SOS! SoCal RCFE Means of egress

Hi,

I hope you can help me determine if this proposal is possible.

Im applying for fire clearance for Group R3.1, 5 non-amb and only 1 bedridden.

http://publicecodes.cyberregs....b200v10_4_sec025.htm

The fire inspector says kitchen has to be isolated from the exit routes with either a wall or a self-closing fire rated door which makes the daily travel around the house a pain (esp for wheelchairs). However, insp only gives verbal comments and wont reply on email. He says, the code is dependent on the fire marshall's interpretation, which in this case, he says, he is. To make it worse, any other interpretation will be useless as inspectors are assigned by area making him the final inspector to review the facility after the construction.

 

Im totally lost on these codes and even more the processes.

Any tips?

33exit

Attachments

Photos (1)
Original Post

This is not a typical requirement in RCFE's (CA only btw). Verbal only doesn't make the cut; you need to get the commentary in writing. Work your way up the food chain in the dept if you don't get your plan review in a written format.

Code interpretations are the authority of the "Fire Marshal"; there must be a roster or website or City/Count Clerk listing that identifies the person having the fire marshal responsibilities. Find the Fire Marshal and get an interpretation on your issue as the "local" inspector generally does not have final interpretive authority.

Originally Posted by ADA_guy:

Have you considered installing sprinklers? It will reduce your insurance cost too.

The argument is it will be too late for the non-ambs to escape due to the open kitchen layout. Sprinkling makes the exception. I'm willing to install sprinklers if it is required for compliance and not just bec somebody thinks its a good idea.

Jim, you seem to have some experience in socal rcfe's.
Thanks for making it clear that a plan review needs to be written and not just "I've told you a few times already" comments that is happening now.
The only thing that stopped me from starting the construction is the thought that he'll change his statement come the final inspection and deny the clearance.
 
I will be searching for that fire marshall in charge of the county.
 
 
Originally Posted by Jim Fruit:

This is not a typical requirement in RCFE's (CA only btw). Verbal only doesn't make the cut; you need to get the commentary in writing. Work your way up the food chain in the dept if you don't get your plan review in a written format.

Code interpretations are the authority of the "Fire Marshal"; there must be a roster or website or City/Count Clerk listing that identifies the person having the fire marshal responsibilities. Find the Fire Marshal and get an interpretation on your issue as the "local" inspector generally does not have final interpretive authority.

 

I like your positive outlook! Hope it rubs on me.
Ive been calling since Friday til today, morning til afternoon and didn't get to any person at all. Even the secretary's local no. just goes to mailbox. 
 
Originally Posted by ADA_guy:

Make and "appointment" vs "dropping by". They are public servants and will schedule a time to meet.

 

The attached "word" document has the current CA Health & Safety Code section that gives you some "protection" from the "inspector" changing the approval once the plan review is approved. It does apply to Fire Department construction inspectors. Good ammo for pressure when the project is built to "approved" plans but the "inspector" won't approve.

Attachments

Thanks Jim, I can definitely use this.
 
 
Originally Posted by Jim Fruit:

The attached "word" document has the current CA Health & Safety Code section that gives you some "protection" from the "inspector" changing the approval once the plan review is approved. It does apply to Fire Department construction inspectors. Good ammo for pressure when the project is built to "approved" plans but the "inspector" won't approve.

 

ADAguy

Statute may not be current but can still be enforced by rules of precedence. BSC has some language in their statutes that clarifies old code references as being the current adopted CBC. Need to do some digging to find it. Expert diggers like hil or Handler may have it sooner than what I have time for this week.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×
×