# cities to consider also requiring remodeled homes to be retrofitted with fire sprinkl



## mark handler (Mar 26, 2011)

Published: March 24, 2011

Fire officials went to most Orange County cities and asked them to consider also requiring remodeled homes to be retrofitted with fire sprinklers.

Plan for sprinklers fizzles for fire agencyBy SALVADOR HERNANDEZ

THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

County fire officials didn't expect such a fight. But these weren't flames. It was politics.

"For over 20 years, we've been going back and forth," said Laura Blaul, assistant chief and fire marshal of the Orange County Fire Authority.

Fire agencies across the country have campaigned for years to have sprinklers required in newly built homes. On Jan. 1, the state's new fire and building code went into effect and mandated the sprinklers in new homes. But Fire Authority officials wanted to go a step further.

Fire officials went to most Orange County cities and asked them to consider also requiring remodeled homes to be retrofitted with fire sprinklers. The sprinklers, fire officials argued, would reduce the number of deaths and damage to homes during fires.

But the request was met with resistance in several cities. In a county that prides itself on a laissez-faire attitude about government regulations and businesses, fire officials said they faced an uphill battle in their petition, despite the arguments they made on safety. Prepared to discuss the benefits and costs of installing the fire sprinklers, several city councils instead debated the intrusion of government regulations on private homeowners.

"So we didn't get a heck of a lot," Blaul said.

For opponents of the measure, the added requirement would increase costs to construction and possibly deter homeowners from remodeling homes, hindering a construction industry already hurting in the fragile economy.

"For a number of years, we've been opposed to it," said Bryan Starr, chief executive officer of the Orange County Chapter of the Building Industry Association of Southern California.

POLITICS AND MONEY

Since late 2010, county fire officials approached 22 city councils. Under their proposed rules, remodeled homes that added 1,000 square feet to the property and one-third to the total floor space would have to add fire sprinklers as well.

The results were mixed.

Seven Orange County cities adopted the provisions. Nine city councils rejected them.

Some city council members were concerned about driving up remodeling costs. According to Fire Authority estimates they received from local contractors, adding fire sprinklers to a remodeled home would cost about $1.18 to $2 a square foot. But according to Building Industry Association estimates, the costs could run up to $5 a square foot.

"That's significant," Starr said, adding that the work needed to add the sprinklers, including demolition and unforeseeable work in some homes, could drive costs higher.

In response to Fire Authority efforts, the building trade group sent letters to council members expressing opposition.

"Our concern is that the risks will dominate homeowners' cost/benefit analysis and prevent them from moving forward on remodeling projects," one of the letters read. "The obvious fallout for our remodeler members is further decline in work."

The building group didn't send representatives to the council meetings, Starr said.

"We didn't think we had to," he said. "I think we were in line with what many of the councils were thinking."

For some city leaders, however, the issue was not money but political philosophy.

"The question is what we as a governing body will mandate," said Frank Ury, Mission Viejo councilman. "I see this as an initial encroachment to further tell people what to do."

His colleague Cathy Schlicht echoed his comments during a recent council meeting.

"I don't want to take away safety from anybody, but it should be an option," she said. "I think it's overkill. I think it should be an option to homeowners."

Council members didn't just reject the Fire Authority's proposal for remodeled homes in Mission Viejo, but voted in a symbolic move to remove any local requirement for sprinklers in homes, including new ones.

Under state guidelines, the homes would still require the sprinklers in new homes.

Similar conversations took place in other council meetings.

In Tustin, council members also said they were in favor of higher safety, but did not want to over-regulate.

Banning smoking at night, or barbecues and fire pits, would also create a safer environment, but Tustin Councilman John Nielsen said he wanted residents to be independent.

"I kind of wrestled with this but I think that is the common-sense choice," he said during the January meeting, when the council voted against the county fire recommendations and adopted the state guidelines.

THE MESSAGE

For county fire officials, the strategy from now on is clear, OCFA's Blaul said.

"I think we have to get the public to want it," she said.

Blaul touts the benefits of fire sprinklers in reducing damage and deaths in residential fires. According to an agency study of fires from 2004 to 2009, homes with sprinklers sustained 60 percent less damage than those without them.

In 1,529 residential fires, those without sprinklers had about $83,000 in damage on average; those with sprinklers, about $34,000.

Part of the problem is that getting information to the public about the benefits is difficult to do, said Battalion Chief Kris Concepcion. While wildfires garner media attention, and alert homeowners to the benefit of clearing brush outside their homes, sprinklers get little attention. The damage difference is seen to be minimal, and homeowners sometimes don't see the benefit.

In three years, the state's fire and building code will again be renewed and sent to cities to be adopted into their ordinances.

But before then, Blaul said, fire officials are hoping to convince homeowners that sprinklers are a benefit.

Contact the writer: shernandez@ocregister.com or 949-454-7361


----------



## Mark K (Mar 26, 2011)

Given the limitations on local jurisdictions in California amending the building code what gives the local jurisdiction the authority to mandate sprinklers be  installed in portions of the existing residence?


----------



## mark handler (Mar 26, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> Given the limitations on local jurisdictions in California amending the building code what gives the local jurisdiction the authority to mandate sprinklers be  installed in portions of the existing residence?


Based on fire department response times and rolling “closings” of station houses, due to cuts


----------



## Mark K (Mar 26, 2011)

That may be the reason they believe it is justified but they still have to comply with the criteria defined in the code.

The following provision came from the California Fire Code  but the CBC has similar language.

1.1.8.1 Findings and filings.

1. The city, county, or city and county shall make express findings for each amendment, addition or deletion based upon climatic, topographical or geological conditions.

The necessary findings do not mention response times or level of fire department staffing.  I suggest that the local jurisdictions do not have the legal authority to make the proposed changes.


----------



## incognito (Mar 28, 2011)

Wow big surprise. Now that they have sprinklers required in new homes they are trying to push them into remodel/rehab projects. NAHB and responsible code officials saw this from the beginning of the whole RFS fight.


----------



## conarb (Mar 28, 2011)

Incognito:

After the fiasco in Minneapolis when the guy on the podium was imploring the firefighters to sit down and vote for the remaining items which had to do with firefighter safety, another guy got up and told the cheering throng that now that they had the mandate for new homes they were going to go after a sprinkler mandate for every home in America. Just think of the money that would bring into the coalition.


----------



## beach (Mar 28, 2011)

Based on square footage added, etc. we've been doing that here for over twenty years....


----------



## Alias (Mar 28, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> That may be the reason they believe it is justified but they still have to comply with the criteria defined in the code.The following provision came from the California Fire Code but the CBC has similar language.
> 
> 1.1.8.1 Findings and filings.
> 
> ...


No mention of response times but I think they could stretch the climatic (Santa Ana Winds) and topographic and pass an amendment on that basis.  And let me add that that wouldn't surprise me.

Just my $.02.


----------



## Mark K (Mar 28, 2011)

I would argue that the climatic conditions would have to be outside of the normal range for the rest of the state and that the amendment addresses the higher risk.  While Santa Anna winds might be argued as unusual, even though they apply to a significant part of southern california, it is not clear how sprinklers on the interior of the building reduces fires risk resulting from hot dry winds.  Interior sprinklers would not prevent the roof or side walls catching on fire.  Let us see the statistics.

Topography might be legit if there was something unique about the topography of the affected buildings.  This argument falls apart when you require sprinklers at all locations in the county including flat sites in urban areas.


----------



## Alias (Mar 28, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> I would argue that the climatic conditions would have to be outside of the normal range for the rest of the state and that the amendment addresses the higher risk. While Santa Anna winds might be argued as unusual, even though they apply to a significant part of southern california, it is not clear how sprinklers on the interior of the building reduces fires risk resulting from hot dry winds. Interior sprinklers would not prevent the roof or side walls catching on fire. Let us see the statistics.Topography might be legit if there was something unique about the topography of the affected buildings. This argument falls apart when you require sprinklers at all locations in the county including flat sites in urban areas.


Mark -

Agree with you.  For those of us who live in SRAs, exterior sprinklers pointed at the house makes more sense to me!


----------



## permitguy (Mar 28, 2011)

> While Santa Anna winds might be argued as unusual, even though they apply to a significant part of southern california, it is not clear how sprinklers on the interior of the building reduces fires risk resulting from hot dry winds. Interior sprinklers would not prevent the roof or side walls catching on fire.


They may contain a house fire, keeping it from becoming a wildfire.

Regardless of how, the sprinkler mandate for new homes isn't new for much of Orange County.  If it was somehow illegitimate, my guess is it would have been overturned years ago.


----------



## peach (Mar 29, 2011)

I'd argue that even though they got mandated into the code, since many states and local jurisdictions are amending it out why waste the energy getting them in for additions?  The masses are starting to speak.


----------



## permitguy (Mar 29, 2011)

I believe the jurisdiction in the OP has had the mandate in effect for several years.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 29, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> I believe the jurisdiction in the OP has had the mandate in effect for several years.


The OCFA, Provides fire and emergency services to 22 cities in Orange County CA.

One of the cities has required sprinklers in all new construction for over twenty years.


----------



## peach (Mar 29, 2011)

One jurisdiction in one state... with probably a good reason for it... the requirement is being rejected by many others (I won't say most... I say many).


----------



## beach (Mar 29, 2011)

Deleted the post.............


----------



## incognito (Mar 30, 2011)

peach said:
			
		

> One jurisdiction in one state... with probably a good reason for it... the requirement is being rejected by many others (I won't say most... I say many).


I would say most--as in vast majority--are rejecting RFS's. Quick, in 30 days or less, name all jurisdictions that have adopted the 2009 IRC and are for the FIRST TIME now requiring RFS. Supporters of RFS are losing and losing big time from coast to coast and the best they can do is blame it on "politics". Well guess what fire guys, you are not losing because of "politics"!! Commonsense is winning and the public is discovering the truth about your fictitious "facts".


----------



## permitguy (Mar 30, 2011)

> One jurisdiction in one state... with probably a good reason for it... the requirement is being rejected by many others (I won't say most... I say many).


I don't think he meant to suggest that only one jurisdiction in Orange County had the sprinkler mandate prior to the state-wide mandate.  He was only pointing out the fact that one jurisdiction had their mandate in effect for decades prior.  In the article cited in the OP, the retrofit requirement would have been more of a gradual progression for them.



> Supporters of RFS are losing and losing big time from coast to coast and the best they can do is blame it on "politics".


It's as if you think we considered the code change to be the end of the story, rather than the beginning.  Sorry, but a very delusional few actually thought that.  If we're still in this position 20 years from now, your gloating will be appropriate.


----------



## beach (Mar 30, 2011)

> It's as if you think we considered the code change to be the end of the story, rather than the beginning. Sorry, but a very delusional few actually thought that. If we're still in this position 20 years from now, your gloating will be appropriate.


So true......

"

Years ago, residential fire sprinklers were not even a thought in most home builders’ minds. But now, more than 40 years after the first residential fire sprinkler ordinances were passed in San Clemente and Corte Madera, Calif., fire sprinklers are gaining ground in municipalities and developments across the country.

Having long been known as a state with progressive legislation, California remains the leader in residential fire sprinkler protection with *nearly 150 local* *jurisdictions that have ordinances*. In addition, California was one of the first states to pass the 2009 International Residential Code, which includes fire sprinklers. Other states include Maryland, Pennsylvania and South Carolina."

Ok, now start the typical, juvenile, CA bashing........


----------



## Yikes (Mar 30, 2011)

First of all, I don't think that a municpal code requiring residential sprinklers is regarded as a "change" to the building code.  I think it is regarding in addition to / separate from the adoption of the IBC.  (Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here.)

Second, many of the beach communities in So Cal were the first to adopt residential sprinkler requirements because summertime traffic jams and illegal parking made quick response difficult.

Third, mark handler is exactly right: our state government budget crisis is putting tremendous pressure on municipalities to reduce emergency personnel and facilities expenses.  This may delay response time, and the only way such delays are acceptable to NFPA is to enact a sprinkler ordinance.

Last comment: the reason California was first to pass the new IRC was because we had failed to pass the 2006 IRC years ago.  We were not really progressive; the last train left the station without us, so now it just happens to look like we were early for the next train.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Mar 30, 2011)

"According to an agency study of fires from 2004 to 2009, homes with sprinklers sustained 60 percent less damage than those without them. In 1,529 residential fires, those without sprinklers had about $83,000 in damage on average; those with sprinklers, about $34,000."

I don't see any mention of deaths in non-sprinklered homes.

I thought life safety was the reason for the IBC & IRC requiring sprinklers in residences.  Now they're using property damage as the reason to extend the requirement.  Since NFPA 13R & D sprinklers are designed for life safety, does this mean that full NFPA 13 systems will be necessary?


----------



## Mark K (Mar 30, 2011)

The suggestion that the sprinkler requirement is seperate from the adoption of the building code is grasping at straws.  The fact that the requirement is placed in the IRC and that the IBC has previously addressed sprinklers suggests otherwise.

If we look at home sprinklers from an economic perspective using the data provided above and assume that installing sprinklers costs $1,000 sprinklers would be justified if 1 in 49 residences had a fire.  It seems that the frequency of home fires is much less.  Thus it does not appear that this requirement is based on economics.


----------



## Yikes (Mar 30, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> The suggestion that the sprinkler requirement is seperate from the adoption of the building code is grasping at straws.  The fact that the requirement is placed in the IRC and that the IBC has previously addressed sprinklers suggests otherwise.


CBC Chapter 1, section 1.8.6, "Local Modification by Ordinance or Regulation", 1.8.6.2:

"Nothing in this section shall limit the authority of fire protection districts pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 13869. 7( a)."

13869. 7(a) "Any fire protection district organized pursuant to Part 2.7 (commencing with Section 13800) of Division 12 may adopt building standards relating to fire and panic safety that are more stringent than those building standards adopted by the State Fire Marshal and contained in the California Building Standards Code. For these purposes, the district board shall be deemed a legislative body and the district shall be deemed a local agency..."


----------



## Mark K (Mar 30, 2011)

The section you quoted supports my position that the sprinkler requirement would be a building code requirement.

H&S Section 13869.7(a) further states that any local modifications must be subject to Section 18941.5(b) which envokes Section 17958.7 which in turn states that the jurisdiction "..shall make an express finding that such modifications or changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions"

Furthermore Section 13869.7(e) states:-

(e) Nothing in this section shall authorize a district to mandate, nor prohibit a district from mandating, the retrofitting of existing dwelling units for the installation of residential fire sprinkler systems, including, but not limited to, manufactured homes as defined in Section 18007.

Thus as a minimum the local jurisdiction must make certain findings which previous postings on this thread suggest are not justified.  In addition if the sprinkler requirement related to remodeling is considered a retrofit then they clearly do not have that authority.


----------



## permitguy (Mar 30, 2011)

I don't authorize you to mandate something, but I don't prohibit you from mandating it, either?

Brilliant.


----------



## Yikes (Mar 30, 2011)

The traffic issue I mentioned is a very real problem for emergency responders in beach communities.  Whether the local officals made the tenuous connection between this and their climate and topography (which attracts all that traffic to the beach) in establishing their sprinkler requirements, I don't know.

permitguy - the mandate verbiage paraphrased: "I can neither confirm nor deny".


----------



## beach (Mar 30, 2011)

I don't believe it was traffic related, there are a number of cities that are not affected by beach traffic that have had sprinkler requirements for new and remodeled homes for quite a while. The "remodeled" or in some instances "re-constructed" sprinkler requirement kicks in depending on square footage added or extent of "re-construction".


----------

