By unconditioned or conditioned are you talking Air conditioning supplied environment? I know someone recently said a garage with A/C was (likely determined by local building code) to be a living space and PWs couldn’t be installed there. This was from another thread about someone failing inspection because with covid they had turned their garage into an office and added A/C.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Santa Clara County retroactively Changing ESS Rules
- Thread starter Vines
- Start date
A permitted conditioned garage I believe has a separate AC for the garage, since you don't want to circulate CO through the house from the garage.
I am not an HVAC expert but its pretty rare from what I can tell to be done legally. Most garages are unconditioned, unless they are under the house, or a really upscale house/mansion. If the garage is under the living space there is the additional requirement of 5/8" Type X Fireproof Sheetrock on the garage walls
Yes adding an AC to a garage and converting it to an office will cause a failed inspection.
I am not an HVAC expert but its pretty rare from what I can tell to be done legally. Most garages are unconditioned, unless they are under the house, or a really upscale house/mansion. If the garage is under the living space there is the additional requirement of 5/8" Type X Fireproof Sheetrock on the garage walls
Yes adding an AC to a garage and converting it to an office will cause a failed inspection.
Santa Clara County Fire is our AHJ. Don't get me wrong- they have kept the house from burning several times (suspected arsonist in the area, and local wildfires). However, the code requirements are definitely interesting, or at least challenging to understand the logic of for a neophyte.
This brouhaha is a great example. If the concern is fire spreading from a battery, why not require a sprinkler above each one, backed by 100 gallons/battery. Or a metal shutter on a fusible link over the door/windows, or a 1hr fire rated barrier, or allowing the batteries three feet away from the house...
It reminds me of a commercial renovation, wherein a local fire chief refused to allow more than 50lbs flour on site due to fire risk. When I pointed out the Krispy Kreme donut shop down the road, he said it was different- that bag of flour was food. (And therefore not a fire hazard?)
As always, YMMV...
[USER=81459]@Vines: can you use thermal wire to an alarm for the unconditioned spaces? We used to use them as cheap fire alarms in spaces that had lots of open flames that would cause normal smoke detectors to trigger.
All the best,
BG[/user]
I can see where the homes and businesses in the heavily forested or steep terrain and more susceptible to wildfire spread and harder to handle would have different rules. Distance from firehouse and accessibility of roads would also be factors. With wildfire season lasting more months and temps hotter and landscaping drier, not surprised they are trying to tighten up code. As a homeowner I wouldn't be happy with the retroactive part if I was in middle of my install and now couldn’t finish as planned. Especially tough on installers who have to accommodate the changes or lose out on planned projects where the cost or design no longer makes sense.
I get your point about the flour LOL. And what was that flour going to be used for?
BTW I don’t recall the State (some reason think it wasn’t Calif.) but someone on here said his fire dept was requiring a fire enclosure of some kind around his planned PWs.
I get your point about the flour LOL. And what was that flour going to be used for?
BTW I don’t recall the State (some reason think it wasn’t Calif.) but someone on here said his fire dept was requiring a fire enclosure of some kind around his planned PWs.
Currently the requirement is a listed heat detector. I asked about alternatives but was told "You can try an 'Alternative means and materials' permit submission."
Also, just know if you put them in a garage, side or back wall, they will require impact protection. We had to put 4" Concrete filled bollards in once customers garage. I asked what about mounting them 5' high up the wall? Any height, any location on side or back garage walls requires bollards or other impact protection. Those bollards have to leave 3' clear in front of the Powerwalls, so there goes the average parking spot. The average garage slab will not resist the required 5000 lb force at 2' high either, another requirement of SCC Fire.
Sorry. No idea if thermal wires qualify.
"Plan A" is on the house, if possible. My "Plan B" is on a retaining wall about 48" away from the house. (Require cutting into a concrete slab for conduit.) "Plan C" is on the garage wall, outside, and the first 30" of that wall is concrete block. "Plan D" is on a concrete pad at whatever distance from the house makes the AHJ happy. Happy to reorder the plans as needed.
Do you know what the required clearance is in front of a powerwall, i.e. away from the wall?
All the best,
Peter
Sadly the wild land rules aren't different, though I think that they should be. There are all sorts of venting and construction materials that are allowed, as if the building was in a downtown area, but it isn't. E.g. I think that in wildland areas, all crawl spaces should be sealed or covered with maximum 1/16" screening, no gable vents, no fancy roof lines that accumulate leaves and embers, metal covers to gutters, or no gutters, only inorganic roofs, etc. There are recommendations for fire hardening the area around a house, but no requirements, e.g. fireproof decks, stone/concrete landscaping, minimum distances to shrubs, and trees, etc. The homeowner gets no credit for doing these things, and some items may even be against local codes, though meeting national best in class recommendations. We mow and use cattle to keep the fuel load down below the house. My vents have fine screening, gutters are enclosed, and I have something like 200' of nonburnable area below the house, and brick under my nonflammable deck. My neighbor has 9', and a wooden trellis and shrubs under his deck. Similar houses, but radically different fire exposures.
I would love to get credit for more/better water storage, water access points, etc., but that's not the system today.
The flour was corn flour to ferment into ethanol (for fuel use). Funnily enough the Fire Marshall didn't voice any concerns about the ethanol. If you have ever tried to ignite a pile of flour, it is pretty resistant to ignition, unless you suspend it in air, at which point nasty things happen very rapidly.
Lots of codes aren't logical. The NFPA storage codes for chemicals are different than OSHA, which is different than the EPA. You do your best, and know that when the other agency audits you, you will get dinged and have to move certain items into different storage areas, which will get you dinged by the next auditor. Lather, rinse, repeat....
All the best,
Peter
Have you spoken with many AHJs about whether Powerwalls fit the category of "likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized"? That seems debatable to me.
Cheers, Wayne
No I just assumed based on the need to access them.
Well the switch on the side of them needs to be accessible. Its required to reset or to log in. What do you think?
@Vines, will this news story, which I also briefly caught being talked about on KCBS the other day, at all be influencing our Santa Clara County fire codes if there is consolidation between the different AHJs? Supervisor meeting is on October 6. The two proposals are: 1) suspension of the Los Altos Hills County Fire District's authority and 2) consolidation of the district and others in the county with the Santa Clara County Fire Department, also known as the Central Fire Protection District.
Hills fire district supporters, critics prep for battle
Hills fire district supporters, critics prep for battle
This is not about fire codes, it's about mis-management of fire district funds and programs.
County audit proposes suspension of Los Altos Hills fire district authority
I understood that but my question was if they combine all the Santa Clara County fire districts under one umbrella, will that then affect the Fire Codes applied. As we've seen from @Vines posts SCCFireDept has been updating code that is different and more restrictive on PWs for example than surrounding counties. We just had 3 PWs installed and should we want to add a 4th down the road, don't think that would be something that is permitted or certainly approved within our garage at least under the other district's codes. Believe @Vines concern a number of pages ago was that other districts would adopt the codes they were approving. And if I'm not mistaken I also heard on the news that Santa Rosa(?) was planning to adopt the SCCF's code changes. I was driving at the time an only caught bits of the news report.
The LAH Fire District has different boundaries than the AHJs in the area. Depending on where your property lies, you may need to apply for permits at the City of Los Altos, the Town of Los Altos Hills, or the County of Santa Clara. The City and Town may have the ability to decide whether to apply the ESS restrictions independently from the County. I'm not sure about that specific code applicability issue. My house is in the Unincorporated area of Los Altos, so I apply for permits at the County directly.
I am all for uniform application of code even tough code.
To be clear my issue is not the application of the codes but the misapplication or haphazard application of them. July 1 2021 all ESS that aren't 9540A listed will require the same 3' separation, and also heat detectors, though at least they do not have to be interconnected.
Certainly though if the county fire gets more power and is already in my opinion misusing it, then its bad for homeowners in general as it drives up construction prices without real increase in safety. Hopefully more centralization leads to at least an equally applied standard, which makes reasonable improvements to safety. If its difficult, no worries as there is a clear path that we all know.
As it stands now the fire officials stance changes month by month, and only are only now in alignment with the fire code.
To be clear my issue is not the application of the codes but the misapplication or haphazard application of them. July 1 2021 all ESS that aren't 9540A listed will require the same 3' separation, and also heat detectors, though at least they do not have to be interconnected.
Certainly though if the county fire gets more power and is already in my opinion misusing it, then its bad for homeowners in general as it drives up construction prices without real increase in safety. Hopefully more centralization leads to at least an equally applied standard, which makes reasonable improvements to safety. If its difficult, no worries as there is a clear path that we all know.
As it stands now the fire officials stance changes month by month, and only are only now in alignment with the fire code.
Well poop, 
City of Palo Alto is now threatening to retroactively enforce the 36" separation rules for ESS units that are already permitted and installed, anything before the final inspection.
Discussion is ongoing, but an inspector already wrote on our inspection card during the rough inspection, for a job where we had a permit to install a set of stacked Powerwalls. "ESS must be separated by 36 inches"
The reasoning is obscure. UL 9540 is now in the 2nd edition (released 2/27/20) and the Powerwall is listed to the 1st edition. According to UL an ESS listed to 9540 edition 1 needs to be relisted to 9540 edition 2, by July 1 2022. Meanwhile the CBC specifies that the version of 9540 which was code is before the 1st edition, called the outline of investigation, released in 2014 I believe.
CPA is saying any ESS manufactured after 2/27/20 must be spaced 36" apart. We will be fighting this tooth and nail all the way to the highest levels of the city. Its absolutely unfair to retroactively apply new requirements to an existing permit, unless some serious life safety issue is identified. These jobs have waterproofing, HVAC, landscaping all completed. Spacing the Powerwalls 36" apart at this time will cost us tens of thousands of dollars for all the affected jobs.
City of Palo Alto is now threatening to retroactively enforce the 36" separation rules for ESS units that are already permitted and installed, anything before the final inspection.Discussion is ongoing, but an inspector already wrote on our inspection card during the rough inspection, for a job where we had a permit to install a set of stacked Powerwalls. "ESS must be separated by 36 inches"
The reasoning is obscure. UL 9540 is now in the 2nd edition (released 2/27/20) and the Powerwall is listed to the 1st edition. According to UL an ESS listed to 9540 edition 1 needs to be relisted to 9540 edition 2, by July 1 2022. Meanwhile the CBC specifies that the version of 9540 which was code is before the 1st edition, called the outline of investigation, released in 2014 I believe.
CPA is saying any ESS manufactured after 2/27/20 must be spaced 36" apart. We will be fighting this tooth and nail all the way to the highest levels of the city. Its absolutely unfair to retroactively apply new requirements to an existing permit, unless some serious life safety issue is identified. These jobs have waterproofing, HVAC, landscaping all completed. Spacing the Powerwalls 36" apart at this time will cost us tens of thousands of dollars for all the affected jobs.
Does this mean they cannot be stacked either? This is nuts they keep changing rules like this!!!!! Keep us informed. The only safe thing is one has a final, otherwise, they can change their minds and add new requirements it looks likeWell poop,
Discussion is ongoing, but an inspector already wrote on our inspection card during the rough inspection, for a job where we had a permit to install a set of stacked Powerwalls. "ESS must be separated by 36 inches"
The reasoning is obscure. UL 9540 is now in the 2nd edition (released 2/27/20) and the Powerwall is listed to the 1st edition. According to UL an ESS listed to 9540 edition 1 needs to be relisted to 9540 edition 2, by July 1 2022. Meanwhile the CBC specifies that the version of 9540 which was code is before the 1st edition, called the outline of investigation, released in 2014 I believe.
CPA is saying any ESS manufactured after 2/27/20 must be spaced 36" apart. We will be fighting this tooth and nail all the way to the highest levels of the city. Its absolutely unfair to retroactively apply new requirements to an existing permit, unless some serious life safety issue is identified. These jobs have waterproofing, HVAC, landscaping all completed. Spacing the Powerwalls 36" apart at this time will cost us tens of thousands of dollars for all the affected jobs.
Does this mean they cannot be stacked either? This is nuts they keep changing rules like this!!!!! Keep us informed. The only safe thing is one has a final, otherwise, they can change their minds and add new requirements it looks like
This means they are threatening to not allowing stacking. I am not finished fighting this yet. Hopefully Tesla gets the listing to stack very soon so this issue goes away.
Similar threads
