# Sprinkler requirements a cold shower for business owners



## mark handler (Jun 1, 2015)

Sprinkler requirements a cold shower for business owners

BY KATIE VANEIN NEWS — 29 MAY, 2015

http://thesheetnews.com/2015/05/29/sprinkler-requirements-a-cold-shower-for-business-owners/

As Mammoth attempts to “grease the wheels” for real estate development, some business and property owners are coming to a rude awakening regarding longstanding State and Town requirements to install sprinklers in buildings without sprinkler systems if the building changes use.

According to Mammoth Lakes Fire Marshal Thom Heller, the State has required sprinklers in all residences since 2010, and has required sprinklers for certain sized commercial buildings and for certain uses going back to at least 1994.

In Mammoth, the Fire District has been requiring sprinklers in all buildings 5,000 square feet and larger since 1998.

Heller said that because of Mammoth’s remoteness, climatic conditions, and geologic situation, “the Fire District and the community determined that the requirement for the additional protection was something we were interested in at the time.”

But Heller said that building owners were given an out in 1998: buildings under 5,000 square feet could avoid the sprinkler requirement.

“The protection of the smaller structures was something that the Fire District felt it could defend,” he said.

Meanwhile buildings built before 1994, when the State sprinkler requirement began, also got away without sprinklers.

While some may be familiar with the overall State sprinkler requirement for businesses and residences—many Swall Meadows homeowners learned about the requirement after the Round Fire—the fine print that’s catching some by surprise is that any change in business use in a building without sprinklers requires the new business owner to shoulder the cost of installing a sprinkler system and connecting that system to the Town’s water main.

It’s not cheap.

Mammoth Fun Shop owner Camille Miller said that because she was moving a toy and gift shop into a building originally run as a restaurant—KFC—she would have had to pay for a sprinkler system. However, she and Heller were able to agree upon a food use at the Fun Shop that exempted her from the requirement. Which is why Mammoth Fun Shop serves ice cream, something Miller never originally intended.

Had she not come up with that solution, she said that installing a sprinkler system, creating a lateral connection to the water main, employing traffic control, and other associated costs would have added up to about $67,000.

“I told Tom Heller he could shoot his fire hose across the street at my building,” Miller quipped. “He didn’t think that was funny.”

Miller pointed out the challenge that kind of cost places on business people interested in revitalizing Main Street. “Businesses all along that corridor failed,” she said, so why would anyone want to put in the same kind of business that failed the first time?

Miller also noted that while the State calls the shots when it comes to the fire code, the State’s language does allow for some wiggle room. The State code “change in occupancy” section concludes that building use or occupancy can change, subject to the approval of the building official, “provided the new or proposed use is less hazardous, based on life and risk, than the existing use.”

However, Heller said the local code is more restrictive. That’s because the Fire Department believes sprinkler systems are important.

“Sprinklers can put the fire out, or keep the fire at bay,” he said. “When it gets to the point where we’re using a hose, the fire has expanded to a point where it’s significant.

“Sprinklers are today what the smoke alarm was when I was a kid. We realized over time that smoke alarms can save a tremendous amount of lives … Sprinklers do the same thing.”

But those who have had to install sprinklers, while grateful for the help of the Fire Department, acknowledged the continuing financial burden sprinklers place on their businesses.

One such example is the Lighthouse Church, which purchased the former Oaktree location on Old Mammoth Road in 2011. The building, larger than 5,000 square feet but built in 1992, had no sprinkler system. Because the Lighthouse Church would be changing the building use from commercial to a gathering place—which is considered a sensitive occupancy, said Heller, because of the possibility of injury when bringing together groups of people—Lighthouse Church had to install sprinklers.

Pastor Dave Nelson said the Town and Fire Department were “really good to us over the whole process [of installing sprinklers]… on the other hand, it was a very painful process. They say it’s beneficial, but it’s expensive to install and to annually test and maintain the pipes.”

He said the fire sprinkler systems can easily break down, either causing flooding in the case of a water system, or a dry system can easily rot if any outside moisture gets in the pipes.

Nelson said a contractor quoted him a cost of $100,000 to connect to the water line and install a sprinkler system. Using a plumber who is a member of the church, “We ended up doing it ourselves, but it was still expensive,” he said.

After all was said and done, Nelson realized that the initial quote was probably accurate for the amount of work they had to do.

A similar price quote deterred one Town business altogether from expanding.

According to Heller, Stay in Mammoth Property Management Company wanted to create a laundry facility for its business in an existing space dedicated to storage (Stay in Mammoth’s owner declined to comment for the story).

“In the fire world, Laundromats are considered high risk because of dust and lint,” Heller said. The Fire District therefore informed Stay in Mammoth that it would have to install a sprinkler system.

According to Realtor Matthew Lehman, who knows the business owner, sprinkler installation would have cost about $100,000.

“The owner is trying to do what he can to save money and compete … He was trying to expand his business,” Lehman said. He added that the owner had already invested about $20,000 into expanding the building’s plumbing to bring it up to code before installing washing and drying machines.

Lehman argued that both the State and local fire codes are cost prohibitive, creating yet more roadblocks to business investment in Mammoth and other California communities.

“I look around Mammoth and I see all the empty commercial space … People don’t want to do business here,” he said; “they can’t.”

Miller voiced a similar frustration: “I think the Town of Mammoth Lakes Fire Department has the unfortunate task of enforcing State fire codes,” she said. “I’m sure Thom is trying to make things happen; I don’t think he’s an obstructionist … I just want to make sure that if there’s any room for creativity [within the codes], we work together to find it.”

If not, Miller said she hoped “we create awareness as a Town that we have this infrastructure need,” so the Town can consider expanding its infrastructure “to allow businesses to comply with the fire code.”

Heller said he believed the infrastructure problem lay not with the Town, but with dated properties that lack the necessary piping to connect to the Town’s main line. “Now new occupants are having to replace the water line that feeds the building,” he said. “It’s the lateral that needs to be upgraded.”


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 2, 2015)

The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is that actions of people—and especially of government—always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended. Economists and other social scientists have heeded its power for centuries; for just as long, politicians and popular opinion have largely ignored it.

Rob Norton

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/UnintendedConsequences.html


----------



## mark handler (Jun 2, 2015)

The law of unintended consequences, without sprinklers, everyone must pay for the fire protection of the few.

The law of unintended consequences, without sprinklers, We all must pay for more fire fighters and more fire Stations


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 2, 2015)

The article states a real cause and effect of the retro active requirements of a fire suppression system in existing buildings.

The law of unintended consequences, without sprinklers, everyone must pay for the fire protection of the few. That is norm around the entire country

The law of unintended consequences, without sprinklers, We all must pay for more fire fighters and more fire Stations Where have they ever built more fire stations in an existing built out city because the use within those building changes? More fire fighters are not hired unless there is historical statistics to support the need. Usually it is the number of other calls that drive the need for additional fire fighters not fire incidents.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 2, 2015)

Many Fire Departments update and build new stations to get response times down below 4 minutes in more areas. this is one factor in insurance rates.


----------



## Yikes (Jun 2, 2015)

Mark, what you said reflects my own experience, especially here in California.

I have had more than one city manager flat-out tell me the reason for requiring sprinklers is that they are under pressure from city council to reduce costs, and for many California cities right now, the number one concern is future pension costs.  They are tyring to figure out how accommodate development without having to build more fire stations - - or possibly be able to close a station, thus save on labor and pension costs.

They tell me that when you have code requirement to provide sprinklers in new buildings and alterations, it gives you greater flexibility / leeway in overall response times, thus enabling further spacing between fire stations.

Form Follows Finance!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 2, 2015)

So is it about saving property and lives or reducing government expenses or maybe both

In the above article they are losing the tax base with the closing of a businesses. No sales tax collections, No business revenue tax collections, No license fees,

When you see a regulation is not achieving the intended goal they should go back and revisit the intent and make changes. This should probably be led by the Fire Official and maybe the water department since the biggest expense is digging into the street and installing a fire line. Perhaps being able to pay those cost over 3 to 5 years or any number of other things that may help achieve compliance.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 2, 2015)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> So is it about saving property and lives or reducing government expenses or maybe bothIn the above article they are losing the tax base with the closing of a businesses. No sales tax collections, No business revenue tax collections, No license fees,
> 
> When you see a regulation is not achieving the intended goal they should go back and revisit the intent and make changes. This should probably be led by the Fire Official and maybe the water department since the biggest expense is digging into the street and installing a fire line. Perhaps being able to pay those cost over 3 to 5 years or any number of other things that may help achieve compliance.


If it is a viable business she can move into another building that does not need to be altered.

So easy to blame the government and codes

I get people every day complaining about egress window requirements

The Window is the same as the old one,  except its a smaller one because I didn't want to remove the existing frame.... but it's the same,  just 2 inches smaller


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 2, 2015)

> If it is a viable business she can move into another building that does not need to be altered. So easy to blame the government and codes


3 Parts of a successful business is location, location  and location

Moving does not get the original building sprinklered.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 2, 2015)

And a bigger sign will bring in more people

Every store, shop and restaurant in mammoth sells gifts

I have seen hundreds of gift stores come and go there

If the owner of the property,  not the gift store owner,  wants to rent to a marginal business,  he/she will need to upgrade. Or work it out with the fire department.


----------



## Yikes (Jun 2, 2015)

mark handler said:
			
		

> I get people every day complaining about egress window requirementsThe Window is the same as the old one,  except its a smaller one because I didn't want to remove the existing frame.... but it's the same,  just 2 inches smaller


Mark, I know this is changing the subject, but I am one of those complainers abot windows, in this narrow (pun alert!) sense:  If the housing was built pre-1964 UBC, there was NO emergency escape window code requirement, therefore putting in a 2" smaller replacement window does not lessen any compliance with the code under which it was originally approved.

As a practical matter, I daresay that a replacement window is likely to operate more smoothly in an emergency than an old window that's probably been painted over / painted shut.  Even if 2" smaller, it is more likely to enable a successful escape.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 2, 2015)

Had a Physic  come into my office wanting  windows one in a shear wall and one on  the property line.

I told her she needed an engineer of architect provide calc for the one in the shear wall and she  could not put in the other, facing someone else’s property.

I am a racist because I won’t let her do whatever she wants. She told the city manager, It will be my fault her business will fail….

How can I be a racist, she’s white, I’m white?

The joke in the office is she’s a Physic, She should have known

marginal businesses are marginal business


----------



## mark handler (Jun 2, 2015)

Yikes said:
			
		

> Mark, I know this is changing the subject, but I am one of those complainers abot windows, in this narrow (pun alert!) sense:  If the housing was built pre-1964 UBC, there was NO emergency escape window code requirement, therefore putting in a 2" smaller replacement window does not lessen any compliance with the code under which it was originally approved.As a practical matter, I daresay that a replacement window is likely to operate more smoothly in an emergency than an old window that's probably been painted over / painted shut.  Even if 2" smaller, it is more likely to enable a successful escape.


You cannot make a modification making it less compliant than is was it was before.

Making it more not compliant is not valid for alternate means.


----------



## jdfruit (Jun 2, 2015)

The economy in Mammoth is tourism; when the tourists have some more money they may return in larger numbers but it may take quite a while before that remote mountain town really recovers. My cousin lives in Mammoth and tried to keep the business open but wasn't able to survive this last "great recession". The fire and safety regulations can't be the only reason that business is tough in this area.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 2, 2015)

jdfruit said:
			
		

> The fire and safety regulations can't be the only reason that business is tough in this area.


But, That is the "only" one the uninformeded will blame

Is Regulation to Blame for the Decline in American Dynamism?

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/02/is-regulation-to-blame-for-the-decline-in-dynamism.html

Is Regulation to Blame for the Decline in American Business

https://www.gmu.edu/centers/publicchoice/wed%20seminars/papers%20spring%2015/218_goldschalag.pdf


----------



## conarb (Jun 2, 2015)

The biggest cost of adding sprinklers is the added service cost, in our district I believe an average 5,000 square foot house would require a 100 GPM rate or an 1-½" meter with one meter to serve the house and sprinklers, as you *can see from this chart that's a $100,000*, many commercial establishments require larger meters, for that 1-½" meter there is another $100 a month charge before they start charging for the water.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 2, 2015)

Several buisnesses have failed in this location, tourism is at the lowest point since the sixties.  but new fire sprinklers will keep this buisness from being a success......

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.647135,-118.968151,3a,68y,185.94h,92.5t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s12K2MCpiZyEKBe2PQrAQQA!2e0

* by theway it is right across thestreet from the fire station*


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 3, 2015)

> Several buisnesses have failed in this location, tourism is at the lowest point since the sixties. but new fire sprinklers will keep this buisness from being a success......


Somebody has to pay for it. $67,000 dollars is no pocket change for most small businesses or landlords. On a 5,000 sq ft building that is roughly $13.40 per sq ft. The landlord would have to raise the rent a $.10 per sq ft to get a 3 to 4 year payback. How many small businesses do you know that can afford a $5,000.00 per year increase in there rent/operating cost.

Bean counters no matter what the size of the business have real world numbers they have to use. Real world businesses do not have a captive market they have to be competitive. When regulations require retroactive compliance larger businesses that already comply or can afford the cost will support the regulation because it will probably drive their competition out of business. It happens all the time


----------



## Builder Bob (Jun 3, 2015)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Several buisnesses have failed in this location, tourism is at the lowest point since the sixties.  but new fire sprinklers will keep this buisness from being a success......  https://www.google.com/maps/@37.647135,-118.968151,3a,68y,185.94h,92.5t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s12K2MCpiZyEKBe2PQrAQQA!2e0
> 
> * by theway it is right across thestreet from the fire station*


Don't think it helped them to much.....

http://wtkr.com/2015/05/26/rv-fire-spreads-to-house/


----------



## ICE (Jun 10, 2015)

A look at all of the laws enacted in the recent past is alarming.  It convinces me that we were barbaric miscreants Hellbent on achieving our own destruction.  Thank goodness that the government wrested us from the Devil's grip.  Anyone who complains about fire sprinklers, ADA, toilets that don't flush and the death of incandescent light bulbs probably has no idea what a terrible place this county was just a short while ago.

I knew we were getting better when I saw Bruce "Caitlin" Jenner.... not right away mind you.... at first I didn't know what to think but when President Obama gave it kudos.... well then I knew that mankind has taken a giant leap in another direction.... away from our past.

In another ten years you won't recognize the USA.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jun 10, 2015)

A marginal business has a CHANCE of becoming successful if regulation was not overbearing on the margin.

That seems elusive for some reason.

But if you make your living off of regulation, you will always see the benefits, and welcome any new regulation. That's why it will continue unabated.

Brent.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 11, 2015)

> But if you make your living off of regulation, you will always see the benefits, and welcome any new regulation


My living depends on there being codes to enforce. However I do not see the benefit in a lot of the newer regulations that have been incorporated into the codes in the last 2 decades. I believe most of them where emotionally driven and voted upon. Critical and

analytical thinking and reasoning are no longer taught in schools and colleges. People are allowing themselves to be led by their feelings and or emotions instead of rational decision making based on the facts or evidence present for a given topic or subject.

If I question why a specific rule or policy is in place and the powers to be can not given an explanation as to the reason behind it other then that is "that is what we require" then the rule or policy needs to be reviewed as to its merit.

Example. Our public works policy states the water tap size has to equal the meter size. Nobody can explain why. We have some 5 year old commercial subdivision development that tapped a 2" water service line for each lot. However they only require a 3/4" service for one of the buildings. That is a $15,000.00 difference in water impact fees. PW will not allow them to reduce the line size. They are requiring the impact fee based on the 2" tap or tear up the street and remove the 2" line and replace it with the 3/4" line.

No good reason they just have to do it


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jun 11, 2015)

That's different. You enforce what's there. If your job is to make more, you make more.

I'm not saying there should not be new codes and improvements. But there is a breaking point, and just driving the costs and complexity up for minimal effect is the wrong thing to do. That's why you see crazy crap without good science behind it.

Brent.


----------

