HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 1 SMOKE DETECTORS 11-17-80DATE:
TO:
FROH:
SUBJECT:
November 17, 1980
Public Hearing
No. 1
11/17/80
Inter-Corn
Honorable Mayor and City Coundil Members
Mike Brotemarkle, Community Development Department
Issue of Mandatory vs. Voluntary Maintenance Inspections for
Smoke Detector Intallations.
In order to avoid City liability for a fire occurrence after the effective
date of required installation, a program to assure compliance must be incor-
porated into the amendment, Ordinance No. 838. Such maintenance inspections
are required by state law (Health & Safety Code) and where a city has insti-
gated a mandatory program of this nature, the courts have held that compliance
must be assured. As of January 1980, the city had 14,087 residential units
and pending annexations of over 2,000 additional residential units would bring
that to a possible total of approximately 16,150 units sometime in 1981.
Adoption of either version of the proposed ordinance will necessitate in-
creased building staff activity with resultant overtime and new staffing re-
quests. This would not only be an initial start-up increase in inspection
activity, but an on-going inspections program: e.g. removal of detectors by
previous tenant or owner, malfunctioning units, change for aesthetic reasons,
etc. This program could involve thousands of additional inspections per year.
In addition, many communities take this opportunity to assure other safety
conditions are met while inspection, as described in the memo of November 6,
1980. Such programs have become controversial as dangerous or illegal items
are discovered during routine inspections along with smoke detector instal-
lation. Cities such as Gardena have had packed City Council meetings by real
estate professionals, home buyers, and sellers, future apartment tenants,
etc., who, because of extensive inspection requests, over-loaded City staff,
and resultant notices of corrections cannot close escrows, are delayed in
occupancy, discover themselves out of one unit with no new unit to occupy,
etc.
Once government assumes the authority to require installation of mandatory
safety features, it also assumes the responsiblity and liability to ensure
compliance. Under our governmental and court system this often evolves into a
time-consuming, technical and procedure oriented process.
The Building Official, in preparing Ordinance No. 838, provided two alter-
natives. First, a typical mandatory ~nspection program and secondly a manda-
tory installation and inspection for smoke detectors with a voluntary mainten-
ance inspection program. The second alternative would not mean that
City Council
November 17, 1980
page 2.
visibly dangerous or illegal installations would be overlooked, but rather
that in-depth inspectional activities would not be conducted. That program'
would possibly not create the total push toward inspectional activities en-
visioned by the State Attorney General's office, but would assure installation
of smoke detectors and correction of visibly hazardous situations.
Staff of Co=~nity Development concurs with the Fire Department, that smoke
detectors are an extremely inexpensive form of life safety and should be re-
quired in all residential units. However, after considering the problems of
implementation to reach that goal, the City Council should choose the desired
ordinance format.
RECOMMENDATION:
Introduce and read by title only either Ordinance No. 838 or Ordinance No. 838
(Alternate).
DATE:
TO:
FROH:
SUB.IECT:
· November 6, 1980
Inter-Com
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members via Dan Blankenship
Mike Brotemarkle, Community Development Director
Maintenance Inspection and Smoke Detector Alarm Installation
Fire Chief Larry Holms' June I0, 1980 letter to the Honorable Council, recom-
mended fire prevention legislation. Ordinance No. 835, first reading November
3, 1980 and proposed Ordinance No. 838, if adopted, fulfills most of Chief
Holms' reconmaendations.
Proposed Ordinance No. 838 implements a maintenance inspection program and re-
quires the retroactive installation of smoke detector alarms:
1. In one- and two-family dwellings at the occasion of change of
occupants (transfer of ownership or lessee), and
2. In multiple family dwellings within six months of the effective date
of the proposed ordinance.
Over 100 completely instrumented fires conducted in actual dwellings furnished
and equipped as is the usual home, including clothes in the Closets and
blankets on the beds; confirmed past experience, explained observed fatalities
and revealed the limited escape time. These dwellings were equipped with
smoke detectors. About one minute after the smoke detector alarm sounded, the
heat, smoke, carbon monoxide, and lack of oxygen was excessive; i.e. each con-
dition could be fatal had a person been present. Experiments revealed college
students and faculty could safely evacuate a dwelling in less than a minute.
The same experiment revealed most firemen's families required over a minute to
evacuate, presumably with small children and elderly persons in their home.
The installation of smoke detector alarms'is the least expensive and most
positive means to minimize fatalities in a dwelling fire.
This proposed Ordinance No. 838 includes provisions for maintenance in-
spections which will include assuring the smoke detector alarms are in-
stalled. Maintenance inspections are not being conducted at present.
The Building Official devotes an inordinate amount of his time listening to,
investigating and abating substandard conditions reported by occupants of
apartment dwelling units. They always,relate numerous complaints which are
landlord/tenant related, however, there are always building code violations.
The apartment stock of the city is in a poor state of repair, affecting life
safety as well as a debilitating effect on the occupants and the community.
City Council
November 6, 1980
page 2.
Many people deem the Building Official's responsibility is related only to new
buildings. Court decisions and legislation indicate the range of responsi-
bility includes the conditions and maintenance of all private property in the
commnunity, both new and existing~ i.e., sanitation, health, fire and life
safety resulting from deterioration, poor or no maintenance and unpermitted
alterations, and additions, contrary to good engineering, construction and
code practices. Buildings can be in perfect code compliance when "finaled
out." In a short time, however, significant hazards can occur due to no
maintenance, poor maintenance, abuse, do-it-yourself, and handyman 'bootleg'
work. The City, through the Building Official, has a moral and legal
obligation to be cognizant and abate these conditions. Recently the state
attorney general indicated he intends to take legal action to assure all
jurisdictions have "a vigorous program of code enforcement designed to
eradicate any instance of unsafe or unsanitary rental housing."
The proper maintenance of buildings is an important function of code enforce-
ment. We have a large stock of existing dwelling structures, and with proper
care these buildings have an indefinite life. Proper maintenance is substan-
tially less expensive and expends less national resources than demolition and
rebuilding.
It is possible the Honorable Council may not be amenable to a mandatory main-
tenance inspection program. Proposed Ordinance No. 838 (Alternate) provides a
voluntary maintenance inspection progam, but a mandatory installation and in-
spection program for smoke detector alarms.
RESOLUTION NO. 80-127
1
2
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
15
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, FINDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL IN ADOPTING
AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1979 AND
UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, 1979.
WHEREAS, the City Council, in the adoption of the Uniform
Building Code, 1979, and Uniform Housing Code, proposes to adopt
Ordinance No. 835, including amendments to such codes as
permitted by Section 17958.5, Health and Safety Code;
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing, Ordinance No.
835, as required by Section 17958.7, Health and Safety Code, at
the regular meeting held October 20, 1980; November 3, 1980; and
November 17, 1980.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council, in accordance with Section
17958.7 finds the amendments to the Uniform Building Code, 1979
and Uniform Housing Code, 1979, contained in proposed Ordinance
No. 835, are in conformance with state laws and specifically
Section 17958.5, Health and Safety Code.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City
Council, held on the day of , 1980.
ATTEST:
Donald J. Saltarelli
Mayor
Mary E. Wynn
City Clerk
.~llnrll~l (6rt~era[
November 30, 1979
Mr. Dan Blankenship
City Administrator
City Center, Centennial at Main
Tustin, California 92680
DEC 1
Dear Mr. Blankenship:
~.,~ ha .... b~ity of rental housing is a matter of
public ~o .... n a~ has a direct impact on the health, welfare,
and sa~et'' of ~i:e people of this state
Tke S=ate }lousing Act (Health & Safety Code §~ 17910
et seq.; Calif. Admin. Code, Title 25), which provides for a
ccmprehenslve :;c!:eme of state and local housing codes for the
regula:ion of l~ildin~s used for human habitation, was enacted,
in part, to ensure that each tenant has safe and sanitary rental
housing. The administration and enforcement of codes relating
to the habitability of housing is the primary responsibility of
the housing department or, if there is no housing department,
the health department of every city or county (Health & Safety
Code § 17961).
Unfortunately, the continued existence of unsafe and
unsanitary rental housing in some areas of this state suggests
that local codes are not being actively or effectively enforced.
As the chief law officer of this state, with a duty to
protect the interests of the public and guarantee the enforcement
of our laws, I hereby request that your local government commence
a vigorous program of code enforcement designed to eradicate any
instances of unsafe or unsanitary rental housing which may exist
in your jurisdiction.
This request is being made to all local governments
in this state. It is my sincere hope that, through active
enforcement of housing codes, we will ensure for California's
renters safe, sanitary, and habitable housing.
Most cordially,
George Deukmejian