Hello WIlliam; I have always wondered about gable eaves as access pathways too, but haven't said anything so as not attract attention from AHJs ;-) I don't have a problem with walking on gable eaves if they are sturdy enough, and at least you'd know there's no fire directly underneath you.
Here in Colorado both the city of Golden and city of Boulder Fire Marshals have taken different but very proactive stances in granting exceptions to the setbacks. In Boulder it was estimated that over 60% of existing installations did not comply with IFC2012 setback rules. If anyone would like a copy of Boulder's exceptions / compromise document and graphics of examples contact me off list and I'll send it. Golden's approach was Alternate Materials and Methods (which Boulder couldn't pass) that allows a PV installer to demonstrate alternate paths of access. As for venting the other side of the roof, I believe the logic is that the vent location depends greatly on wind direction and the layout of the building internally. Venting the wrong side on a windy day could be ineffectual. Many fire departments are training in and moving towards techniques other than vertical ventilation (because it is so dangerous), but there will always a need for some roof access. Cheers for Boulder Fire Marshal Dave Lowrey for being realistic and flexible. Dan Fink, Executive Director; Otherpower Buckville Energy Consulting Buckville Publications LLC NABCEP / IREC accredited Continuing Education Providers 970.672.4342 On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 1:24 AM, <will...@millersolar.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > [image: Gradient Cap_mini] > Lic 773985 > millersolar.com <http://www.millersolar.com/> > 805-438-5600 > > > > _______________________________________________ > List sponsored by Home Power magazine > > List Address: RE-wrenches@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 > > >
<<inline: image002.jpg>>
_______________________________________________ List sponsored by Home Power magazine List Address: RE-wrenches@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
