The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutORD FOR INTRODUCTION 02-... (2)DATE: February 16, 1981 ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION NO. 2 2~17v81 Inter-Corn TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and Planning Agency Members Con~nunity Development Department Smoke Detector Ordinance After review with Fire Department Prevention Officiers, some considerations were mutually agreed as follows: 1. Any smoke detector ordinance should be administered by Fire Department personnel. The proposed amendment to UBC, 1979 Edition would possibly not stand the test of the State Health and Safety Code as being necessitated by unique circumstances of geography, topography or climate. 3. To effectuate any such ordinance it would be more appropriate to amend the Uniform Fire Code 1979, Edition. 4. The Fire Code already requires annual fire inspections and such an amendement would not cause a major personnel adjustment. The primary departmental interest in this matter is the Fire Department and it should be the primary interest of the agency to propose and justify such an ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing it is recommended that Ordinance 838 be re- jected by the Council and that the Fire Department and City Attorney be directed to prepare an appropriate ordinance for adoption to implement the installation of smoke detectors within the Uniform Fire Code, 1979 Edition. Attached is a discussion paper prepared by the Fire Department concerning smoke detector installation in residential structures on a retroactive basis. Also included is a draft proposal for amendment to the Uniform Fire Code. The draft would include single family dwellings unlike the amendment proposed to the UBC as directed by council to exclude single family units. However, such mandatory installation would only occur upon a change of ownership for single families not within a static period of six months as proposed for multiple family units. Smoke Detector Ordinance February 16, 1981 Page -2- RECOMMENDATION Based on the pleasure of the council direct the ordinance amendment to be prepared~ either include or exclude single family (R-3) occupancies. The other option available to City Council would be to conclude that a mandatory retroactive smoke detector installation requirement'is not appropriate and the matter be deleted from further consideration. MB/hn Attachment PROPOSED SMOKE DETECTOR ORDINANCE FOR CITY OF TUSTIN PURPOSE To assist the Fire Depar. h'~ent toward reduction of suffering from unfriendly fire. To provide a molto fire safe environment throughout the co~,:~0nity. 1~7~ Efforts to protect the conmup/ty through education processes has not proven to be as successful as would be desired. It is felt that this is due in part to the human reaction to fime. Most persons will not allow them- selves to believe that they may experience a fire. ~ost people feel safe within the confines of their own residence. Experience has shown however, that anyone can be eod~ngered by fire. Education efforts will continue and hopefully will become more effective. However, there does appear to be the need for legislation to assist in closing the void between the effectiveness of education programs and the point where recent code req~]~rements have taken effect on new construction. FINDI~GS Residential fires account for 26% of all fires; 77% of all fire deaths; 68% of all fire injuries; 46% of dollar fire loss; and 40% Of all. fire fighter injuries. Of all residential fires, 80% occur in single family dwellings. Leading cause of fire in single family dwellings is heating appliance. Leading cause of fire in multiple family dwellings is cooking. This should conclude in the opinion that to reduce the level of hazard exposure in dwellings, especially single f~mily, would produce an overall reduction in losses due to fire. DISCUSSION One frequent concern about fire codes is that, although they are constantly being improved, they are seldom retroactive. As codes mature and latest tec]mical knowledge takes hold, buildings already constructed stay as they are. A code change usually has no significant effect until years later, after buildings following the new requirements have been built. One looming question is, should existing buildings be upgraded. The Fire Depar. bnent feels the answer should be "yes" when we deal with a matter which oould directly affect life safety. Much of the time it takes a tragic incident before juris- dictions consider codes tbmt include retrofitting provisions. ~PACT Financial impact will be negligible, probably less than $50. Some insurance carmiers grant reductions in annual premiums for structures protected with smoke detectors and this could easily offset the investment cost of the detector in a short period of time. The proposed ordinance is designed to apply only when real estate is sold and it is felt that any cost for a detector would not have any significant impact at the time of the transaction. There would be no fiD~ncial impact cost to the city as enforcement would be handled by the Fire Department as part of the contract coverage. The personal impact would be ags~n negligible as an inspection would be made solely for the purpose of ensuring proper location and operation of the detector. RECO~-~MI~DATION Adoption as proposed PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 1979 EDITION CITY OF TUSTIN ORDINANCE NO. 827 SMOKE DETECTORS Section (a) - Add the following: When there is a change in c~nership in existing Group R, Divisions 1 and 3 occupancies, the entire building shall be provided with smoke detectors located as required for New Group R, Division 1 and 3 occupancies, as req~]~red in the Uniform Building Code, 1979 Edition. (b) In all existing Group R, Division 1 occupancies the entire building shall be provided with smoke detectors located as required for New Group R, Division 1 occupancies, within six months from the adoption of the Uniform Fire Code, 1979 Edition or this an~ndment. Smoke detectors may be battery operated when installed in existing buildings. 1 6 ? 8 9 10 11 15 14 15 16 18 19 2.0 21 22 25 26 £7 28 29 50 ORDINANCE NO. 838 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ~RTICLE 8, CHAPTER 8 OF TUSTIN CITY CODE PERTAINING TO SMOKE DETECTOR INSTALLATION. The City Council of the City of Tustin, California, here- by ordains as follows: Section 1. Section 8801 of the Tustin City Code is amended by adding subsection (w) to ~ead as follows: (w) Chapte~ 17 is added to the Uniform Housing Code to read as follows: CHAPTER 17 SMOKE DETECTORS 1701. Each owner of a hotel or apartment house (any R-1 occupancy building as defined in the Uniform Hous- ing Code) as of March 17, 1981, which was constructed or recon- structed prior to February 15, 1978, shall cause to be installed on or before April 17, 1981, in each dwelling unit therein, a smoke detector as specified in Section 1210(a) of the Uniform Building Code, 1979 Edition. 1702. P~ior to April 18, 1981, each owner described in Section 1701 above, shall file with the Building Official a declaration unde~ penalty of perjury that each such dwelling unit owned by said owner has installed therein a smoke detector in compliance with Section 1201(a) of the Uniform Building Code, 1979 Edition, and that each such smoke detector is in good working order and said owner thereafter shall cause said smoke detectors to be maintained in good working order. One such filing shall be ~equired for each building. 1703. There shall be a filing for of $10.00 for each filing ~equired by Section 1702 or such other sum as may hereafter be specified from time to time by ~esolution of the City Council. --1-- 1 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 28 5O of PASSED the City AND ADOPTED at a ~egula~ meeting of of Tustin, California, held on the , 1981. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK RLL:se:D:ll/ll/80 RLL:se:R:ll/13/80 RLL:se:R:ll/13/80 RLL:se:R:12/12/80 JGR:se:R:i/7/81 DKS:se:R:i/13/81 JGR:se:R:l/29/81 JGR:se:R:i/30/81 -2- the City day Council of