[RE-wrenches] Setbacks for fire responder protection

[Solar Energy Solutions]

William,
 
Please feel free to add this link to your site.  The Oregon Code is precedent setting and should be copied and improved upon regarding rooftop access.  When I say improved, I mean that 60% or more of an entire roof be available to firefighter access leaving 40% for solar.  This should be the line in the sand for anyone representing the solar industry.  Fighting tooth and nail against a committee of 12 and without any industry support one Bozo got 25%.  See pg 26 for the Koyaanisqatsi clauses.  
 
http://www.bcd.oregon.gov/programs/solar/100510_OSISC_commentary.pdf

Andrew Koyaanisqatsi
President
Solar Energy Solutions, Inc.
Since 1987,
Moving Portland and Beyond 
to an Environmentally Sustainable Future.
503-238-4502
http://www.solarenergyoregon.com/ 
"Better one's House too little one day
than too big all the Year after."

 From: "william at millersolar.com" <william at millersolar.com>
>To: RE-wrenches <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org> 
>Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2014 12:24 AM
>Subject: [RE-wrenches] Setbacks for fire responder protection
>  
>
>
>Dear Colleagues:
> 
>I know many of you have been concerned about the impacts of new regulations on roof-top solar intended to protect fire responders.  I have a new scenario to offer for your consideration:
> 
>Around here only one city has adopted codes that require eave and ridge setbacks to provide firefighter access for residential rooftop PV.  The standard used for this city and for others adopting commercial restrictions had been a draft proposal presented by Cal-Fire that has been circulating for a while.  A copy of that is on our web site.  
> 
>This city has upped the ante by increasing the setback such that the measurement starts not at the gable eave but at the gable framed wall.  This typically subtracts another 24” of module space.  It appears that the justification for this more restrictive interpretation is language in the 2013 California Fire Code offers some suggestion that gable eaves are not structurally sound, although this is not stated.  Here is the language:
> 
>The access pathway shall be located at a structurally strong location on the building capable of supporting the live load of fire fighters accessing the roof.
> 
>I see no evidence in the language to support the notion that a gable eave overhang is not structurally sound.  It is certainly strong enough to allow roofers and other trades people to traverse without concern.  I would suggest that any portion of a framed roof can become unsound if the underpinnings are being burned away.
> 
>I think to disallow eaves as part of access paths based on the language is taking this too far.  Comments?
> 
>Changing subjects slightly:  I have always wondered why we must preserve access to both sides of a E-W ridge.  The concept  I have heard is that firefighters may need to open the roof at the highest point to let out smoke.  I have never seen a partition below a ridge in the attic that would prevent smoke from wafting sideways 36” to a hole cut on the north side of the ridge versus the south side.  Does anyone know of a reason that the south side of the ridge needs to be kept clear when the north side is clear?
> 
>The material I refer to can be found here:  http://www.millersolar.com/MillerSolar/Resources/_Resources.html
> 
>William Miller
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
>Lic 773985
>millersolar.com
>805-438-5600
> 
>_______________________________________________
>List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>
>List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>
>Change email address & settings:
>http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
>List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
>List rules & etiquette:
>www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>
>Check out participant bios:
>www.members.re-wrenches.org
>
>
>
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20140429/44bf2b97/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1460 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20140429/44bf2b97/attachment-0004.jpg>