Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sprinklers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council defends sprinkler requirements for multiplexes, debates alternatives for single-exit buildings
Summary
Council members reviewed public comments urging relaxed sprinkler rules but said the tag concluded sprinklers are necessary for sixplexes and that 13R (residential) coverage is appropriate for multiplexes; they also discussed whether single-exit proposals should require full NFPA 13.
At the July 14 work session, council members examined multiple public comments urging relaxations to sprinkler requirements for multiplex housing and single-exit proposals. Staff summarized written comments asking for pathways that would allow fewer or no sprinklers; council members and tag representatives said the tag extensively considered cost and coverage and concluded sprinklers should be included in the multiplex appendix.
Technical discussion focused on differences among NFPA standards. A council technical speaker explained that NFPA 13D is intended for one- and two-family dwellings and is not adequate for larger multiplex units; that is why the tag recommended a 13R residential-style sprinkler system for multifamily multiplexes, which provides more coverage than 13D but is less extensive than a commercial 13 system. The council’s discussion noted that a full NFPA 13 system can raise costs substantially because it typically requires attic coverage and may force dry systems and building encapsulation in some climates.
On the related single-exit proposals, council conversation recalled that the tag had favored requiring full NFPA 13 for single-exit configurations in many instances. One council member read a comment urging the council to "maintain single stair multiplex flexibility while considering mandatory 13R sprinklers," while others noted the tag’s earlier strong support for requiring NFPA 13 in certain single-exit contexts. Members emphasized that the proposals aim to balance life-safety protection with the legislative directive to expand affordable middle housing options.
No formal code change vote occurred at this session. Council members asked staff to continue documenting cost implications and to post proposed amendments when drafted. The meeting record shows the tag and council weighed cost-effectiveness and life-safety tradeoffs but left final rule choices and any specific construction‑type revisions for formal amendment proposals at a later meeting.
Next steps: staff to continue cost/technical analysis and post any draft amendments for public review; the council did not adopt any relaxed sprinkler pathway at this meeting.
