rlackore Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 The California Residential Code is based on the 2012 IRC. California's definition of Fire Separation Distance is not modified from the standard definition: California has amended IRC Section R302, but the pertinent table R302.1(1) remains unchanged with no special footnotes or provisions: I highly recommend purchasing a copy from the ICC, though you can also access it for free online here: http://www.ecodes.biz/ecodes_support/Free_Resources/2013California/13Residential/13Residential_main.html ...or in a scanned pdf version here: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/code/bsc.ca.gov/gov.ca.bsc.2013.02.5.pdf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_Carrick Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 FWIW, Having no eave vents is a real advantage in areas where there is a fire danger. Here in SoCal the brush fires can sweep up a hill and the super-heated gasses can enter an attic thru eave vents. Then the attic can basically explode and there's no way to save the house at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rlackore Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 FWIW, Having no eave vents is a real advantage in areas where there is a fire danger. Here in SoCal the brush fires can sweep up a hill and the super-heated gasses can enter an attic thru eave vents. Then the attic can basically explode and there's no way to save the house at that point. That's interesting - I never would have thought of that. So how do you achieve ventilation at the base of the attic? I would think that even strip venting beneath the fascia or along the drip edge would be susceptible to the scenario you describe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_Carrick Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 That's interesting - I never would have thought of that. So how do you achieve ventilation at the base of the attic? I would think that even strip venting beneath the fascia or along the drip edge would be susceptible to the scenario you describe. We don't. The climate is dry and venting can be done at gable ends and at the ridge. The best solution for gable end vents is a "fire damper" that closes the vent when the temperature exceeds the safe level. Before 1992 eave vents were not only the norm but were generally required. After some severe brush fires that year the use of eave vents was basically banned - along with Cedar Shingle and Shake Roofing. Note that the code sections being shown in this thread are basically prohibiting eave vents within the fire protection distance. An eave vent would break the 1-hr barrier so they would not be permitted. Solid Blocking (with stucco continuing up to the sheathing) at the wall line essentially allows an unprotected eave to burn but not allow the fire to spread into the attic space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan_Son Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Perry, do think this is unique to the IBC and not the UBC? For years and years we were using the UBC, do you think the UBC does not have this requirement. I am trying to figure out why there are so many houses out here (built in the 80's and later) with eaves closer than 5' to property line with no protection. I think you supplied the answer in your own 2nd post...the code has simply become more stringent. Based on the 2003 IRC (cited in your attachment) you could go as close as 3ft. The 2012...not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRAWZILLA Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 I use Ohagins flat vents all on top of the roof. and on every job. http://www.ohagin.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dshall Posted November 3, 2015 Author Share Posted November 3, 2015 I use Ohagins flat vents all on top of the roof. http://www.ohagin.com/ Yep, that is what I use, I should of invested in the company. BTW, just spoke with another buddy, he was a plan checker for the city of chula vista and he is an architect, he was not aware of this either, just some more confirmation that a bunch of us nit wits out here have been getting away without providing the one hour eaves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRAWZILLA Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Okay, so Perry, you are telling me that this requirement came into effect when we adopted the 2013 IBC.... this requirement was not in the UBC? If that is the case, now I understand. No, I'm just saying that before the CBC came around, it was up to the local fire departments to enforce in certain areas or not. There was a separate fire code. Way back ,we had to submit plans to the fire dept. for approval. Remember that? Now except for commercial , the plan checker does it but not always, in some cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_Carrick Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Scott, I don't think the 1-hr eave protection was in the UBC - but I could be wrong. I can't find my old copy of the UBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now