SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FIRE PREVENTION OFFICER’S

FIRE CODE COMMITTEE

August 5, 2004 

In Attendance:

Daniel Bak - MD Fire Safety

Laura Blaul - Orange County Fire

Janet Baylor - Anaheim Fire

Mark Dossett - San Diego Fire

Tim Freistroffer - San Diego Fire

Ian MacDonald- Orange Fire

Robert Nolan - Brea Fire

Jim Pettigrew - Ontario Fire

Kevin Scott - Kern County Fire

Status Reports

AB 2065

The bill was put in suspense by Senate Appropriations on Wednesday (yesterday). We need to talk/meet with Senators on the Approps Committee ASAP and get info to them about true costs to retrofit homes with fire sprinklers. The opposition, including State Dept of Social Services, is quoting $10 – $12K. Get them real numbers and info on benefits so we can get the bill off the suspense calendar.

The draft regs and "briefing" paper we worked on last month is being distributed and used by proponents. The regs were slightly revised during this meeting (see attached). Others revised the issue paper before distribution – it’s better (attached).

SFM

Our petition regarding Adult Day Care Regs was received and accepted by SFM. They revised the document and, unfortunately, did not involve us in the process. We will have an opportunity to comment during the public comment period before it goes to the CBSC.

We didn’t hear anything back on the other proposed revisions we submitted that would have cleaned up discrepancies between T-19 and T-24 Part 9.

We decided to remain silent on the bedridden regs drafted for AB 1896…hopefully unnecessary if AB 2065 passes.

Action

Laura re-capped the July 28 CalChief BOD meeting relative to the code issue and distributed relevant excerpts from the minutes (she attended the one-day meeting). The Chiefs have asked for a short presentation (10 minute or less) on implementation issues related to adoption of NFPA codes. The focus should be what we’ve discovered since July 29, 2003 when the CBSC made the decision and what we think we’ll need to implement. Cost and time/complexity are the largest factors, although a number of others were identified. Laura will type up for comment. The presentation will be brief with a one-page handout on issues and a couple attachments (FPO action to date, tech committees and funding needs, policy stuff discussed with NFPA and resolution). The old list was reviewed and pending issues identified. Laura will draft and send out for comment.

Ian distributed copies of the amendment package to NFPA 1 adopted by the City of Las Vegas. They also adopted the IBC, as need the rest of the State. The SFM and other cities adopted the IFC. Business groups in the city are unhappy and a committee is being formed to address their issues. Ian will follow-up.

Laura brought the amendment package to NFPA 5000 done by Phoenix. They never adopted it and are now working on the ICC code set. Laura will follow-up on the reasons.

Respectfully submitted,

Laura Blaul, Co-Chair

EXPRESS TERMS

OF

PROPOSED BUILDING STANDARDS

OF THE

STATE FIRE MARSHAL (SFM)

REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

TO THE 2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE,

CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 24, PART 2

RELATING TO FIRE PROTECTION IN ADULT RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES AND RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES FOR THE ELDERLY

Legend for Express Terms:

• The proposed SFM amendments are shown as Italic font and underlined.

• The repealed text that is proposed by the SFM is shown as single strikeout.

CHAPTER 1 – ADMINISTRATIVE

SECTION 101-TITLE, PURPOSE AND SCOPE

101.17.14 SFM-Office of the State Fire Marshal.

Any building or structure used or intended for use as an asylum, jail, mental hospital, hospital, home for the elderly, children's nursery, children's home or institution, school or any similar occupancy of any capacity.

Any theater, dance hall, skating rink, auditorium, assembly hall, meeting hall, nightclub, fair building, or similar place of assemblage where 50 or more persons may gather together in a building, room or structure for the purpose of amusement, entertainment, instruction, deliberation, worship, drinking or dining, awaiting transportation, or education.

Authority Cited-Health and Safety Code Section xxxx

Reference-Health and Safety Code Section xxxx

NOTE: The specific statutes authorizing the SFM to propose this amendment to section xxx as shown above relating to Group R, Division 2 Occupancies is as follows:

• Health and Safety Code section xxx

• Health and Safety Code section xxx

Chapter 3

310.9.1 Smoke detectors.

310.9.1.1 General. Dwelling units, congregate residences and hotel or lodging house guest rooms that are used for sleeping purposes shall be provided with smoke detectors. Detectors shall be installed in accordance with the approved manufacturer's instructions. [For SFM] Smoke alarms in Group R Division 2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.3.1 and Group R, Division 6 occupancies shall be electrically interconnected so as to cause all smoke alarms to sound a distinctive alarm signal upon actuation of any single smoke alarm. Such alarm signals shall be audible throughout the facility at a minimum level of 15 db above ambient noise level. These devices need not be interconnected to any other fire alarm device, have a control panel, or be electrically supervised or provided with emergency power. 

Chapter 9

904.2.10 [For SFM] Group R, Division 2 Occupancies. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in Group R, Division 2 Occupancies. For Group R, Division 2.1.1 and 2.2.1 occupancies licensed as adult residential facilities and residential care facilities for the elderly. The exceptions below do not apply. See 904.2.10.1.

EXCEPTIONS: 1. Group R, Divisions 2.1.1 and 2.2.1 Occupancies not housing bedridden clients and not exceeding two stories in height or not housing bedridden clients and not housing nonambulatory clients above the first story.

2. When Group R, Divisions 2.1.1, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1 Occupancies are required to have an automatic sprinkler system, an NFPA 13R or 13D system may be used within the scope of those standards. Section 2-6 of NFPA 13R or 13D shall not apply unless approved by the authority having jurisdiction.

3. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 13113, Division 2.2 Occupancies housing ambulatory children only, none of whom are mentally ill or mentally retarded, and the buildings or portions thereof in which such children are housed are not more than two stories in height, and buildings or portions thereof housing such children have an automatic fire alarm system activated by detectors responding to products of combustion other than heat.

4. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 13143.6, Division 2 Occupancies which house ambulatory persons only, none of whom is a child (under the age of 18 years), or who is elderly (65 years of age or over).

904.2.10.1 [For SFM] Group R Division 2.1.1 and 2.2.1 Occupancies. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in all Group R, Division 2.1.1 and 2.2.1 occupancies licensed as adult residential facilities and residential care facilities for the elderly. A NFPA 13R or 13D system may be used in Group R2.1.1 and 2.2.1 occupancies.

Exception 1: Facilities having a valid license as of December 31, 2005 shall have installed and maintained on and after January 1, 2010,

• Every facility for which a license in newly issued on or after January 1, 2006,

904.2.10.2 [For SFM]

904.2.10.1.2 [For SFM] Group R, Divisions 2.3 and 2.3.1 Occupancies. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in Group R, division 2.3 and 2.3.1 occupancies. Residential or quick-response standard sprinklers shall be used in sleeping rooms. An automatic sprinkler system meeting the requirements of NFPA 13 shall be installed in all Group R, Division 2.3 Occupancies.

A NFPA 13R or 13D system may be used in Group R-2.3.1 occupancies.

Chapter 10

1007.6.3.2 Exit arrangements.

1007.6.3.2.1 Exiting through adjoining dwelling units shall not be permitted.

1007.6.3.2.2 In Divisions 2.1.1, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1 Occupancies which are of nonrated construction, bedrooms used by nonambulatory clients shall have access to at least one of the required exits which shall conform to one of the following:

Exits through a corridor/hallway or area and into a bedroom (in the immediate area) which has an exit directly to the exterior. Bedroom doors used as exits shall have exit signs complying with Section 1003.2.8.

Through a corridor/hallway (serving the sleeping area which exits directly to the exterior).

Direct exit from the bedroom to the exterior.

Exit through an adjoining bedroom which exits to the exterior.

Exception: Group R Division 2.1.1 and 2.2.1 Occupancies protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system in accordance with section 904.2.10.1.

The Anchor Guest Home Fire and Life Safety Act

AB 2065 (Nakano)

In 1991, two elderly citizens died in a residential care home in Costa Mesa. In 2002, three more seniors died while struggling to reach nearby exits during a late night fire at the Anchor Guest Home in Torrance. The next year another senior died in the city of Auburn. These six or less client care homes are found in residential neighborhoods across California. Without AB 2065, fires in these residential settings will continue to claim lives………..…. AB 2065 will save lives!

Contrary to arguments by opponents that this bill is discriminatory, not necessary, and will impose a costly burden to homeowners thereby forcing residents to the streets, AB2065 is really about increased personal safety for our seniors and real benefits for the care home operator.

• AB 2065 discriminates against residential care facilities

These facilities are not like standard single-family homes.

• These homes are licensed by the State and required to install additional exit doors, ramps, manual fire alarms, etc. None of this is required for single-family homes.
• These additions are little comfort in the case of a fire when residents are physically restrained, disabled or suffering from dementia or Alzheimer’s.
• Our senior population is growing rapidly. The chances of dying in a licensed residential care home are 40 times higher than in the typical single family home.
• This bill provides flexibility with a high degree of safety that allows clients to remain in the residential setting and "age in place" as they transition from ambulatory to bedridden status without the trauma of transfer to a nursing home.

• AB 2065 will impose a cost of over $10,000 dollars per home.

Estimates by licensed contractors show a cost of $3,000.

• The average cost to protect an existing single story home of 1,800-2,000 square feet is less than $2.00 per square feet (cost of new carpet).
• Sprinklers may eliminate the need for more costly items such as exit and access modifications etc., thereby reducing inherent costs in converting to a care home.
• Existing homes will have until 2010 to provide fire sprinkler protection allowing the cost to be amortized over 5 years (approximately $60 / month).

• "IF I HAD HAD FIRE SPRINKLERS IN PLACE, RESIDENT INJURIES WOULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED . . ." (Winifred Wilson, Owner of Costa Mesa RCFE where two residents died in a fire.)

• Residential care owners need incentives

• Liability and property loss issues are dramatically reduced. A home protected by fire sprinkler systems can receive a permanent reduction up to 20 percent annually for insurance.
• Additionally, these installations are fully tax deductible as a business expense and can be financed similar to any equity loan for improvements to your home.
• Federal bill HR1824 will revise the Internal Revenue Code to allow full depreciation of the cost of a fire sprinkler system at 5 years rather than 29 years.
• Sprinklered homes become eligible for federal Medicare and Medicaid monies.

Future California Codes

FPO Participation

July 2004 Update

Oct 2002 – May 2003 FPOs study NFPA and ICC codes at CFCA request

May 14, 2003 FPOs present recommendation to CFCA Exec Board

June 2, 2003 CFCA publicizes position on codes (FLSBSAB)

June – July 2003 FPOs silent on issue

July 29, 2003 CBSC decision on NFPA codes

August, 2003 FPOs document a list of adoption issues

Aug/Sept 2003 FPOs meet with NFPA on technical issues

Sept/Oct 2003 FPOs meet with CFCA on policy issues; request letter sent to SFM on issues and need for FPO involvement

Nov 2003 Discussion w/SFM on timeline for draft amendments

FPOs identify appointments to SFM task group

Jan 2004 CFCA lists as ongoing issue and assigns to FPOs (Dixon)

Jan – March 2004 FPOs meet with NFPA on policy issues

NFPA Provides Training class (code Overview)

SFM announces no task group – use stakeholder review

FPOs organize into workgroups to address SFM draft

March 2004 SFM informs no draft available; new date of Nov ’04

SoCal FPO meeting with NFPA & SFM on process

April 2004 SoCal FPO study occ groups for necessary amendments

May 2004 SFM requests assistance with annual rulemaking for current CFC (no NFPA work)

June 2004 SFM announces not working on NFPA amendment package and won’t until other state agencies participate

FPOs concentrate on annual rulemaking and legislation