~ltfomia Showcase educated
consumers on fire probl~'rn facts, sprinkler system perfo~xt~ance and
cost. Consumers also toured three model homes equipped with resi-
denHnl fire sprinkle, rs. Results of those surveyed indicated the follow-
ing?'
81% of potential home buyers would ins~ll a fire sprinkler
system in their new home ffthe option were available; 6%
would not.
68% v.~re impressed by the appearance of the fire sprinkler
system; 5% were not.
58% would consider fire sprinkler irmt=ll~tion ff the price was
$1.25 per square foot or less; 16% would not.
Consumers in this stwvey may have been more receptive to sprinklers
as a result of being educated about the benefits _and having had the op-
portunity to see homes in which fire sprinklers were lnst~lled.
In Orange County. the Fire Department's public education efforts are
~tmed at demonstrating the life s~.fety value and dispelling the myths
of sprinkler systems {Attachment G). Routinely. residents state they
regret not having had the choice of a fire sprinkler system as an amenity
when they purchased their homes.
Government Cost Savings
The report on fire sprinklers by the League of C~ltfornia Cities. states
that every structure which is b.tlt without a sprinkler system places a
demand upon the county for I~rltttonal.fire protection resources. Every
structure constructed without a sprinkler system is at risk of total l~ss
ri,, W fire regarrltpss of the size and resources of the fire depa~b~enr-
Page 11
Report on Fire Sprinklers
As property development continues, the fire problem increases and the
cost of fire protection rises accordingly. The Orange County Fire
Department's current per capita cost for fire protection is $95, one of
the lowest in the County? Fire protection costs may be forced to
increase as a result of area demog~phics which cause services
currently provided by volunteers to be upgraded to full-time staff. This
cost will continue to rise unless other methods of fire protection are
implemented.
Cost Avoidance
The cost of providing fire protection services can be minimized through
the implementation of a sprinkler ordinance as the need for fireflght-
ing units and staffing is reduced. For example, the elimination of Just
one fire engine and one ladder truck reflects an arm,mi savings of $1.9
wtlllon? The built-in fire protection offered by a sprinkler system
would also assist in COIltnirllng a fire until a fire engine (which could be
delayed in traffic) could arrive to exting-tsh it.
Reduction in Water Usaoe
Each year over a million gallons of water are lost fighting fires in Orange
County. The rising cost of obt~tntng this resource, after several yeats
of drought-like conditions, has made water a very precious commod-
ity. Residentlnl sprinklers recl,c~, the amount of water required to extin-
guish afire by 90%. A fast response sprinkler head discharges at a rate
of 17-24 gallons a minute. The total water discharged on a fire by a
sprinkler system is approximately 170-240 gallons. In comparison, at
250 gallons per minute from fire hoses, the ave_rage quantity of water
used on a fire in an unsprinklered home is 2.500 gallons.
Benefits and Savinos to Jurisdictions with a Sprinkler Ordinance
The success and economic savings to governments with fire sprinkler
programs is illustrated below with further t-~e studies in Attachment
H.
The City of San Clemente has had a residential sprinkler ordinance in
operation for ten years an~l approximately 35% of thetr residents now
Page 12
Report on Fire Sprinklers
live in sprinklered homes.
San Clemente has been able to extend emergency response times from
the nationally-accepted standard driving time (fire station to incident
location) of three minutes to five minutes. This has allowed a reduction
in the number of fire stations required from the eight stations orlgW~lly
planned to four or five at projected build-out. Eliminating three fire
stations will save the City a ml~trntml of $2.1 l~llllon per year.~
Fresno
In 1964, the City of Fresno adopted comprehensive automatic sprinkler
requirements in conjunction with a redevelopment project in the
business district. In 1984, an in-depth study was conducted to deter-
mine the impact of this sprlnlder program. The findings demonstrated
that:
Fire losses had been reduced by 93.8%
Services provided by three fire stations In the business
district in 1964 had been consolidated into one, with an
al3xlu~l savings of $1.8 wtlllon (1984 dollars): 26
Years Total Fire Loss Loss/Year # of Fires
1954-1969 $ 1,351,209 $ 90,080 62
1970-1984 $82,573 $ 5,504 67
Since 1986, there have been 27 fires with sprinkler activations in
Scottsd~]e. Estimated damage to these structures, had the buildings
not been sprinldered, is over $336 r~tlllon. The actual damage totalled
Just $104,000, representing a savings of 96.5%. According to fire
offiot~ls, at l~st five persons (and as many as 45 others) are alive today
as a result of Scottsdale's automatic sprinkler requirements??
Dl~nev World/E~cot Center. Florida
During development. 15 years ago, all structures were equipped with
smoke detectors, and sprinkler systpm-~ were ti-l~t~lled in bLllldlllgs over
1.000 square feet. The daffy population is 200,000, including 10.000
employees and 48.000 hotel guests. To date the [he statistics show:.
Page 13
Report on Fire Sprinklers
· There have been no fire injuries or fatalities.
The average annual fire loss is less than $5,000.
All fires have been controlled with two or fewer heads.
There have been no sprinkler system failures.
The Disney World Fire Depa~ laaent is staffed with 50 percent fewer
personnel than nine California cities with an average population of
262,000?
These examples demonstrate significant cost savings to the commu-
nities involved, and it ts believed that the County of Orange would
r~ll~e sil~l~r .$avttags lzl the f~ltul'e it' a sprinkler ordinance were
adopted.
ALTERNATIVES AND II PACTS
A. Install Sprinkler~ in ~ll Buildings (new and retrofit)
Advl:wtnges:
Maximum benefit for life safety and property conservation.
Older buildings are protected with built-in fire protection and.
therefore, would not become 'fire h~rds."
Greatest economy of scale for competitive pricing of sprinkler
systems.
Greatest tmmecl~nte and long-term impact on fire department
budget requirements given the ability to reduce existing levels
of engine and truck company protection.
Greatest poten~al for reduction of insurance rates.
Ability to significantly reduce costs related to other building
code requirements through construction alternatives.
Reduction in water usage for firefighting efforts.
Disnrl~nt~ges:
· Substantial initial one-time cost to the coramunlty.
Retrofit costs are 1.5 Hines that of lnstnllntion during con-
s/auction.
Int~n! lack of q~mltfied contractors to handle the volume of
work.
Increase in building/housing costs.
Page 14
Report on Fire Sprinklers
Requirements for intensive public education programs to gain
community understanding.
B. Install Sprinklers in all New Buildings and Retrofit at Time
of Sale or when they reach Ten years of Age
Advartt~jes:
+ SubstanCe! benefit for life and property savings.
Older buildings would be protected by sprinklers and, there-
fore, would not become "fire bn-~rds."
· Significant impact on economy of scale for competitive prlc-
mg.
· Reduction in insurance rates.
· Substan.al impact on fire depm I~aent budget requirements.
,ability to reduce building costs through construction alterna-
tives.
· Reduction in water usage for fireflghting efforts.
Disadvantages:
· Ird~l one-time cost to builder during construction.
Costs may be passed on to new building/home-buyers.
Additional cost at resale or when building reaches 10 years of
age.
· Retrofit cost Is 1.5 times that ofinst~ll~tion during con-
struction. Cost to be absorbed by seller, or owner of building
when it reaches ten years of age.
Possible initial lack of contractors to handle volume of
work.
Need for community-wide public education.
· Logistics of tracking ages of all buildings and coordinating of
retrofit/inspection.
C. T-atall Sprinklers in ~ New Bul],tln=~s
Advantages:
· Signfllcanfly improve protection of llfe and property.
· Economy of scale allows for competitive pricing of sprinkler
systems.
· Reduction in fire department projected budget will be re~l~ed
in future.
Page 15
Report on Fire Sprinklers
· Reduction in insurance rates.
4- Slgnfficant reduction in construct/on costs through builder
alternatives.
+ Reduction tn water usage for firefighting efforts.
Dtsadvanmges:
In~'d~l Lr~t~llntJon costs.
+ Costs may be paased on to new property owner.
4, No impact on existing structures; older buildings
tmprotected.
4- Public education efforts ~tmed at p~ property buyers.
D. Iz~ta!! Spztnklers in ~ll New Residential Property
A~_tnges:
Protection for nearly 1/3 of the housing stock in
unincorporated Orange County by the y~-~r 2000.
+ Protection for property in which 100% of the fire deaths
within unincorporated Orange County have occurred in
the past nine years.
+ Significant reduction in property losses.
4,- Cost of sprinkler system is absorbed by home-buyer who
benefits from protection and savings.
+ Reduction in insurance rates.
+ Construction savings through use of construction alterna-
tives.
+ Reduction in fire protection costs for new residez~t~l com-
munities.
+ Reduction in water usage for firefighting.
Disnrh~ntnges:
+ Commer~tnl/industria] property under 6000 sq. ft. not pro-
tected.
+ Existing homes are unprotected.
In~tinl instnllntion cost may be passed on to new buyer.
+ Public education efforts ntmed at new residential property
buyers.
Page 16
Repor~ on Fire Sprinklers
E. Install Sprinkler~ in ail New l~tllti-Famlly Homes
Advantages:
· Fire protection of entire building and occupants ff a fire
starting in one unit spreads to adJa.cent units.
Represents buildings with greater square footage and a larger
number of people in one structure.
Reduction in life and property loss.
Reduction in insurance rotes.
· Construction cost reduction through const~-uction alterna-
aves.
· Reduction in water usage for fire. fighting.
Disadvantages:
· No built-in fire protection for commer~t~l/industrig] buildings
under 6000 sq,,are feet.
· No built-in fire protection for single family homes.
· No built-in fire protection for existing buildings.
· Initlnl inst~llatlon cost which may be passed on to new own-
erS.
· Need for public education efforts aimed at apmLuJent and
condorntnl,,m building/unit buyers.
F. OHer Sprinkler TnstltlEati0n aa an Option in New Residences
Advantages:
+. Maximum benefits as listed in Alternative D would be re~lt~ed
ff the new buyer chooses the option.
· The cost would be absorbed by the buyer who has chosen
this form of built-in fire protection.
DisoH,Elntt~es:
· Requires intensive community-wide education efforts aimed
at all potential buyers to give them information to make an
Informed decision.
· Buyers not choosing this form of fire protection would make
it difficult to r~l~e the full benefits described in the advan-
tages.
· Possibility of no built-in fire protection in ma~y new homes.
· No built-in fire protection for existing homes.
Page 17
l~eport on Fire SprinMers
G. More Stxtngent Smoke Detector Ordinances
Advantages:
Early warning of fire allowing possible chance of escape.
· .Some insurance savings.
Greater degree of compliance with existing smoke detector
regulations.
Mlnlmal cost to builders and property owners/buyers.
Disadvantages,.
4- Would not increase protection for that percentage of the
pop,~l~tion unable to hear, respond, or escape when warned.
No protection of property.
No way to reg,~t~te/lnspect all homes according to current
level of authority.
+ M~tntenance still an issue.
PubLic apathy to importance of detector mntntenance.
activation and resulting danger.
· May require substaDtln! cost to retrofit hardwired detectors tn
existing homes in which a detector is absent or dependent
on batteries.
· Detector can be disabled by electrical failure or short.
· No reduction in fire protection costs as smoke detector
activation does not assist in cont~tning/eXttnguishtng a fire.
+ No construction savings through construction alternatives to
builders inst~lltr~g detectors.
H. Status Quo
Adva~tt~ges:
· No additional construction costs.
· No new conditions on development.
Disadvantages:
· Fire problem will continue to increase.
· Fire protection costs will increase as housing stock ages.
· Future fire protection costs will tncrease with the ongoing
housing inventory.
· Increasing population and traffic congestion will impact
delivery of fire services. { Sprinklers would lessen this prob-
lem).
Page 18
Report on Fire Sprinklers
CONCLUSION
The issues presented in this repor~ are of significant concern to the
community and to the elected offl~-t~ls who are charged with managing
the communities' resources. The Fire DepozLment has presented
various options having different degrees of impact on the problem and
varying levels of costs associated with their lmplemeniatton~ Like most
other decisions relating to the allocation of resources, the choice is
complex and involves many factors. From a professional fire service
perspective, the highest level of life safety and property conservation
would be the obvious choice. However. the issue becomes more
complex when integrated with the vast army of other soc/al needs,
community'concems, and demands for funding.
The options provided in this report have varying cost-benefit relation-
ships. From these alternatives one can be chosen which best serves the
interests of our citizens. The purpose of this report will be met by the
focus given to the problem and a fully informed decision being made.
Page 19
Report on Fire Sprinklers
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
REFERENCES
United States Depart~aent of Defense. Public Aff~trs Office.
Washington D.C., 1990.
Orange County Fire Depmauent, Incident Reporting System.
1981 - 1989.
see footnote 2.
"America Fire Sprinkler Handbook for California Cities," League
of Cnltfomta Cities, Institute for Local Self-Government, 1989.
Orange County Foret~.~t and Analysis Center. Kathy Douglas,
County ,~amtnistrative Office. 1990.
National Fire Incident Reporting System. Orange County Fire
Department, 1989.
see footnote 4.
see footnote 4.
"The Sprinkler." National Fire Protection Association. 1989.
"America Burning," National Commission of Fire Prevention and
Conixol. Letter of Transmittal to the President of the U,S., 1973.
Safety Element. Orange County General Plan. 1987.
"An Ounce of Prevention." Federal Emergency Management
Agency, U.S. Fire Administration.
Operation Life Safety Newsletter. Jim Dalton, Director.
Operation Life Safety Newsletter, Vol. 4, No. 9, Sept. 1989.
Page 20
Report on Fire Sprinklers
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
see footnote 12.
see footnote 9.
Telephone Survey of Nine Orange County Mortgage Lenders.
Orange County Fire Department. 1990.
"Sprinklers Not Pop~,l~r with OC Homebuyers," Independent
Real Estate. The Orange County Register. 1989.
Letters received from Reslde_n~l Sprinkler System Installers.
1990.
"State Fire Marshal's Report by an Ad-Hoc Insurance Industry
Committee." SaCl'-~tnento. CA. Feb.. 1987.
"Cons,,rner Attitude" survey. Research Network. Ltd. for the
Building Industry Assochation. 1988.
"California Showcase" survey. Southern C~l~fornla Sprinkler
Adv/sory Board. 1989.
Master Plan. Orange County Fire Depaxtment. Ernst & Young
Associates. 1989.
see footnote 23.
Letter from Thomas C. Dalley. Director of Fire Protection. San
Clemente. CA. to Orange County Fire Chief Larry J. Holms.
Jan. 25. 1990.
see footnote 4.
Report on the Resider,al Fire Sprinkler Experience.
Scottsdale. AZ. Jim Ford. Fire Marshal. 1989.
28 see footnote 4.
Page 21
Reporl on Fire Sprinklers
29 see footnote 6.
30 see foomote 4.
31 Report on C~liforl-lta Fires, Office of the State Fire Marshal.
1988.
32 see footnote 4.
33 ~The Effectiveness of Smoke Detectors." Federal Emergency
Management Agency, United States Fire Administration, 1987.
Page22
Attachment A
Attachment D
Attachment E
ogeun~(I Kuodo~d pug uo!lsnqtuoD jo SlO~Xaq
Attachment F
State Fire Marshal's
Residential Sprinkler Advisory
Committee on Construction Tradeoffs
Code Section
Subject
UBC 503 (b)
UBC 503 (d)
UBC 508 (b)
UBC 508
UBC 508
UBC 508
UBC 508
Appendix A
UBC 1202 (a)
UBC 1202 (b)
UBC 1202 (b)
UBC 1204
UBC 1709 (a)
UBC 2516 (f)
UBC 3303 (c)
UBC 3302 (b)
UBC 3305 (e)
UBC 3305 (g)
UBC Table 33-2
UFC 10.306 (a)
UFC 10.207 (b)
UFC 10.301 (c)
UMC 1009 (a)
NEC 336-4
UPC 401 (a)
Forms of Occupancy Separations
Garage R-3 Occupancy Separation
Party Walls
Fire Resistive Substitutions
Fire Resistive Substitutions
Fire Resistive Substitutions
Fire Resistive Substitutions
Background for UBC 508
3000 Square Foot Requirement
Storage and Laundry Room
Alarm Room
Escape Windows
Parapet Wa 11 s
Draft Stops
Distance Between Exits
Roofing
Dead End Corridors
Corridor Walls
Number of Required Exits
Alarms
Access Roads
Hydrant Spacing, Required Fire Flow
Smoke Detectors
NM or NMC Cable
ABS pipe permitted
Attachment G
I Com ,Lon
Myths about Sprinkler Systems
Myth...'They cause water d=mage'
Fact,.,
Quick response sprinklers release 17-24 gallons of water per minute compared to 250 gallons per
minute from the stream of a fire hose. An unconl~olled fire will do considerably more damage
during the time it t~kes to call and fire units'to respond.
Myth..."If one sprinkler goes off they all go off'
Fact..,
Sprinklers respond independently to'a rated temperature setting. Only the sprinkler directly in the
area of the fire will operate and usually only one sprinlder head ls needed to extinguish or limit the
fire to the area of its origin. This minimizes the damage that Is caused by spreading smoke and
fire to the rest of the residence.
Myth..."Sprinklers systems are ugly"
Fact...
Quick response sprinklers are designed to save your life. Unobtrusive and attracti~'e sprinklers
have been designed to blend with your decor. In fact they are dramatically smaller than most
smoke detectors that are currently used in residences today.
Myth...'A smoke detector is enough protection~
Fact...
Smoke detectors do save lives as early warning devices, but they only identify that there is a
problem. Too oi~en, battery operated smoke detectors fail due to dead batteries or because they
have not been checked. Sprinklers used tn conjunction with smoke detectors pro,,lde a #DynAmic
Duo~ of early warning and instantaneous response to extinguish and control a fir~ at its early
phase.
This provides incredible protection against the fury of fire when you consider that most fires occur
at night when residents are not alert to the danger. It's like having a 24-hour flreflghter in your
home.
Myth..."I can't =t~ord a sprinkler system'
Fact...
The cost of installing a sprinkler system in a new residence under construction can cost as little as
90 cents a square foot. and the cost for retrofitting a system to an existing residence Is appraxi-
mately $1.50-$2.50 a square foot.
CASE STUDIES
Attachment H - 1
L~g111~/ll /-Ti11_~ Fire (March 1990) - A 76 year old man fell asleep while smoking in bed
in his room on the fifth floor of a seven-story retirement home. The 2:30 am fire, started
by the cigarette, set off a smoke detector in the bedroom which awakened the man's wife.
asleep in the next room. However, the man was intoxicated and did not hear the detector.
As his wife was attempting to respond to the undetermined noise (smoke detector), the
sprinkler head in his bedroom activated. The man was awakened by the water spray from
the sprinkler which had extinguished the fire. He was not injured (he refused treatment)
and the property damage was estimated to be $14,000. Without sprinklers he would have
been a fatality and the fire may have extended to other areas of the multi-story retirement
home.
Los .~l-mttos Fire (M-~ch 1990) - A man was at home heating off in a pan when the
phone rang. He went to the phone forgetting the cooking grease. The smoke detector
activated alerting the man to a fire which had started in the pan. He immediately grabbed
the pan spilling the burning off spreading the fire to the cabinets and microwave. As the
man began to call 911, a sprinkler head activated and extinguished the kitchen fire. The
total damage (including $100 in water damage to the carpet) was $1500. His home was
part of a 5-unit complex which was sprinklered due to inadequate water supply in the
I..hae Fire (1989) - Unattended children were at home in a six-unit condominium
complexwhen flammable liquid was used to start multiple fires. The fires were controlled
by a single residential sprinkler head located in the living room. This $1.2 million dollar
complex suffered only $10,000 damage.
Laguna Niguel Fire (1989) -The 23,000 square foot single family dwelling was one week
from completion. The painter's rags that were left in a plastic trash can caused a fire at
night when the building was vacant. The sprinkler system extinguished the fire with
approximately $6,000 damage. The family was able to move in within three weeks.
Yorba Linda Fire (1989) - The resident was at home when she heard the fire sprinkler
alarm sounding. She exited her home and when she got to the front yard, smelled smoke.
She then went to a neighbor's home and dialed 911. When the flrefighters arrived, they
found that a single sprinkler head, in the garage, had extinguished a fire that started in
a bag of peat moss. The $250,000 home suffered Just $1,200 damage.
San Clemente Fire (1989) - In this fire, the owner added an office space above the garage
without extending the sprinkler system. The fire originated in this office area and
extended into the den area which was protected by four sprinkler heads. The sprinkler
system held the fire to the den. No occupants were home at the time. This was a $100,000
damage loss fire; however, the 'at risk' valuation was well over $3,500,000.
Attachment H - 2
J
San Clemente Fire (1989) - A pan of grease ignited on the stove in an upstairs kitchen.
The fire was extinguished immediately by a single sprinkler head, The owner and his
family were home during this fire: nobody was injured. Only $3,000 damage was done
to the home.
San Clemente Fire (1989) - On Labor Day. a/'me occurred in the garage ofa sprinklered
home. A suitcase had been pushed up against a light that had the protective glass lens
removed. The fire spread to other materials on the shelf and activated a single sprinkler
head in the garage. The residents were home at the time but had no idea that a fire had
occurred until the bell on the sprinkler system began to ring. By this time. the fire was
extinguished. Total damage was less than S500 in this $400,000 home. The water was
swept from the garage floor and the sprinkler head replaced. The entire incident was over
in twenty minutes, including the cleanup.
San Clemente Fire (1989) - The maid had emptied the fireplace ashes into a trash can.
She was working upstairs when the fire started in the trash can and began to spread to
other materials in the garage. A sprinkler head in the laundry room activated and alerted
the maid and neighbors of the f~re. The single head in the laundry room saved the entire
house. The fire loss was under $5,000 with and 'at risk' valuation of over $500,000.
Yorba Linda Fire (1989) - In a recent house fire in Yorba Linda, a new home worth $3.9
million was saved when only one sprinkler head extinguished a fire that started in the
garage when no one was home. The sprinkler head held the structural damage to just
$10,000, far less than 1% of the home's x-alue.
Laguna Niguel Fire (1987) - A mother was cooking at home with her two children. Her
2 vear old son was with her in the kitchen when the infant upstaiCs began crying. While
tl~e mother was upstairs tending to the infant, she was alerted by her 2 year old in the
kitchen and the sound of their sprinkler ala~ m. She raced down the st nirs with her infant
to find that the sprinkler system had extinguished a fire in the kitchen and her 2 year old
son was unharmed. Total damage was just $150.
San Clemente Fire (1983) - This particular incident involved a six unit condominium
pro!ect which was under construction. A transient started a trash fire in one of the units
which extended to a nearby plywood sheet panel. The fn-e activated two sprinkler heads
which extinguished the fire. The contractor estimated that it would cost him approxi-
mately $6,000.000 in time, materials and delays to replace the project from the time the
fire had started. The fire loss was estimated at $6,000.
Leag~._ of California Cities
FIRE SPRINKLERS:
How You Can Save
Lives and ..Property
Your Guide to Automatic Fire Sprinklers
IIII A
mmr League of California. Cities
I~.. ~f 1400 K STREET *SACRAMENTO. CA95814 <916),MJ.-5790
Sacramento, CA
Oaober 11, 1989
To.'
From:
Subjec::
Mayors, Council Members md City Managers
Clark Goecker, Assistant Director
Automadc F/re Sprinkler Packet
The Institute for Local Self Government is pleased to d/sm'bute the attached Automatic
Fire Sprinkler packet to California mayors, council members and city munugers. Th/s
packet has been prepared to accomplish the intent of an Annual Conference Resolution
which supported a study of the benefits of instnllln~ atltolllati¢ sprinkler systems in
StrLtCKLt'e$.
The purpose of thh project is to reduce the loss of life and property due to structure
fires. The Executive S.mmn-/and Information Cards contained in this packet are an
abbreviated version of the F'tre Sprinkler Pos/tion Paper that has been developed. Tl~
information provides a brief gu/de for dty oRidah interested in evaluating the
effect/vene~ and effic/ency of automatic fire sprinlder systems to control fire losses and
fire proteaion costs.
The position paper was prepared by the F'tre ~efs Department of the League of
Califonfia Cities and has been lmblished and dhtn'lmted by the Institute for Loca~ Sel/
Government which published public safety repons in the 1970's that helped shape the
future of public safety in C_~llfornln~
ALl city fire ~ have been provided with the Fire Sprinlder Pos/don Paper which
comulns add/tional information on automatic fire spr/nkiers, aside from what is
conta/ned in tl~ packet. Please contact your fire drier for timber information about the
fire problem in your city ,,d how automatic fire spriniders sTsten~ can help control your
city's fire loss.
A:\cover~
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The FIN PtMIIim in California
The California St~t~ Fu~ ~ r~portn
t~at i~ the period ~ 1976 to 1987 there were
neatl~ 2.3 milh'on ~ incidents.
Direct Losses
n~ billion in property/building con~n~ loM
· More than 4~00 f~t htaUU,,-
Callfo~la Fire Facts
1 7S petce~t of b~ldJ~ ~tes occur i~ one- a~d
I MO~ than 80 peromt of the fir~ fa~
Bllliem o~ doll.s am spent by cities to
Io~m i~ tM Unflad 5~ntm cont~ue to b~ th~
w~st in tim i~dustrislized wodd. Howc~
The Iqrn Problem cai be Couii~lled witk
Fire Sp~nldere
a~e the smS:Je mo~ tmp(xl~R ~M'~e~t M buJ]t-
e Every M~a~e wl~k~ is b~t without a
Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems are
Effective
· A 50-ye~ t~cotd of sprL-~let performance tn
the United State~ show~ that of 81,425 ~ m
buildin~ with sprir~lers, 96.2 percent were
controlled or exting-i.hed with minimal
· Experience over ~n 82 year period in ^ust~a-
lislNew Zeala~ with ~F~Lttl~m documen~
· Few ~re deaths occur m buildings equipped
n Ptol~tty lomes a~e 8S petce~t less in rose-
desks with are sprinkle~ comp~ed to ~
without al~L~tklet~
· Spriakle~ reduce toxic by-pmduc~ of ~e.
Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems are not
da sprinkler sy~em is app.~x~a~y $1~T~O
to$2,000, otabout l percent of the toUd coat of
,ems about SO pe~ce~t mot~-
· Commesx~l/iadustrial i~mmmce re~uc~on~
can a~otttze the coat of a system m thz~ to
ductim~ rm~se f~om 5 percent to 20 percent.
· Con~-uction texibiUty resultin8 trom sprm-
~,,~ can ot~et sl:,ri.-d~r sy~em cos~ durra8
Agtomat~ Sprlnidere are Reliable
· InSUtL,~e compeny records show accidental
activatk~ occurs in ju~ one out of 16 million
FleaM work to adopt · sprinkler ordinance in yo~ community.
Sprinklers will sav~ Uves, pmpezty and control your co~t~
PART I
BODY OF POSITION PAPER
This document has been prepared to accomplish the intent of a resolution submitted by
the League Public Safety PoLicy Committee and adopted by the L~ague at it~ Annual
Conference. The resolution authorized · study of the benefit~ of ins~.llins automatic
sprinkler systems in all structures. This position paper, d/scu.~s the fire problem in
C~llfomia and thc role of auwmatic fire sprinklers in decreasing the loss af life and
property. The Institute for Local S~lf Gov~roment, with funds provided by the 1 lily
Foundation, published many public safe/y reports in the 19'70's that hell~l shape the
future of public safe~y in Callforni~ has printed and published thl. report.
The enclosed Executive Summary and Information Cards have been provided to all
mayors, council member~ and dty managers in California. Addition*l~y, nil fir~ chieh
have received a detniled Handbook about the inst~lafi°n of Automatic Fire Sprinklers
and a copy of the Executive S. rnm*ry and Information Cards enclot~d in this
Mayors, council members, and dty mana~en have been encour~ed ~o comaa their fire
chief for further irdormation about this document and the fire problem and how
automatic fire sprinkler systems can help every city.
The information contslned in thi~ handbook provides a s, uide for city officiah interested
in evaluallng the effectiveness and efficiency of anWmsfic fire sprinkler sy~ms to
control fire lo~ses and fire protection co~ Th~ purpose of this pro~ I~ ~ provide
information that will help cities reduce th~ loss of II~ ssd property du~ to
This Handbook re.mired from the work of the Lea~e of California Cities Fire C'hich
Department Sprinkler Stlbcommitte~. Mcmber~ of the Subcommittee are:
Bill Dsle~, Chair, Vire Ch~'e2 Beverly
Vern H*miltoa, President, Fire Chle/s Depa~.~ent, F'u-e Chief, Napa
Bob Buras, President, Fire Loss M~m~emant SymPtom, Project Consultant
1~,, Col.ssa, Fu~ r'hlef' Fullenon
~a~ Lsvdoek, Fire Chief' Yub* Cit~
Bob I~N~, F'ire Chief' Comas
~olm ~ Fire Chid. GleM~le
Er~t~ Wfllh, F'tre lViar~*L S~n L~ Obispo
2
California continues to experience excessive fire death, injuries, and propers, losses,
even thou~ losses are lower than the national average. The.se losses are in spite of the
faa.tha! California has higher costs for fire proration systems, fire dcpanmen~ fire
insurance, and building code requirements in comparison to other/ndustri~!i~.d
countr/es.
These losses are primarily the result of the foliowin~.
Inadequate fire protection planaiz~ in the design of slrucmres.
Unrealistic expectatons of the abilii~ of fire depa, tmems to prevent
injuries and 1o~ of life and limit property losses after a fire has started-
An assumption that/mplement/ng the s~lards confined in the bulMinS
code w/il ensure few fires.
· A lack of understavding ami me of automatc sprinklers.
A lack of awareness by dm public of the fire problems and the indirec~
impacls as well as the direc~ i .mlmc~ of fire upon the individual and the
comrmmiiy.
Minimal so,'i-L economic and le~l pressures and the educational
c~phssis to prevelR a/~/dent~l fire~. The~ pres$lffes and educational
emptmsis ~re presem in other industrial ~m/om. nations.
Some communities have experienced dramatic resuit~ with the implementation of
automatic sprinkler systems. Fresno and Dhney World are two examples. For the most
part, however, over the pa~ 100 years, sprinkler systems have been adopted almost
exclusively by large commcrri~l and indusu'i~l occupancies, nm by small businesses,
residences or municipalities as a whole. Where sprinkler systems have been properly
installed and maintained, multiple life lo.es due to fire have been eliminated. Property
losses are minuscule compared with shn/lm' um~inidered structures.
3
Commercial and industrial properties which im~nll automn~ic sprinkler s'~tems
experience significant economic bencfi~ ~rom reduced insurance. Other benefits include
reduced construction costs and increased architectural flexibility. Tenant space my al.so
become more .desirable and produce hi~J~er revenues.
Communities Which have implementod sprinkler s~m pro, rams on a community-wide
bash have den~onstrated that si~i6,-~nt reductions m fire lor,.ses ~ ~ the cost to
city government of d.e?efing fire pro,t~..'on .~rvices i? .c?ntrollcd. ~ is ?articu?ly
true in new communiues, Struaures built vatt~out spnnr~er s~tems pmce uemanos upon
any city for ira tifional fire protection resources. In fact, every su-ucture built without a
sprinkler s~te~ faces total loss due to Ere reg~'dless of the size and resour~ of the
deparunen~.
Si~i6cant pro ;roy and llfe losses continue to occur and the loase~ are concentrated in
residential oco ,ande~ Some progress has been made in residential occupy,nc/es
through pro~ ms of voluntary and mandatory installation of smoke de~.~o~a. Fire
fatalities have decreasexi over ~e p~. fifteen yea~ but now are r/.s/ng ~ due in pan
to improper maintenance of residential smoke de~. LL~ a~d pr~per~ .[o~es caa
autontntk sprinkler systems.
4
_THE FIRE PROBLEM IN CALIFORNIA
Does thc rnagxlimde of fire los~ in C'~liforflia vtsxrant concern aid effort by California
cities? Should a city coundl be troubled about fire protection? With few except/om,
major urban ~re~ have not been destroyed by rue and a sub~t=n6al port/on of the
budget ia already allocated to the fire department. California alt/es in general adopt the
latest building and fire code standard~ which are intended to provide fire sa/cry.
California fire departments are staffed at levels comparable to tho~e in alt/es and other
states. The California fire protection system ia cons/stent w/th 'standard good practice.'
California cities consistently maintain highly trained and well equ/pped fire departments.
The 'standard good practice" in th/$ .count~'. ff to ~pply 85 to 90 percent .of fire
department resources to the mppr~mon ot m'~. The following in/ormanon identifies
why city officiah should be concerned.
Fire Losses ~ TFemeudous
Thc California F~c Incident Reportin~ System, nmintair~d by the California State F~re
Marshal, indicat~ that between 1976 ~ 1987 the fire experience in ¢~llfomi~ included
the following:
O
O
O
$6 billion property and contems loss
4,00~ fire fatalities (citizens a~l fire fiF, hteFs)
47,957 fire injuries (citizens ~nd fire fighter~)
In 1987, 162,203 fires were reported by the California State Fire Marshal. The following
provides a brief summat3r of the fire incidence in 1987.
Vehicle 46,059
Building 42,480
Gra~ Trees, Brush 32~00
Refuse 30,631
Other 10,533
Total 162,2_w3
~esidenflnl Strnctures are Hit Hnrde~t by Fh-~s
Sevemv-F/w P~vent Occun-ed/n Re_r/dentiz/Smaxw'e~
In 1987 sev~ty five percent of the bui]din~o fires occurred in residential structures. The
rem,lni%e twent~-five percent occurred in commercial and industrial stmcture~ Fifty
percent of the residential structure ~res occurred in one -and two- fnmily dwelli%~.
~wcnv-two percent occurred in apartmen~ and 3 percent occurred in hotels, motets,
and dormitories.
Ninety-five nercent of the 198'/fatalities ocaured in residences.and the re~n!,~i,~} 5...
perce~t occ~red in commercial or indu~t~ structures. Sixty-six percent o! ~e tata~ues
occurred in one- ~ two-f~mily dwelling, twenty-six percent occurred in apa~u~enu~
and 3 percent occurred in hotels, mo~els, and dormitories.
Sixty percent or almost I320 million of fire damage occurred in residence~ and forty
c~rcent or $210 million of fire damat¢ occurred in co,..~-rclal or industrial stmct~..cs.
the 198/residential fire 10ss nlm~t $230 million occurred in one- and two- f~m~y
residenc~; $77 million occurred in apa~t,,,ents; and $12 million occurred in hot~l~
motel~, and dormitories.
lndlrk,~ Fire l~,~.s Paint st Grim Picture
The fire loss figures previously discussed do not include indirect costs a.~ociated with
costs for ho,,~ing and relocation; 1o~ of an work, personal mement~ and heirlooms. In
most case~ indirect costs increa~ los.~s by st factor of two to five.
Over the past 14 year~, 36,60~ per~ons have sustained bum injuries due to fires. The.~
injuries represent hidden costs. ~ed vi .cts.. of. fire are rarely .s~.n in pub? but,
thou.~ands of vic~m~ ._~i~ in bum centers, rebahilitauon cemers or behind the aosed
Burn injuries requh'e extensive periods of treatment and are one of the most costiy
i=juries to ~ The average initial hospitaliz~on period for burn victims requires 4 to
8 week~ f~ 40 percent of the patients; 6 to 12 weeks for 20 percent of the patients; 8 to
16 weeks f~ 40 percent of the patients for initial treatment. The r~.~e of average
chars= rut iaitlai is $16, 1 to S Z, gS3. peri and ch- ges
are for inignl h~pit~ii.~uons nnd treatmen,~ and do not mauoe sut~cqucu~ surgeries,
hospitnl~140~ or rehabilitation.1
Burn in~zries are compounded by ~he emotional stress experienced by victims and their
fnmilies, a bllrden which f:reque21tl~ le-a~ to severe emofiomfl waum~ a~! f]mu~
d/.sinte/l~fion Al least 50 percent of these bums are preventable,z. The..m~_edy of
these injuries is indicated by the fact thai although ~-hildren comprise only I~ percent of
6
the population, they account for 44 percent of serious bum injuhes. Burn-related deaths
are the leading cause of accidental death for children-
The United State~ Smnl! Busine~ Administration ~ estimnled that 80 to 90 percent of
small businesses which experience serious fires do not recover economically and end m
bankruptcy.
Fire Fighter Eartv Retirement Costs
This report does not include the costs for fire tighten' early retirement~ due to injuries
incurred while fighting fires. Although thi report does not measure the cost of early
retirement this cost is a substantial burden on public resource:
INACCURATE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE EFFECTIVE~ OF
]~UILDING/SAFETY CODES
Modern building codes are presumed to provide fire safety as a result of building design
and construction- Ma. ny assumptions concerning buiJdln.., design have been proven
faulty. Common erroneous as.~p~ious include:
Building design can prevent fire and smoke from penewaring floors
above a fire in multiple story buileli%ox-
o Safe, panic free exiting from a bulJ,fing will automad~lly occur.
O Bu/Jdin~ des/gn prov/des adequate exi~ng for the handicapped, elderly and
young children in all structures inCiVdin~ m~t/ple StOry builttin?-
o Fire protection features once installed will continue to be effective.
o Buildings built with non-combustible materi21~ are prote~ted from fire.
Fire losses, injuries and fatalities continue to occur due directly to inadequacies of '
building features and the failure of their occupants to perform as expected. Fire and
smoke frequently penetrate fire nssemblies and spread to other building areas resulting
in fatalities and property elnm.i~. Thes~ conditions existed in the fires at the MGM
Grand Hotel in l~s Vegas (1980), the Dorothy M~ Howl in I.m Angeles (1982), the
Cathedral Hill Ho~el in San Francisco (1984), and the F'h'st Interstate Bank BuilelinE in
Los Angeles (1981~.
Past experience imticates a failure to provide adequately for 1) human belmvior and 2)
contemporary b~ellm,~ features.
· Occupants frequently disregard emergency instructions and ignore alarmz,
or shut them off failing to reactivate them.
Young people, elderly and the physically impa/red are frequently
unable to exit, especially in multi-story buildings where elevators are
used for normal exiting.
· Fire protection feature~ of buildings are often modified, disabled or
removed by occupant~ or become inoperative due to lack of
adequate maintenance. A 198'7 study conducted by CIGNA
Insurance Loss Control Services indicated that 41 percent of the fire
doors in structures were defective.3
In a fire, an elevator may send its passengers directly to the fire floor
rather thnn tO a Sa~e exiL
Smoke removal systems which are required by the building code
have questionable value.~
The fire fighting resources necessary to control a structure fire are
determined by the size, consuucfion and contents of the building.
There is no correlation between these factors and the correspovdln~
fire conlrol requirements of fire depa~ttuents when standard
bLil. Jldin~ codes are developed.
Since 1970, the amount of combustible furn/shings in structures has
doubled. These new materials have increased combustion rates and toxic
gM emir.~ions 5 to 15 titans over the comhust/on and toxic gas emi~xion
rate of woocL
Tests such as Operation San Francisco have demonswatod that when sprinkler systems
a~e installed in bujJd;.?, fires are conu'ollod with minimal risk to occupants and
property even though many or all of the conditions lit, ed above may be present. The
control of toxic gas emi,t, iolts is espe~nily s/.enificallt.
UNRF. AI.I.qI'[C KXPECTATIONS OF FIRE CONTROL
Fire depanmems are expected to respond to fires in p,mcicnt time, with the resources
needed to prevent losses and rescue or protect occupants. However, the allowable t'~re
areas established ill the bl~Jding code produce fire fightiB~ work loach which often
exceed available re~)urces.
Structural fires ~picaily develop at a rate prodv,~ng -,,xtuwivable atmospheres in ,he
room of fire origin within seven to eight mlnnt--~$-: This critical stage of a Krc is referred
to as "flashover.' In most ~ fire suppr~!on forcns w/Il not arrive prior to flashover.
8
Ordv a few departmen~ under IL,~ted condition~ a~e able to consol ~'es p~or to
~over. ~e e~e~ve res~e of
prior to ~e ~ of ~e ~e depm ~en~
However, ~ s~ e~d
~hin ~Ut~ of i~on (~e T~le 1)
~e ~e deponent
Table 1 - F~e Gro~
1 2 3 4 5 6 /' ! 9 10 ~
I
I-
I ~ ird~clP/.. I ~ dm~llf ~ I
I
I I I ., j
I~III IllI
SPRINKLERS HAVE A DOCUMEN'I~D HISTORY OF R.~LIABLE
The most r~,.,ive benefit of amoic spri,l~ldez~, i,t a. l..~.0?ye~, his.~.~ of.
Mve be n succe_;_ ully con uiled or
o N ..~io~tl Fh'~ Pm*,~-tion ~A.s~.' 'on dam ~19~. ~ to 1969
~ lmmded a 98.4 t:~'r~a~ eEect+ve~ess ,.,,,-.
Automatic sprinklers in New York }o~-xise b~ah'? f~n 1969 ~o
1978 provided & 9~.8 l~rcent effectiveness (4,061 fires).
$ Fixes controlled by automatic sprinklers in the U.S. Department of
Energy Facilities, from 1952 to 1980, provided a 98.2 percent
effectiveness.
, From 1964 to 1977 automatic sprinklers in U.S. Navy shore facilities
provided a 95.7 percent effectivenes~ (724 fires).
· Of fires where automatic sprinkler systems are activated, 61-~
percent of these [ires are extinguished with only one or two
sprinkler heads.6
~4ustralia/New 7.rdand - 82 year ~.n~i'ence
A study of the Australian/Ne~ Zealand experience over the past 82 years documenu an
even higher level of success:
Of the fires in buildings im~niled with spx~fiders, 99.8 percent have
been controlled or exti%~ished by sprinklers.
In 66.6 percent of the occurrences one sprinkler head controlled or
extinguished the fire.
In ~ yeats, 5 fatalities have occurred in buildln~ installed with
sp~gder~ All but one of these de~ths v~ere caused by explosions.
· mguer suc~..~ ~ u, ~ -- .- · · ntrois which
U ./is related to a higher ravel of electromc .mom. toting o.f water m. pply c~. _.__,:_.
pU~oS~'de more accurate-records of su__,x~__sful actrvauons ann a.~ures mat water suFFu~
are maintnlned.
The United States and Anstralia/~ew Zealand experiences provide documentation that
automatic sprinklers prevent fire injuries and fatalities. Multiple fire fatalities do not
occur in buildings installed with sprinlders.
Disn World and the Epcot Center were aevelopeo mme. mla-t~tu~, ~
When ey . . · ,
level of fire protection was provided as pan of ~ project design. The fire safety
design included the following:
· SPrinklers.were izl.~tnlled in ~11 bulldil~ larger than 1,000 square
Bui]aln~ were provided with smok~ detectors.
Sprinkler systems were provided with eleeU~dc monitorlna~ o~ water
supply control valves.
Systems receive regularly scheduled inspections every two months.
10
Employee tra/n/ng programs were planned to provide continuing
fire prevention trnini~g.
The daily population of Disney World/Epcot Center/s 200,000 including 10,000
employees and 48,000 hotel guests. In addition to hotel un/ts, there are appro~rn~ely
13,000 dwelling units in which sprinklers have been installed.
The fire statistics for the entire Disney World/Epcot Center complex for the past 15
years are impressive.
· There have been no fire injuries or fatalities.
· The average annual fire loss is less than $5,000.
· All fires have been controUed with no more than two sprinkler heads.
· There have been no sprinkler system failures.
The Disney World Fire Department is staffed with $0 percent fewer personnel than nine
California cities that have an average population of 262,000. Thirty-three percent of thc
on-duty, s~f[ is assigned to fire prevention or fire proteclion system inspection and
testing ' as compared to ~ percem in Californi~
Frerao. Calffornla - 15 veta' emerieneeTM
In 1964, the City of Fremm adopted comprehensive automatic sp.rinlder..re.qulrem.ents.
In conjunction with a redevelopment project in the principal business msmct, aaa two
other major development projecm, more than 5.? million square feet of buUdln~ were
equipped with sprinklers. Ninety-three percent of the principal business district (3.7
million square feet) has been provided with fire sprinldcts.
In 1984, an in-depth study was conducted to determine thc impact of ,his sprinkler
program.
Fire losses had dropped by 93.8 percent:
1954-1969 Sl,351,209 $90,080
1970-19~4 $ 82.573 $ 5,504 67
The three fire .,~tlom which served the prim/pal busine~ district in
1964 have been reduced m one with an annual estimated savln? of
$1,89'7,.(X)0 (1984
11
The insurance rating of the City of Fresno was improved from a
Class 3 to a Class 2, Insurance Servi.'~_~ Office rating, primarily due
to the extensive installation of sprinklers.~a
Other communities in California have adopted community-wide sprinkler ordinances and
are experiencing similar results, including: San Clemente, Saiinas and MouniaJn View.
CONTROLLING RESIDENTIAL FIRF3
Smoke Detectors: A Limited Solution at Best
In the early 1970s, programs were initiated= to encourage or require the installation of
residential smoke detectors. In 1984. the Stat." of California ~o~an mnndal~ the
installation of smoke detectors in s/nile and multi.family residences. Today an
estimated 75 percent of residences have smoke deteaots.
According to statistics compiled by the United States Fire Admini~tratiOI1, Over the past
fifteen years annual rite deaths nafiona~ have decreased/tom 12,000 to 6,000 per year,
primarily due to the installation of smoke detectors. The loas of life from rites in
Cal/fomia iu~ been reduced by 13 percent over the past 14 yeats. The California State
Fire Ma~hal aho report~ that residential slxuctufe fires reported to fire depa, tments
have decreased. However, it is generally conceded that further reductions through
smoke detector program, are not F, ohable.
There is growing concern Over the failure of homeowners to maintain smoke deteaors.
Recent studies indicate that 40 to 50 percent of all smoke detectors are not working due
to lack of mnlntenance. An increasing number of fatalities in dwellings with improperly
maintained smoke detectors are being reponexL Fire fatalities which have been
decreasing Over the past fifteen years are now rising partially due to improper
maintenance of residential smoke detectors.
Fire Sortnklets: A Real Solution
New technology has provided effective, aesthetically plea,~in5 and cost-effective
residential sprinkler systems. Tests in Fort I.auderdale, San Francisco and Los Angeles
have validated the SUCCet~Ltl performance of these ~ sy~tema. The California State
Fire Matxl~l evaluated fire sprinkler syston~ aad pubLisbed a recommended standard in
1986. ~$
Operation San Francisco, resulted in a series of sixteen residential sprinkler test~ in
1983. The te~ l=n~vided coneinsive and well-dootmented evidence that sprinkler systems
are effective/~ reihlcin~ ~ to llfe a~d ~ in res/dent/~ a~d commere/al
SH-UCtUfes.14
Operation LLfe Safety, an organization sponsored by the International Association of
Fire Chiefs formed to implement the results of Operation San Francisco, is collecting
and documenting fire incident data related, to the successes reported in residential
12
sprinkler operations. The growing data bas~ Ls vnltdating previous studies and analys~s.
For example, Cobb County, Oeorgisa has recorded 18 residevtin) fires which were
successfully controlled by sprinklers. With one exception, all fires were controlled with
one spdnlder bead. h has been estimated that 1'/lives would have been lost without
sprinklers?
A comparative study of fire losses in sprinklered and unsprinidered dwellings was
conducted by the City of Scottsdale, Arizona in conjunction with the United States Fire
Administration in April, 1982. Property savings of 85 percent were recorded in structures
with automatic sprinklers.~6 Since the early 1970's an increasing number of
communities are adopting residential sprinkler ordinances. San Clemente and Cobb
County were early leaders in residential spr/nkier programs.
THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF ALrFOMATIC SpVd'NICI'.I~R SYSTEM.q
The United States Fire Adrninlq~ration has e~timated that the cost of/IL~tnllln~e sa
sprinkler system in a new 2,000 square foot residence is $1,500 to $2,000. This
represents about 1 percent of the co~t of construction, far less thigh the Co~t of sa ~
automatic burglar alarm system- Retrofi~n~, would cost about 50 percent more. There
are many economic benefits that can offset the emts to property owners for the
installation or retrofitting of automatic sprinkler'systems. The~ e~onomic benefits fall
into five general categories.
Maintaining a stable economy through the protecxion of key industri~
Reassesarnent ~xemptions for sprinkltr
Construction Flextbili~ and Mlownble Code Deviations
The Un/form Build Code hot establkhed fire resistance sto.udzrds for structures with the
e. umption that · ma]or fire will occur. Buildings ere cons ucted with vax ing level of
fire resistive ma~.riai m provide for exiting, m confine fire to predetermined area% and
t.o prevent strm:mml failure.
The Uniform l~ild/~g. Code ptovicles des/gn and construction options for sptinklered
buildings which a~e not ava/hble m no~-sprJzflder~ swucmres. Also Uniform Fare Code
requirements may be modified when sprinklers are installed. For ~mple, standard
code provisions which e-~n be modified to provide increased des/gn fle,~'bLlity are:
Maximum floor area by ~ of constr~aion
Travel dhlance$ to exits
Interior ~]nme spread requirements
F~re res/stance of fire a.~emblies and structural members
Placement of window~
Fire resistance of tenant separation walh
Location and quantity of fire waih
Standpipe and fire ho~e requirements
Fire apparatus access roads
One-hour corridors
Building height limitations
Design fle~'bility provided by some cowm-nities to sprinldered developments include the
foUowing.
Private street widths
Street grade requirement~
Ctfl-de-sa¢ lengths and mrnarounds
Water main s;~i%~' (fire flow requirenwn~)
Water storage requirements
F/re Hydrant spacing
Set-back distance__ -
............ -'
encouragm$ . pe ..... '-~-~ ~-,-looment r~m'remenl~- In the case of
fire code altern~uv omtym~ ....... ~ ..... ,-..,~,,, ,,-~ fire
,;~le fnm/Iv dwelUnz trac~ the reducUon otr .?r. en~. n~
hydrant ~acmg. cul . _ ~ _ , ._=,_1,: .... -;.,~to,~ on the dwelling.
partialb/or completely o~set
Dec/sion makers are cautione.d to proceed carefully in inte .rpre_'_ti_n_$ and .foli.ow/ng the
es rov~ded in the Uniform Codes used in C~llforn~..,w~.,en auowmg. ' ' t
guidelin! p ....... ~--- :- order to ensure ~ ti t~e water, system ~s los,
aiternauve,.great care st~_o~ ~ _.~._..o that the risk of life or significant property
fire protecuon ~s not receoeo to au~.~ ~ u,.~,,~.
loss will increase beyond an acceptable levcL
chief tO ~ development ano consuucuua ,~
Code.
14
TABLE 2
AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
SUMMARY OF SAMPLE CONSTRUctION AND DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
W~thout Automntk= Flr~ Sorinlder
Protection
Fire flow requirements must be
prov/ded. (UFC 10.301, Appendix III-A).
With Automatic FIr~ Sortnlder
$0% reduction for one and two family
dwellings, but not less than 500 GPM
flow.
A 75% reduction in required fire flow
for ali other s~ructures, but not less than
1500 GPM.
Distance to an approved water supply
must be no more than 150 feet fi.om
building exterior. (UFC Sec. 10.301)
Fire appa~ttus access road~ are req~.' ed
within 150 feet of the buiMin~ extenor.
(UFC Sec. 10.207)
Street grade in excess of 12% is not
permitted. (UFC Sec. 10.207)
Fire access roads exceedln5 ~50 feet
require prov~ons for turnia~ around
fire apparatus. (UFC Sec. 10.207)
Manual and automatic fire alarm system
is required in specified R-1 occupancies.
(UFC Sec. 14.104)
Allowable construction area is limited to
Table No. $-C. 0iBC See.. 506)
Maximum height of bl~d;n~ limit~d to
Table No. 5-D. (UBC Sec. 507)
Stand pipes mu~ be located in fire
resistive encl~mn~ (UBC
One hour fire-r~i,tive conslruction
required. (UBC Sec. 50~)
The allowable distance may be increased
100% to a toud of 300 feet.
Gradient of up to 15% is permitted.
Requirement is extended to beyond 300
fee~ and turn a~und provi~ons are
modi~ed.
· Fire alarm system nee.d not be provided
local alarm-must notify ail occupants.
Are~ it~'ee.~ (2x and 3x) are permitted
under speci~ conditions.
Allowable heights may be increased by
on~ story.
F'ire resistive enclosure not required.
F'ire.r~,~ive mbstitution is pennined
for specified construction provided the
UBC did not require such system
throughout the building.
Maximum exit travel distance 150 feet
(UBC Sec. 3303 (d)
Increase maxim, m exit distance to 200
feet.
Max/mum flame-spread classes of
interior finish materiah are established
(UBC Sec. 4204)
Flame-spread r~ting may be reduced by
one class.
Based on 1988 U~f_o.'~ B~il,'li~_ ~1 Fire Codes
Table 3 provides an example of construction alternatives when buildings are proteaed
by a complete automatic fire sprinlder system in ~
, TABLE 3
OPTIONS FOR STRUCTURES WITH AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINg'I F. RS
FIRE F't.OW-single family 3 + per acre,
mobile home parks
1,000 GPM N/A
FIRE FLOW-Duplexes and one-story neighborhood
commerc/al
1,500 GPM
1,250 GPM
FIRE FLOW-Multi-family, 1 & 2 story,light in~
or fight commercial
2,000 GPM
1,750 GPM
FIRE FLOW-Multi-~may, 3+ story, heavy
commerical or heavy indu~i~ial
2,500 GPM
2,000 GPM
FIRE HYDRANT SPACING .~iagle fnrm'ly
500 feet 600 feet
FIRE HYDRANTS SPACING .4:ommerical,
indnstrial, multi-family
300 feet 500 feet
PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS..Marim,,m D~pth
150 feet 200 feet
AC~m di.~nce to entrance of building 100 feet
150 feet
Souse: Sali~u~ Calff_ omia--1985
A 1978 study conducted by Lothrop Associates, architect for the Council of American
Building Officials, under a grant from t~e U.S. Fire .~dmlnl,wation, indicated that
sprinklers lmve the potential to providz ~ comu-uction co~ savi~
Cost savings after installation of a sprinkler system for these structures surveyed were:
$200,000 for a high-rise office building; $15,000 for I mid-rise apartmem bttildin~ and
~ savi,~ for l lo~-ri~ mercaatile/ot~ce boil&ag (ao optiom nsed).
16
The following provides dam on numerous independent studies of sprinkler construction
cost savings.
Octupanc7 Construction
High-rise 1969
High.rise 1974 $94,000 ~
High-rise 1975 $22~,000 ~9
Hospital remodel 1978 $95,000 ~
l~horntory 1979 ~,~6,000 z~
Medical Center 1980 ~/80,000"
lpsurnnce Rate Reductions
The effectiveness of automatic sprinklers in reducing fire losses has been reco~i-,-d by
the insurance indusu7 for ne~, ly a hundred yearg The Factory Mutual Insurance
Company credits sprinklers with lowering the annual property losses from 30 cents p~.r
$100 of insured value (1890s) to less than 3 cents per $100 of insured value (1980s). z~
Insurance rate reductions are available to aH structures in which sprinkler systems arc
installed. Certain high risk structures receive si~ificant rate reductions which can
amortize the cost of installation in a short period. Lower risk structures amortize costs
over a longer period of time. Case studies of fire insurance sav~-~ related to
sprinklered properties were conducted by the U. S. Fire .~,dmlnl,tration in conjunction
with the insurance and sprinkler industries. The results are shown in Table 4. An
additional cnw w~ provided by the City of $,-...~vale, CA.
More than twent~ insurance companies in California provide homeowners insurance
credit for residential sprinkler systems, lnsu.qtnce credits range from 5 percent m 20
percent? Allstate Insurance Company, one of thc three largest companies in the
residential insurance market has recently initiated a 10 percent credit for residentinl
sprinklers. An ordinance adopted in Honolul, Hawaii in 1983 required the immllation
of sprinkler systems in existing hotels exceeding 75 feet in height. ,The average
insurance cost reduction was 51 percent for structures and 13 percent for contents.
17
There is an increasing trend in California to cs~blish insurance rates through the use of
aauariai analysis of fire los.~s. California has experienced a fire loss of more ~han
billion during the past 14 year~ If all of thc structures lost had been protected by
automatic fire sprinklers, a con.sel~afive estimate of loss reduction would have been 80
percent or $5.2 billion. Basing insurance rates on actuarial ba.~d analysis should result
in substantial savings as fire losses are reduced by sprinkler~.
Limitine Fir~ Det~artment Costs
When compared to unsprinklered structures, buildings with sprinkler systems require
fewer fire fighting resources and personnel to perform fire control, smoke removal and
water removal. If fires are controlled by a sprinkler system, the response time of
personnel and apparatus can be lengthened. The installation of sprinklers in buildings
helps to reduce personnel and apparatus requirements and consequently reduces costs.
Requiring sprinkler systems in new and growing communities will help to reduce the
growth of fire department staffing while providing a high level of fire protection service.
Fresno, San Clemente, pnlm Springs, lV[ouptnln View, Sco~e, and Disrt~y World
show thc saving~ possible.
In the case of existing communities with few sprinklered area.~ the exisl~ng fire fighling
forces probably cannot be reduced without a retrofit program ~ to that
implemented in Fresno. However, additional growth of the fire department can be
limited by requiring the installation of sprinklers in new developments. Service demands
such as emergency medical services and hazardous materials respunse, may require the
consu~ction and s*n~ng of fire stations, but at levels lower than that required for
traditional fire suppression.
Fire sprinklers can also help control other city costs. Since ~W California cities are
self-insured, the protection of public properties through automatic sprinkler protection
can increase resources av-ailshle for other city service.
Snrinlders Can Heln Maintain ~b~ Stability of a Local Economy
The economic stability of an entire community can be adversely affected by losses due
to fire. When a major industry suffers extensive fire loss~ and discontinues operations
or chooses to relocate in another city, an entire comm.r~ity loses jobs and revenue. In
smaller communities where the local economy is dependent upon a few industrial or
commercial operations, the 1o~ of a key employer can have severe impacts throughout
the local economy. The required installation of sprinklers should be part of the
long-range plnnnln~ of e~ commIxnity. It is · cost effective way to protect ·
community's funu'e and the livelihood of its r_~_idents.
19
[~eassessment Exemntion for SnrinlOer Systems
Residential nad commercial properties which install sprinkler systems alter November 7,
1984 are exeu~,t from property tax rea.s.se~ment related to these improvements.
(California State Revenue and Taxation Code Section 74 (a).
Excessive Fire Kine Charnes Can Reduce Economic Benefits
Excessive fire line charges levied against spt/hider systems significantly reduces the
economic benefits of a spr/nkler system. Cities should review their fire line fee
stmaures, and e~ninate ail co~ts not directly justified for installation and maintenance
of fire sprinkler system connections. If water is supplied by private water companies,
cities should as.sure that fire line fees are justified.
lrtre line (water supply) charges are frequently levied against sprinkler sy~ten~ on the
same basis as industrial/commercinl connections and for connections to fire hydrants.
Both of which are umrs of large volumes of water. The justification for these charges i~
based on the need to provide storage and dism"oution for large flov, z of water.
Automatic fire sprinkler systems do not require large vol-me~ of water, and in some
cases water system requirements can be reduced in areas where ail structures are
sprinklered. The traditional justificatior- for water supply charges does not apply to fire
sprinkler s3~tems.
· Fire losses in C'_~lifornla dries coustitute a si?ifi.-~nt problem.'
· Fire deaths, injuries and property losses are concentrated in residential structures.
, Traditional methods of delivering fire protection services require large fire fighting
forces and have llmi~ed effectivene~
· Fire losses and fire protection co~ts can be reduced through the increased use of
automatic fire sprinider system.~.
· There a~e si~ifiennt benefits for developers and building owners who iustall
automa~ spdnider ~tems.
RECOMMENDATIONS
· Or~ six. Id be adopted which require automatic ~rinklem
· Residents and the business community of each city should be informed ragarrling the
benefits of autotmuic fire spriniders.
· Through a prolp~un of public education, cities c~u encourage voluntary installation of
sprinkler systems and establish suppor~ for sprinkler o~;
· Regulatory a~l administrative barriers to sprinkler installation should be elimlna~cd.
· All city facilities, new and existing, should b~ sptinklered.
· Long-range community plaz~ should include the instnllation of automatic fire
sprinklers in nil new structures.
· Other public agencies such a~ school districts should be encouraged to install
sprinklers in all new and existin~ str~ctttras.
· Methods of fundin~ tim installation of sprinklers in existing structures should be
identified and developed.
· Inspection and testing ptogrnm, should be provided which will assure the relinhility of
sprinkler systems and a.L~n systems.
21
ENDNOTES
1. Alisa Ann Ruch, California Bum Foundation, 20944 Sherman Way, Suite 115,
Ca~oga Park, CA 91303
2. Alia Ann Ruch, .California Bum Foundation, 209~ Sherman Way, Suite 115~ Ca~aoga
Park, CA 91303.
3. CIGNA Lo~ Control Services, 'Fire Door Reliability At Issue," VOICE. October
1988.
4. Operation Sa~ Frallcisco, ~moke and'Sorinlder Tes~-Technical Re~ort. April 198~,
Pa~e 8-I, Imemational Association of F'tre Chicf~
5. Natio-,al F~re Sprinkler Association, ~
6. National F'u'e Sl:a~tkler .Association, ~
7. H.W. Marryatt, F'u-e-A~,~afle S_m-inkier pefforrmmc~ in Au~a~lia and New Zealand
~ Australian F~ Pm~ction Assoeiatioa.
8. Reedy Creek t .m!m~vement District, P.O. Box 10170, Lake Buena Vista, FL 32830,
1986 Correspondence.
9. Reedy Creek Improvement District, P. O. Box 10170, ~ Buena Vista, FL 32830,
1986 Correspondence.
10. J.L l~_.,~.ll: 'F~ecfive Local Ame~tmen~, City of Fresno, ~alilgillY.~;k~
~ August 1985, P~. 17-19.
11..IL Randall; 'F~ecfive Locsl Am~,+ments, City of Fresno, ~
12. Edward R¢illy, 'Urban Fu~ De. feme l~'nnln! A Step Beyond the Code Revolution,'
~ February 19S7, 1~. 6.
~a a ~n
~h of
14. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~{~ ~fion ~ F~- Smoke/Spd~er
Te~Tee~i~ R~
~. ~mfion ~f~ ~e~ N~l~. ~te~fio~ ~fion ~ ~e ~e~ J~u~
1989, Pg
16. R~e~
17. Edward J. Reilly, "Can Sprinkler Systems Solve Building Code Problems?"repon
prescmed to the Third Annual Fire Protection Seminar, Illinois Institute of Technology,
1989.
18. Richard E. Ritz, 'Georgia-Pacific Building, A H/gh-Rise Res/slive Office Building
With Automatic Sprinklers Installed Throughout," ~ 63 (~pt~mber 1969): 5-
9.
19. "Cost Analysis of Chicago High Rise Amendment,' report presented to Chicago
Deparunent of Buildings, Chicago, June 1974.
20. Brown and Root, Inc. ?High-Rise Cost Analysis With Automatic Sprinkler Trade
Off.g" 1976.
21.'Specdy Construction Schedules ar~ Used by Builtlln5 Planners to Oulxun Inflation,
w~ 1 July 1980.
22. 'Cost Benefit Analysis of a Multi-Use BuildlnE Complex,' address given at the
Annual Meeting of the National-Fire Protection Association, Boston, May 1980.
23. Russell P. Flewmlng, ~rlaat Cost Sprinkler Protection,'
(Patterson, New Jersey), June 1981.
24. California State Fire Marshal Residential Sprinkler Subcommittee on Insurance
Report, February 20, 1987, Sacramento, CA.