HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 AMEND'S UFC 05-17-82DATE: May 17, 1982
REPORTS
5-17-82
Inter -Corn
TO:
Honorable Mayor & City Council
Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Possible Amendments to the Uniform Fire Code, 1979 Edition
DISCUSSION
Our contract agent, the Orange County Fire Department, has previously made
recommendations regarding preventive measures to safeguard life and
property improvements from fire storm conditions such as recently witnessed
in Anaheim. The primary land use affected is residential and the
preventive measures cover three areas:
1. Installation of Smoke Detectors
2. Restrictions on Wood Roof Coverings
3. Residential Sprinkler Systems
The two main areas of concern have been cost effectiveness and retroactive
imposition of such requirements. All provisions proposed would be the
administrative responsibility of the Fire Department. We will discuss each
area separately for more in-depth Council consideration.
Smoke Detectors: This requirement would be highly cost-effective and
accomplish the most in protecting life safety. The County proposal,
previously considered by the Council, would have mandated smoke detectors
in new structures (already required) by the Uniform Building Code, but in
addition, required all single-family homes (R3 Occupancy) to install
detectors upon sale or transfer of ownership and apartments/condominiums
(R10ccupany) to be retro fitted within six months. The cost for even
large residential structures would not exceed $60.00 per unit. Some public
opposition arose during consideration of this ordinance as to the
retroactive concern including the mandatory inspections, adverse impact on
escrow closings, attempting to impose common sense by regulation and the
on-going enforcement of such installations, especially in apartments.
Further, the question of City liability arose that if a tenant or owner
removed the detector, or it failed to function property, would the City be
held liable for a loss incurred? Based on such concerns, the ordinance
failed; but the Council reserved the right to review the issue at a future
date.
Mayor & City Council
Uniform Fire Code Amendments
Page 2
Wood Roof Coverings: Currently, State legislation has been proposed which
would m~ndate fire retardent roof coverings at a minimum. This would ban
"untreated" wood coverings. In the opinion of may fire officials, treated
wood m~terial is not effective in the long-term because coatings or
impregnations of wood with fire retardent tend to break down over time.
Another option considered by some jurisdictions is to ban wood roof
coverings altogether in favor of asphalt, tile, light-weight concrete or
other non-combustible material. Opposition from industry sources contend
that such would do little to enhance life safety and would place a new cost
of up to $2,000.00 on construction of a residence (Building Industry
Association estimate based on a 2,000 square foot home with garage). Some
argue that any retro-fit requirement would unduly affect appearance or
value of homes; however, even though more expensive, such materials can
effectively simulate a wood appearance. This approach, as might be
suspected, is supported by groups such as the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers
Assocation.
The current Uniform Building Code requires non-combustible underlay for
construction of new R1 (group) occupancies of specified sizes (duplexes,
triplexes, and such smaller structures would be excluded). Fire officials
do not believe this solves the problem associated with ignition of material
and high winds. They also contend that alternative materials are available
to wood at the same or lower prices.
The most common approach to effectuating this provision is to ban wood roof
coverings on all new construction and require that any re-roofing of
existing structures be non-wood when the re-roofing amounts to fifty
percent or more of the roof area. Staff has long recognized that a ban of
wood materials will be necessary for development of the Irvine lands in
fire-sensitive brush areas which will constitute a major portion of new
construction.
Residential Fire Sprinklers: This is an emerging area which staff has
worked with the fire department on the plans for new residential
construction and is appropriate in areas where pressures are lower than
standard for conventional fire suppression activities. It is not an
alternative measure but an additional measure to work in combination with
detectors and alternative roof coverings. It is appropriate to new
construction but not residential retro-fit. The primary opposition to such
is the increased cost in sales price or rental fee for new units. Staff has
expected that along with a wood covering ban, residential sprinkler systems
will be required in fire-sensitive areas of the Peters Canyon annexation.
Mayor & City Council
Uniform Fire Code Amendments
Page 3
OPTIO#S
After review, the Council may choose to reject or select some or all of the
proposals for inclusion into the 1979 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code. If
the Council chooses to amend the code, the City Attorney and Prevention
Bureau of the Orange County Fire Department could be directed to prepare
amendments as follows, or in a form the Council may direct:
1. Require mandatory smoke detectors in all residential occupancies based
on trasnfer of ownership for single-family homes (R30ccupany), and a
fixed time unit for apartments and condominiums which will not affect
escrow closures, incur unsecured liability and shall minimize
administrative activities through use of sworn owner statements, etc.
2. Ban wood roof coverings on all new construction of residential units and
require non-wood re-roofing only when an owner proposed to re-roof fifty
percent or more of the roof area within a specified time.
3. Require residential sprinkler system in specified geographic areas for
new construction because of fire-sensitive area or low potential to
suppress fire with conventional suppression methods.
MWB:jh
5-6-82