Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.1 Supplemental�-- SUPPLEMENT ,Jaime McAvoy AGENDA ITEM # . Distributed: ! From: Deborah Padovan Monday, March 31, 2014 7:26 AM >: Jaime McAvoy --subject: FW: re Agenda Item 4.1 changes in building and fire codes Attachments: Statement by Bill Balson on sprinklers.pdf; Balson recommendation to reject proposed change in ammunition storage ordinance.pdf Supplemental. From: Bill Balson [mailto:wbalson@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 6:27 AM To: 'Jitze Couperus'; jima.pc cbc1mail.com; kavitat@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net Cc: Debbie Pedro; Deborah Padovan; Carl Cahill Subject: re Agenda Item 4.1 changes in building and fire codes Dear Planning Commission, I am attaching two statements that I had provided to the Council regarding fire sprinklers and ammunition storage, which are relevant to Item 4.1. 1 am preparing comments on other proposed changes, but I thought it best to offer these to you now since the scope and breath of the proposed changes touches on so many important aspects of every Los Altos Hills resident's daily life. That breadth will make it important for the Committee to address the unique issues relevant to the costs and benefits of each of the 43 proposed ordinance changes. The structure of the agenda item seems to me unlikely to produce an effective consideration of the regulation -specific factors for making a decision on each. I would respectfully propose that the agenda items by composed of subcategories which could include. a. Seismic retrofits b. Wildfire suppression a. Expands safe zone around homes b. Creates new Fire official powers c. Prohibits flammable accessory structures d. Adds wildfire hazard zone e. Adds access roads & driveways clearing f. Prohibits fireworks, rocketry, etc. otherwise considered safe g. Prohibits above -ground non-mobile storage of flammable liquids & cryogenics c. Household fire mitigation a. Fire sprinkler retrofits b. Ammunition storage c. Fire retardant chemicals on curtains, etc. d. Condensate drainage e. Zoning use restrictions a. Day care b. Institutional use It seems to me important to allow separate public comment at least on each of the five main subcategories, however, the 2"d level subcategories raise unique issues in some cases. It also seems to me that effective decision-making would be enhanced if each proposed regulatory change would be introduced by a short discussion by staff of the substantive benefits and implications to residents. For some of the proposed regulations, the Committee might find it helpful to defer some subcategories to future meetings and to direct staff to conduct fact-finding on the substantive merits. Bill Balson Statement by Bill Balson Opposing Proposed Sprinkler System Ordinance for Remodels March 15, 2014 The proposed sprinkler system ordinance should be adopted with regard to new construction and rejected with regard to remodels and additions. The Fire Protection Research Foundation conducted a cost benefit analysis of sprinkler systems in new residential construction in 2008. They found that the economic savings exceeded the cost. This was driven by two factors: a) the cost of adding sprinklers in new construction is modest and b) the cost savings in reduced economic damages due to fires exceeded the cost. A forecasted reduction in fire deaths makes sprinklers a strongly dominant alternative in new construction. The same case cannot be made for retrofitting existing residences. The cost of retrofitting sprinklers is at least five times greater than the cost of new sprinklers and poses especially difficult design problems. Even accounting for lower insurance, lower fire damage and lower medical bills amounts to only a small fraction of the cost. So the case for requiring retrofitting sprinklers hinges on the forecasted reduction in fire mortality rates. National Safety Council data show that nationally dying by fire at home carries a risk of about 1/87,500. Fire related deaths at home are about 9% of all deaths at home and are about % as likely as dying from a fall. By comparison dying in an automobile is about five times more likely. Fire prevention guidelines offer many mitigating alternatives for reducing the risk of fires at home. These include fire extinguishers in the kitchen and garage, screens on fireplaces, no smoking in bed, and similar common sense measures. People make frequent decisions about reducing relatively small risks such as falling at home and unintended fires. Most people understand that they do not want to overspend by gold plating one aspect of their life while neglecting another aspect of their life. One measure of consistency across all these decisions is called the small -risk value of reducing mortality. It's not the value of a life but the average value of a statistical life (VSL). Professor Lisa Robinson of Harvard in 2007 reviewed the range of VSLs from a wide array of environmental, safety, and workplace regulations finding the value of VSL could vary from about $1 million to over $25 million (inflation-adjusted to 2014). Based on the upper end of that spectrum, if sprinklers reduced all fire -related mortality, the VSL benefit would be $285 per year. Capitalizing that to its present value over the life of a home produces an upper scenario of about $6,000 discounted at current mortgage rates. However, the cost of retrofitting an existing home in Los Altos Hills can easily cost many multiples of that upper scenario. The Town should make decisions like this as a fiduciary for the residents, rather than forcing them to make expenditures they would not make for themselves to improve their own mortality. Statement by Bill Balson Reject the Proposed Ammunition Storage Ordinance March 20, 2014 The proposed change to the small arms ammunition storage requirements should be rejected. Described by staff as a small change, it instead converts what had been an exception into a requirement. Existing language states that storage of ammunition in original containers approved by the DOT for interstate transport is acceptable (i.e. it is an exception under 5601.1). Existing language states the amount and storage box types required if the exception is not met (i.e. a wooden box with 1" thick walls). The existing language closely follows State and Federal rules on residential storage. The proposed change deletes that exception and instead adds storage in DOT containers as a requirement. It does so by incorporating by reference a 284 page Federal rule on interstate transport of all type of hazardous materials. This change creates a potentially large burden on residents with no advantage. The proposed change deals with smokeless powder, which is used by millions of gun owners to make ammunition. Smokeless powder is designed to burn in a controlled manner. Smokeless powder does not explode like a bullet unless it is tightly contained. Thus all storage requirements, including DOT and current Town ordinances, require a storage box that does not tightly constrain the powder. DOT approved transportation containers meet this description and so does the existing Town ordinance. Many people at first believe smokeless power might be an ignition source or a danger to firefighters. But, many studies by fire specialists contradict those beliefs. Because it is designed to burn in a controlled manner, smokeless powder is no more dangerous than dozens of household products, when the amounts are limited as they already are. 19, Deborah Padovan Z SUPPLEMENT AGENDA ITEM # 'A . I Distributed: " i j ' ' i; Bill Balson <wbalson@pacbell.net> Monday, March 31, 2014 2:04 PM To: 'Jitze Couperus'; jima.pc@gmail.com; kavitat@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net Cc: Debbie Pedro; Deborah Padovan; Carl Cahill Subject: RE: re Agenda Item 4.1 changes in building and fire codes - seismic retrofits should not be required on residential structures Attachments: Statement by Bill Balson on seismic retrofits.pdf Dear Planning Commission, Please find attached my comments on the proposal to require seismic retrofits on residential structures. Bill Balson i IN Statement by Bill Balson Seismic Retrofits on Residential Homes Is Not Warranted March 31, 2014 Earthquake risk is a pervasive aspect of living in California. Since the Loma Prieta quake in 1989 extensive retrofits for public buildings have occurred that will likely save many lives. Staff now proposes to expand seismic retrofits to residential construction in Los Altos Hills under common remodeling scenarios. The cost of seismic retrofits for residential construction is high and the benefits are low. Retrospective analyses of large earthquakes point to collapse of large buildings and other structures as the major factor leading to mortality. Almost all of the Loma Prieta fatalities occurred due to the collapse of large masonry structures. Mortality can be exacerbated by insufficient resources to rescue people. The elderly and young are at the highest risk. Non-fatal injuries are typically caused by unsecured objects falling and breaking glass. Collapsing residences are rare in California earthquakes. The proposed regulation would trigger a whole -house seismic upgrade and would be focused on the masonry. For example, A106.3 would require all load-bearing masonry walls not meeting new standards to be replaced. New standards include restrictions on materials, testing, mortar quality, joints, pointing, anchors, mortar shear strength, etc. While that makes good sense for multistory buildings subject to collapse, there is little benefit to a single family residence. A105.5 would require structural testing of any building requiring seismic retrofit and places affirmative liability on the contractor. Testing is to be per Sec 1709 of International Building Code. It's unlikely a contractor is going to offer such a guarantee, effectively turning a proposed 1000 sf addition into a whole -house tear -down. Residential structures are typically of wooden frame construction. Current regulations require bolting the frame to the foundation securely and most homes are bolted. Current regulations also require bracing chimneys, which were a large source of economic damages from the Loma Prieta quake. Unlike fire damage, earthquake damage is excluded from most homeowner policies. Moreover, even for -earthquake policies, damage to brickwork and masonry is excluded. So, the costs of a major residential seismic retrofit are unlikely to be justified by insurance savings. Current homeowner guidance includes securely fastening objects to the wall or shelves to mitigate the risk of flying objects. The Town has an emergency preparedness plan to assist in first aid following an earthquake. The primary fire risk is likely to be from broken natural gas lines and emergency responders are already trained to be alert to those issues. These activities have a high benefit with modest costs and should be encouraged. More could likely be done. While earthquake risks are always present, they pose far lower contributions to mortality than most other commonly experienced risks such as falling and car accidents (National Safety Council data). In fact the total earthquake risk (including public buildings) is 10 to 100 times lower. Residential structure risk from earthquakes is much smaller. Earthquake mortality is also lower than other risks from natural disasters such as hurricanes and tornadoes. Most people would be unlikely to turn their house into a tear -down to mitigate such small survival benefits. SUPPLEMENT AGENDA ITEM # • , Jaime McAvoy Distributed:LA 1 ,-_From: Deborah Padovan nt: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 11:00 AM Jaime McAvoy Subject: FW: re Agenda Item 4.1 changes in building and fire codes - condensate ordinance Attachments: Statement by Bill Balson on condensate drainage.pdf From: Bill Balson [mailto:wbalsonapacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 10:57 AM To: 'Jitze Couperus'; jima.pca-gmail.com; kavitat@comcast.net; ismandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridgeacomcast.net Cc: Debbie Pedro; Deborah Padovan; Carl Cahill Subject: RE: re Agenda Item 4.1 changes in building and fire codes - condensate ordinance Dear Planning Commission, Please find attached my comments on the proposed new ordinance regarding condensate drainage. This proposal should be modified or rejected. Bill Balson Statement by Bill Balson Condensate Drainage Ordinance Should be Modified or Rejected April 1, 2014 Staff proposes a new ordinance Section R312.1 to limit condensate drainage. Condensate is a waste effluent from air conditioners, refrigerators, dehumidifiers, and other types of equipment commonly found in residential neighborhoods. The proposed rule would forbid allowing condensate to drain into a roof gutter drain but allow or require drainage into a storm drain. It's unclear what possible motivation this proposed ordinance could have in a residential environment. Industrial and commercial scale operations can create contaminated effluent streams in volumes that should be handled properly. However, residential condensate is typically quite pure. And, even in the largest homes, the rate of flow is likely to be minor. A typical window air conditioner allows the condensate to fall to the outside ground, which this proposed ordinance would apparently forbid. The proposed ordinance would instead apparently require a plumbing fixture to be extended and attached allowing the condensate to be directed to an "approved plumbing fixture, disposal area, storm sewer, or other approved points acceptable to the Building Official This language could have the effect of requiring a permit for any condensate stream of even de minimus quantities such as an air conditioner. The distinction forbidding discharge into a roof gutter system but requiring discharge into a storm sewer seems incongruous in a residential setting. Prior to adoption of this ordinance, it should be carefully evaluated as to the actual situations of concern and tailored to those situations. De minimus quantities should be specified to exclude common types of small residential equipment from being inadvertently swept into the scope. 4k4- 9 SUPPLEMENT Jaime McAvoy AGENDA ITEM # L� Distributed: Z l: crom: Deborah Padovan ent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 8:04 AM o: Jaime McAvoy Subject: FW: re Agenda Item 4.1 changes in building and fire codes - day care and institutional permits Attachments: Balson statement on day care and institutional uses.pdf From: Bill Balson [mailto:wbalson@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 02,2014 7:54 AM To: 'Jitze Couperus'; iima.pc0)gmail.com; kavitatC)comcast. net; ismandleCabhotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net Cc: Debbie Pedro; Deborah Padovan; Carl Cahill Subject: RE: re Agenda Item 4.1 changes in building and fire codes - day care and institutional permits Dear Planning Commission, I am attaching my comments on the proposed ordinances to require permits for certain day care and institutional uses. I10[7�7i1 a` Statement by Bill Balson The Proposed Day Care and Institutional Permits Should be Carefully Evaluated April 1, 2014 It's proposed to require permits for the use of residences for certain day care and institutional uses. The Town should proceed cautiously in adopting new regulations that are not carefully targeted toward solving a specific problem. In this case there may be unintended consequences of the broad language used in the proposed new ordinances. Proposed new section 105.6.49 would require a permit for any new institutional occupancy. It's unclear how proposed 105.6.49 would interact with existing ordinance 10.1.202(h), which allows medical care for up to 6 people. The proposed new ordinance applies even to a single person. For example, is home hospice an institutional occupancy? Home hospice is an increasingly popular way for a dying family member to stay at home with family during their last days. Typically, a home living room becomes the equivalent of a hospital room for a period of time, with all the equipment and personnel of a hospital room. It is unwise in my view for the Town to regulate such activity. Perhaps modifying the ordinance to apply only to uses exceeding 6 people would be sufficient. A proposed new section 105.6.4 would require a permit for a day care facility for more than 6 people. It's unclear how 105.6.4 would interact with existing ordinance 10-1.202(g). Many situations arise involving occasional meetings of youth that should not require permits even for large groups like Girl Scouts, religious meetings, student exchanges or large families. An occasional use exception might be sufficient to distinguish full-time from occasional use situations. Perhaps a carefully crafted definition of Day Care Facility would be sufficient. A 5 SUPPLEMENT Jaime McAvoy AGENDA ITEM # I . I Distributed: 9 Z From: Deborah Padovan sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 11:22 AM "0: Jaime McAvoy Subject: FW: re Agenda Item 4.1 changes in building and fire codes - fire retardant chemicals Attachments: Balson statement on Fire retardant decorations.pdf From: Bill Balson [mailto:wbalson(cbpacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 11:21 AM To: 'Jitze Couperus'; iima.pc a amail.com: kavitat comcast.net; lsmandleCabhotmail.com; richa rd. partridgeOlcomcast. net Cc: Debbie Pedro; Deborah Padovan; Carl Cahill Subject: RE: re Agenda Item 4.1 changes in building and fire codes - fire retardant chemicals Dear Planning Commission, I have attached my comments on the proposed new ordinance to incorporate a portion of State regulations regarding fire retardant materials into the Town code. Bill Balson e Statement by Bill Balson The Town Should Explicitly Exclude Residences From Decorative Materials Fire Regulations April 2, 2014 Proposed new ordinance 801.1.1 would require Christmas trees, curtains, and other decorative materials to be fire retardant. It does so by incorporating a portion of California Code of Regulations Title 19 by reference. Fire retardant materials are required in most public buildings and are credited with saving lives. In part, the reason is fewer fires and in part the reason is less panic when a fire does occur in a crowded theatre, for example. Unfortunately, fire retardancy is often produced by adding chemicals such as bromines, antimony, chlorine, phosphorous, alumina, and others. Several well-known chlorine based chemicals such as PCBs have been banned as carcinogens. Most have not been tested. Several brominated chemicals have been banned, such as TR -452. Most have not been tested. PBDE has been found in human breast milk. Antimony is toxic and generally banned. Many of the others are water soluble and not permanent. Compounds containing aluminum, antimony, boron and molybdenum can evaporate or become friable creating air quality hazards. Fabrics used in most public spaces (including schools, churches, auditoriums, theatres, and more.) are required by State law to be certified as flame retardant, according to standards developed by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). NFPA has various standards depending on how the fabric will be used. In the case of draperies, curtains, and similar hanging textiles, the standard that applies is NFPA 701. For these and other reasons, some decorative materials in R-1 and R-1 residences are excluded under Title 19 Division 1. Christmas Trees and curtains in residences are excluded, for example. Most people use LEDs on Christmas Trees dramatically lowering fire risk. However, other decorative materials are not excluded. Title 19 applies to "all other decorative material', which is quite an expansive list potentially including upholstery, canvas paintings, carpets, table decorations, etc. Residents should not have to carry around the California Code of Regulations and NFPA 701 to know which decorative materials are acceptable to the fire chief for their home and which are not. Residents should not be required to apply potentially toxic chemicals in their home, even if they assume slightly higher fire risks. This proposal could induce homeowners to replace a very low risk of fire with a known and high risk of exposure to toxic chemicals. The proposed ordinance should explicitly exclude all residences or be rejected. # (0 SUPPLEMENT Jaime McAvoy AGENDA ITEM -From: DebonahPodovnn ' ?nt Wednesday,April O2.2D142:28PWl `_�: Jo/mexxcavoy FW: re Agenda Item 41 changes in building and fire codes 'vvUdfire suppression Attachments: Statement by Bill Balson on wildfire risk.pdf -_________- ............ ._ From: BiUBabon [mailto:wbalson(a)pacbell. net] Sent: April 03,ZO142:28PM Tm:]hze Cc: Debbie Pedro; Deborah Padovan; Carl Cahill Subject', RE: re Agenda Item 4.1 changes in building and fire codes - wildfire suppression Dear Planning Commission, Please find attached my comments on the various wildfire suppression proposals, which I treat as a group. |nmyview the cost/benefit logic of these proposals should be tested against data before being adopted. 8iUBa|son " Statement by Bill Balson Wildfire Suppression Proposal Needs to Be Evaluated for Its Costs and Benefits April 2, 2014 Suppressing wildfires is a vital aspect of living in California. Los Altos Hills residents have been among the most proactive in reducing the risk of initiating wildfires and in terms of suppressing their spread. Town garbage collection practices offer residents free disposal of large qualities of yard clippings, reducing the quantity of fuel in Town. Each year, fire breaks are plowed along Rt. 280 and other locations in Town and trees are removed. These are prudent and cost-effective steps to take. The proposed fire code additions will dramatically affect most Town residents with very modest if any fire -risk improvement over the current rules. This dramatic effect occurs in two steps: a) by expanding the zones covered by wild land fire regulations to encompass almost the entire Town and b) by applying the regulations for Very High Hazard areas to the expanded zone. Yet, the State does not identify ANY area of Los Altos Hills as a Very High area. There are High Hazard areas using the State classification and that motivates residents to take the common sense measures they already take. The distinction between High Hazard and Very High Hazard is crucial for insurance companies and mortgage companies. Most Town homeowner's insurance policies are priced based on the existing zones. Adding new zones or creating heightened risk perceptions will not benefit residents much but might very well lead to increased insurance premiums and reduced valuation. Some of the new regulations include a) requiring a total reroof when a small repair is needed, b) banning wooden storage sheds, c) banning above ground fuel tanks (e.g. propane), d) banning above ground cryogenic tanks (e.g. oxygen, LNG), e) expanding safe zone around a home up to 100 ft, and f) requiring a 30 ft safe zone around driveways. Compliance is compulsory even for existing residences and enforcement is proposed to be enhanced in several ways, including written fire plans on request. CalFire tracks the causes of wildfires. None of the eleven causes they track include a wildfire started by a residential fire. That is simply too unlikely since fires in residences receive a rapid response. Wildfires are typically started by vehicles, power lines, or lightning. So, protective measures are mostly for the homeowner's benefit, not the wider community. LAH's biggest contribution to low propagation risk is our large lot sizes. CalFire also tracks fire size. The big fires, like the Rim Fire last year, typically spread in remote mountainous areas with heavy forests. The Berkeley Hills fire many years ago was spread by small lots and dense overgrowth of Eucalyptus trees. Those features are not present in Town. Most wild fires in Santa Clara County are small, generally under an acre and quickly extinguished. Many other counties routinely have large wild fires of hundreds of acres or more. The proposed regulations are not appropriate for most of Los Altos Hills in my view. Yet, they would be expanded to nearly the entire Town and enforced with a heavy hand. Prior to undertaking such an expansion, the Town should conduct a careful cost -benefit analysis of each proposed regulation to ensure the residents are benefited. The proposed new fire zone needs to be examined for necessity. SUPPLEMENT Jaime McAvoy AGENDA ITEM # �, Distributed: I if -o: Deborah Padovan object: RE: re Agenda Item 4.1 changes in building and fire codes - unfunded mandates From: Deborah Padovan Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 11:20 AM To: Jaime McAvoy Subject: FW: re Agenda Item 4.1 changes in building and fire codes - unfunded mandates From: Bill Balson fmailto:wbalson@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 11:20 AM To: 'Jitze Couperus; ffma.pc@gmail.com; kavitat(QOcomcast.net; jsmandleCabhotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net Cc: Debbie Pedro; Deborah Padovan; Carl Cahill Subject: RE: re Agenda Item 4.1 changes in building and fire codes - unfunded mandates Dear Planning Commission, In light of the lengthy agenda tonight, I plan to limit my verbal comments to a few sentences on each matter. I've attached my summary paragraphs. I also attach a statement on unfunded mandates. It's my belief that most of the 43 proposed ordinances are unfunded mandates. These should be rejected by the Town unless the State provides funding or unless there is a clear and compelling beneficial relationship of benefits to costs borne by the residents of Los Altos fills. lest regards, f:31te . ffen Wildfire suppression It is probable that Los Altos Hills has not seen a material wildfire in the past 100 years. The evidence for this proposition is all-around us. There are the remains of old fences, barns and apricot trees that predate LAH incorporation by decades.. These do not bear the scars of a wildfire. By any objective measure, the risk of a future wildfire in Town is low relative to other risks. Yet, we take prudent cost-effective measures to reduce the hazard should a wildfire occur. No further steps should be adopted in the fire code absent a compelling cost -benefit analysis. WUI needs a Blue Ribbon Committee of citizens to conduct a full analysis of the risks and benefits to Town residents. My written comments are incorporated by reference. Seismic retrofit Seismic retrofits on residential structures have no material benefit to the owners that choose not to do so voluntarily. No requirement should be place on residences. My written comments are incorporated by reference. Day care and occupational permits Edits are required to both proposed ordinances to ensure consistency with existing codes. My written comments are incorporated by reference. Condensate drainage The condensate ordinance should be narrowly tailored to the specific concerns and de minimus quantities chosen to exclude common residential equipment. My written comments are incorporated by reference. Home fire protection Fire sprinkler retrofits, ammunition storage limits, and fire retardant materials ordinances should be rejected as failing a reasonable basis and failing a beneficial relationship of costs to benefits. My written comments are incorporated by reference. Statement by Bill Balson Unfunded Mandates by the State Should Not be Adopted by the Town Until Funded April 3, 2014 The State has adopted a variety of Building Code amendments which may substantially increase the costs of compliance on both the Town and on residents. These amendments may require the Town to perform "increased services' within the meaning of the State Constitution. Those increased services could include general plan amendments, ordinance development, permit reviews, and enforcement. Proposition 1A was adopted overwhelmingly by the voters in 2004. "Whenever the Legislature or any state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government, the State shall provide a subvention of funds to reimburse that local government for the costs of the program or increased level of service ..." Due to funding limitations in the State budget, only a small number of urgent mandates receive funding. Other mandates have been explicitly or implicitly waived. The Town should forgo adopting most such State mandates until such time as the State provides funding.