# CALIFORNIA TO ADOPT IRC



## FM William Burns (Jan 13, 2010)

Congratulations *Beach & JAC*

I read this morning that your state is adopting the IRC with CA amendments  



> This afternoon 3;45 PST California Building Standards Committee approved a recommendation from the office of the California State Fire Marshall to adopt the IRC with California amendments effective 1/01/2011.......it took 10 minutes and the vote was 10-0


----------



## Coug Dad (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: CALIFORNIA TO ADOPT IRC

Will that be with, or without, the sprinkler requirement for single family houses in the California amendments?


----------



## FM William Burns (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: CALIFORNIA TO ADOPT IRC

To my knowledge it is with them as modified with setbacks etc.

I'm sure Beach can add additionals when he see this.


----------



## beach (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: CALIFORNIA TO ADOPT IRC

Yep! Sprinklers in the code, modified with some concessions to keep the developers happy....

Will be interesting to see how they integrate the codes together into one....should be quite a few supplemental and errata pages for the next few years after 1/1/2011.........

All you never wanted to know about residential fire sprinklers (it's pretty interesting, actually): http://www.osfm.fire.ca.gov/pdf/firemar ... report.pdf


----------



## conarb (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: CALIFORNIA TO ADOPT IRC

I posted about it here last Thursday.

We are getting R Code numbered sections, which apparently will be bound separately, we are bringing the old applicable CBC sections into the R sections so we supposedly won't go backward, I bet that triples the size of the IRC as you know it.  Sprinklers are not being required, there will be two types of residential structures, exempt and non-exempt.  The non-exempt will be required to have sprinklers, they will get code mandated sidewards reduced to 3', among other things.  But bear in mind, not being a tract builder I've never built a home on a lot with zoning required sideyards of less than 5', in fact most custom homes I've built have sideyard requirements of 15' to 25'.  I've never seen even a tract home with zoning allowing less than 5', with the exception of some zero lot line developments in PUDs.

A better analysis would be to say that California is adopting the IRC in pursuit of the stated aim of allowing architects nationwide to design here to the national standard code sections, but those sections will be vastly different from the unamended IRC.  Sprinklers will not be required in any custom built homes, or in any homes built in AHJs with zoning ordinances requiring over 3' sideyards, the addition of sprinklers will allow developers to build homes in areas that don't have zoning requirements requiring more than 3' sideyards.

The way I see it this will not affect custom built homes, but it will allow tract builders to approach AHJs and ask them to reduce their sideyard requirements PUD-like, cram more homes into a development and sprinkle them.  Since every AHJ I'm familiar with has zoning sideyard requirements (with the exception of the City of San Francisco), this will make every tract development where the developer wants more homes per acre a PUD, in more expensive tracts where the developer wants larger sidewards sprinklers will not be required. 

The sprinklers are not a bad outcome as far as I am concerned, number one it won't affect me, and number two it will only affect poor people who need to buy cheaper homes in large tract developments. I am more concerned about learning a new code for residences-only that will look nothing like our old code, and nothing like your IRC, but when talking code here at least our section numbers will be the same, structural engineers will still dominate the process, we will still be getting steel frames in most custom homes and additions, our AHJs will still demand engineering on everything and laugh at the prescriptive code as they do now. Worse than all of this is the new Energy Code, and the fact that the Green Standards will become code, introducing all kins of toxics into the new homes, and that is going to affect me and all custom homes and additions to those homes. There will be 14-day air-flushing requirements, but the toxic gasses will come back and people will still be getting sick in new homes. We still have homes that can't be occupied in some AHJs where the Green standards were adopted by city or county ordinance, I'm dealing with one right now.


----------



## beach (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: CALIFORNIA TO ADOPT IRC

Conarb,

Is it your thinking that only houses built closer than 5' to the P/L will require sprinklers??? I think you are in for a rude awakening.....sprinklers merely ALLOW you to build closer than 5' to the P/L!! You will still be required to sprinkle your custom home with a 20' sideyard clearance!!



> Mitigation of Cost Residential fire sprinklers increases fire life-safety in the home. As a collateral benefit, fire sprinklers also often save property by confining, and sometimes extinguishing, the fire itself. This collateral benefit reduces the chance of fire extension within the home, and to adjoining exposed homes.The California Building Code required a three-foot side yard setback for homes for many years. The 2007 California Building Code increased the setback requirement to five-feet, increasing the level of safety and property protection. The existing fire loss data in California is exclusively based upon the three-foot setback data.
> 
> CAL FIRE - OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL
> 
> ...


----------



## conarb (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: CALIFORNIA TO ADOPT IRC

Beach:

This is from the 15 Day Comments:





> TABLE R302.1(2)EXTERIOR WALLS – DWELLINGS AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
> 
> WITH AUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER PROTECTION
> 
> ...


¹ http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/prp ... 15-day.pdf


----------



## beach (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: CALIFORNIA TO ADOPT IRC

Conarb,

Although it appears to be unclear, Fire sprinklers will be required on all NEW homes regardless of the setback. The sections you reference pertain to remodels/additions to EXISTING homes where sprinklers would not be required.....if the existing home does not have sprinklers, and you want to build an addition, you must maintain a five foot setback....if the existing home is sprinklered, the addition will be sprinklered also and you may then have a 3' setback.

If you refer to Section R309.6 of your link, you will see a reference regarding sprinklers for all new residential garages and carports, not garages/carports <5' from the P/L.

The bottom line is that all new residential construction will be required to have fire sprinklers regardless of the setback, period.

I can't quote a code section for obvious reasons....:http://www.osfm.fire.ca.gov/training/pdf/Fireline/firelineaugust09.pdf


----------



## conarb (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: CALIFORNIA TO ADOPT IRC

Beach:

I thought I read another section that referred to exempt and non-exempt buildings, now I can't find it.  This is tough trying to piecemeal this information together until they actually publish the codes, I guess they do it in a piecemeal fashion to make you buy the codes.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: CALIFORNIA TO ADOPT IRC

Beach,

Once again congratulations and I have not seen any amendments to R313 to exclude RFS or exempt them in new construction.

Nice to see Manny is still active out there after retirement, worked with him some to get photoluminescent egress path markings and signage into 101 and UL 1994 back in the day.  Keep up the excellent work out there


----------



## beach (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: CALIFORNIA TO ADOPT IRC

Thanks FM! We'll take the lead and let the other States follow after they see how well it works for us in Cali.     The new code books should be out in July....I'll post some excerpts for Conarb.

Manny retired??????  :mrgreen:


----------



## incognito (Jan 14, 2010)

Re: CALIFORNIA TO ADOPT IRC

Yeah, California is such a shining example of what over-regulation can do for a states bottom line.

Great idea to add more worthless requirements to an industry that is already struggling.


----------



## beach (Jan 14, 2010)

Re: CALIFORNIA TO ADOPT IRC

I would expect nothing less from your typical boorish posts......yawn.  :lol:


----------



## conarb (Jan 14, 2010)

Re: CALIFORNIA TO ADOPT IRC

Incognito:

Even if Beach's interpretation is right, and they were only referring to additions, the language is so ambiguous that I see all kinds of latitude for interpretation by CBOs without even amending the requirement out, there is even language, that I can't find again, that refers to exempt and non-exempt residential structures, but we'll apparently have to await publication to analyze the wording.


----------



## beach (Jan 14, 2010)

Re: CALIFORNIA TO ADOPT IRC

Conarb,

Consider waiting for the actual Calif. code to be available (In July, I hope), I'll scan any pertinent sections and send them to you for your perusal, if you wish. Historically, the first editions are typically full of "bugs"..... errata and supplements are sure to follow....especially with this code cycle. Cheers!


----------



## beach (Jan 14, 2010)

Re: CALIFORNIA TO ADOPT IRC

From Cal Fire:

2010 California Fire and Building Standards Adopted

Fire Codes Aimed at Reducing Fires and Protecting the Environment

Sacramento – Updated fire and building codes developed to increase fire resistance in buildings

and homes across California will take effect in January 2011. The new codes, which will be

enforced by CAL FIRE’s Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) and fire and building

departments throughout the state, bring California in line with the 2009 International Building,

Fire, and Residential Code. The new codes were adopted by the California Building Standards

Commission.

“Providing an enhanced fire safe environment is important as we promote a sustainable living

and working environment,” said Acting State Fire Marshal Tonya Hoover. “The reduction of fire

not only protects our residents but also enhances our environment and business community.

These standards will increase fire safety and awareness in communities throughout California.”

Each year wildfires char thousands of acres and destroy hundreds, even thousands, of homes in

California. A portion of the newly adopted codes focus on regulations for homes built in the

wildland-urban interface in order to make them more ember resistant, increasing structure

survivability. Additional amendments relate to tire storage, dry cleaning, and automatic

extinguishing systems.

A key component in the 2010 code adoption is the addition of residential fire sprinklers in all

new one and two family and town-home construction. For many years, installation of fire

sprinkler systems has only been required in office buildings and multi-family dwellings like

apartments. These sprinkler systems are proven to save lives and extinguish fires. More than 100

jurisdictions in California already have a local residential fire sprinkler ordinance.

For more information about fire and building codes in your community, contact your local fire

department or building department. Information concerning fire and panic safety can also be

obtained by visiting the CAL FIRE – OSFM Web site http://osfm.fire.ca.gov.

To review all of the new codes to take effect in 2011, visit www.bsc.ca.gov

# # #


----------



## beach (Jan 20, 2010)

Re: CALIFORNIA TO ADOPT IRC

California's new res. code..... See Section R313 (Page 22) for sprinklers.

http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/prp ... _Pt2.5.pdf


----------



## Alias (Jan 20, 2010)

Re: CALIFORNIA TO ADOPT IRC

Beach -

Thanks for posting the link.  This should get interesting where I'm located, 75% of the properties are on a private well and septic system and most are in the SRA.

Sue, in the only LRA in the county


----------



## conarb (Jan 20, 2010)

Re: CALIFORNIA TO ADOPT IRC

Sue:

Note that what Beach has posted is not the adopted code, but the INITIAL EXPRESS TERMS FOR PROPOSED BUILDING STANDARDS OF THE OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL (SFM) REGARDING THE ADOPTION BY REFERENCE OF THE 2009 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE (IRC) WITH AMENDMENTS INTO THE 2010 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS TITLE 24, PART 2.5

At this point there is no way to know what has been actually adopted by Building Standards until they publish it, it could go all the way from _carte blanche_ granting of the State Fire Marshals' proposal to all kinds of deletions and amendments, I do know that there are some exempt structures, Beach claims that they are just additions to non-sprinkled buildings, but we don't know yet.

In the home that I have under design the fire marshal demanded sprinklers, we have gotten around the requirement so far, but it is on a well and they were requiring three 5,000 gallon holding tanks with total costs running around $30 square foot, that might fly in Silicon Valley where building costs average $500 to $1,000 a foot, but not in Alturas.  Better be prepared to submit a proposal to Building Standards to exempt your area due to local conditions if this really goes through.  I've talked to Building Standards and they don't even review local code amendments, they just check for the formalities and file them away, if you need the proper form language to exempt you area I'll see if I can find it for you.


----------



## beach (Jan 20, 2010)

Re: CALIFORNIA TO ADOPT IRC

Conarb,

I'm sure you will be in denial until you actually see the code book, but I guarantee you that what I posted will be in the code.



> R313.2 One- and two-family dwellings automatic fire sprinkler systems. Effective January 1, 2011, aAnautomatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one- and two- family dwellings.
> 
> Exception: An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required for additions or alterations to
> 
> existing buildings that are not already provided with an automatic residential sprinkler system


Show me the exemptions besides "Additions or alterations to Existing non-sprinklered Residences....."


----------



## kilitact (Jan 23, 2010)

Re: CALIFORNIA TO ADOPT IRC

conarb wrote;



> The sprinklers are not a bad outcome as far as I am concerned, number one it won't affect me, and number two it will only affect poor people who need to buy cheaper homes in large tract developments.


Appears to be a condescending statement, but yea; isn’t that the way it usually works, us poor folk end up dancing for you’ll rich folks extravaganzas.  :lol:  :lol:


----------



## conarb (Jan 23, 2010)

Re: CALIFORNIA TO ADOPT IRC



			
				Kilitact said:
			
		

> Appears to be a condescending statement, but yea; isn’t that the way it usually works,


Just so all get my message, it's that it's going to be the poor and middle classes that get stuck with these code mandates selling toxic products, because of green codes we already have homes that can't be occupied because of high formaldehyde levels, becasue or energy codes we have people pumping in outside air heating and cooling the great outdoors, and because of fire sprinklers it's going to be both the rich and poor who pay the increased insurance rates, and have their homes torn down becasue of mold due to inadvertent release, if the code is published in line with Beach's interpretation. I guess we can all move to Texas and the other states who have deleted the requirement.   

Apparently these are the only "free states" left>


----------



## beach (Jan 23, 2010)

Re: CALIFORNIA TO ADOPT IRC



> I guess we can all move to Texas and the other states who have deleted the requirement.


Problem solved!!!! That should take care of our overpopulation problem, too! I finally agree with you, Conarb.


----------

