The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 12091986 - IO.4 To BOARD OF SUPERVISORS INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE FROM; Contra December 8, 1986 Costa DATE: Proposed Sprinkler System as an Option County SUBJECT; in Residential Developments SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . Request the Chiefs of the Consolidated and Moraga Fire Protection Districts to meet with representatives from the Building Industry Association (BIA) in an effort to reach agreement on the outline of a residential sprinkler system option in residential developments. 2. Once the meeting between the fire districts and BIA is completed, request the Chiefs of the Consolidated and Moraga Fire Districts to set up a 'meeting with themselves, BIA, Community Development, Building Inspection, and County Counsel to review the outline prepared by the Chiefs and BIA and identify and resolve any operational problems which would make implementation of such a program difficult. 3 . Once County staff have identified a program which they believe is workable, request the Director of Community Development to report to our Committee on January 12, 1987 outlining the components of a' program. 4 . Authorize the 1986 Internal Operations Committee to meet on January 12, 1987 in order to complete work on outstanding referrals and make a final report to the Board January 13 , 1987 . BACKGROUND: On October 14, 1986, the Board directed staff to meet and determine the most appropriate vehicle for requiring that developers make available sprinkler systems as an option in new residential developments. Staff have met and County Counsel prepared a memo ( a copy of which is attached to this report) summarizing the general outlines of a program meeting the criteria outlined by the Board. We met with Chief Lucas, County Counsel Vic Westman, Director of Community Development Harvey Bragdon, and BIA representative Terry Curtola on December 8, 1986 . Mr. Curtola had not had an opportunity to review a copy of County Counsel' s memo in advance of the meeting. As a result, CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE; _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE � OTHER SIGNATURE(S): NancY C. Fanden p Sunne 14. McPeak ACTION OF BOARD ON December 9, 1986 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED -X- OTHER VOTE OF' SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT V AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TARN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT; ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: Countv Administrator ATTESTED _ Chief '�lilliam Maxfield, Consolidated Fire �e�e��r-9;-186---------- Chief Lucas PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel Community Development Director M382/7- Building Inspector BYi DEPUTY Page 2 we agreed on the above recommendations as a method of reviewing possible options and trying to reach consensus on the outlines of a program. Once our Committee reviews the result of this process on January 12, it would be our intent to report this matter back to the full Board on January 13 with the recommendation that the County Counsel be directed to draft an ordinance implementing the parameters we have outlined for final review and adoption by the Board. At the first meeting, outlined in recommendation #1 above, we would also like to ask Chiefs Maxfield and Lucas to present data to BIA which demonstrates the extent to which lives and/or, property are saved by sprinklers as opposed to smoke detectors so that this information can be made a part of the record. • COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA Dare: December 4 , 1986 To: Internal Operations Committee JWFrom: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel V Re: Proposed Residential Sprinkler System Option Ordinance On October 14 , 1986, the Board of Supervisors directed the County Counsel , Director of Building Inspection, the Consolidated Fire District Chief, and Director of Community Development to meet and develop an appropriate proposed vehicle for requiring developers to offer sprinkler systems to purchasers as an option in new residential structures . On October 29 , 1986, the above staff and the Moraga Fire Chief met to consider this matter and reached the following consensus : An appropriate vehicle for requiring developers to offer prospective buyers the option of having sprinkler systems installed would be to compel that by County ordinance. If an ordinance is to be developed, it could follow the format of the "Time-Of-Sale Residential Weatherization Disclosure" Ordinance (Ord. C. Div. 524 ) . The Weatherization Disclosure Ordinance requires sellers of existing residential units to disclose to prospective buyers the extent to which certain specified energy saving devices have (or have not) been installed on or in the involved dwelling unit. A similar buyer option sprinkler system ordinance could require any builder of dwelling units proposed to be offered for sale prior to their completion (e.g. , final inspection and approval by the Building Inspector) to notify and offer any prospective purchaser the option of having an appropriate sprinkler system installed. This ordinance should specify for the sprinkler system (as a minimum) a nationally accepted standard (e.g. , the National Fire Protection Association' s Standard 13D entitled "Sprinkler Systems for Family Dwellings" including its Appendix A) . As was done in the case of the Weatherization Disclosure Ordinance, a sprinkler option ordinance could require appropriate County departments (Community Development and Building Inspection) to advise developers of its requirements and obtain their agreement to comply with it. This could be implemented by printing the ordinance ' s requirements on all planning entitlement and building permit applications. When the permit applicants signed them, they would be agreeing that they are familiar with the Internal Operations Committee December 4 , 1986 requirements and would comply with them in their dealings with prospective buyers. In addition, any violation of the ordinance could subject the involved developer to prosecution (infractions) and injunctive relief. Finally, the Consolidated Fire District suggested that in the case of large residential subdivisions which might utilize models to demonstrate finished units that at least one of those models be required to have an installed sprinkler system. Since almost all major residential subdivisions in the unincorporated area of the county are now done as planned unit district developments (P- 1, Ord.C.Ch. 84-66 ) , a sprinkler option ordinance could provide the county' s planning agency (planning commissions, etc. ) with authority to require that model units to be built contain at least one model with an installed sprinkler system. Upon appropriate direction, this office (with the cooperation of the other involved county departments and fire districts ) will prepare a draft fire sprinkler buyer option ordinance as outlined above for further review, hearing and consideration by the Board. VJW:df cc: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Attn: C. L. Van Marter R. W. Giese, Director of Building Inspection H. Bragdon, Director of Community Development Attn: Dennis Barry Contra Costa County Fire District Attn: Darrell Harguth Chief Ed Lucas, Moraga Fire District -2-