# New one for me



## JPohling (Mar 10, 2022)

I am sure there are others, but this is a first for me.  Doing some work in Sonoma, CA and they have amended the code to require all non sprinkled commercial buildings be fire sprinkled if the permit valuation is over 150,000 over a 3 year period.  

We have a stand alone 3,200 SF Type VB building separated on all sides, so the allowable area is somewhere in the 16,000 SF range.  Our construction valuation for the 2,900 SF of remodel will be in the 200K range.  The sprinkler system installation I am guessing will be in the 40K range.

There is no financial hardship threshold, review, or possibility.  Seems crazy but it is what it is.  What other jurisdictions have done this?


----------



## Joe.B (Mar 10, 2022)

Sounds like a local amendment intended to be more restrictive than CA code. This is allowable, but you could check and make sure they followed the proper procedure and approved the local amendment with the CBSC. If they did not, then it's not valid.


----------



## Msradell (Mar 10, 2022)

Welcome to the land of we take you with regulations, if it happens you live in a nanny state!


----------



## TheCommish (Mar 11, 2022)

Listening to my contractors complain about how hard it is to build in MA, it is not, compared to the Left Coast is one of my daily joys


----------



## JPohling (Mar 11, 2022)

Joe.B said:


> Sounds like a local amendment intended to be more restrictive than CA code. This is allowable, but you could check and make sure the followed the proper procedure and approved the local amendment with the CBSC. If they did not, then it's not valid.


Joe,  it is filed properly and in the system.


----------



## Yikes (Mar 14, 2022)

I first started seeing these amendments requiring mandatory sprinkler retrofits in the beach communities in Southern California, where summertime traffic jams make it difficult for fire trucks to meet reasonable response times.
Not long after, many other communities started adopting the requirement as well.  From what I've heard (strictly anecdotal, maybe someone here can verify) NFPA 1710 recommends a maximum 5 minute response time from the first 911 call until the fire department arrives on-scene, but they allow additional time if the municipality enacts a mandatory fire sprinkler ordinance.  Additional response time allows for a larger service radius from each fire station, so a municipality with multiple stations may be able to shut down now-redundant stations and save on pension costs, etc.
I think NFPA 1710 is voluntary, but it does inform insurance rates in a given area.

For another example, here's the mandatory sprinkler amendment from the City of Pasadena:


----------



## Rick18071 (Mar 15, 2022)

JPohling said:


> I am sure there are others, but this is a first for me.  Doing some work in Sonoma, CA and they have amended the code to require all non sprinkled commercial buildings be fire sprinkled if the permit valuation is over 150,000 over a 3 year period.
> 
> We have a stand alone 3,200 SF Type VB building separated on all sides, so the allowable area is somewhere in the 16,000 SF range.  Our construction valuation for the 2,900 SF of remodel will be in the 200K range.  The sprinkler system installation I am guessing will be in the 40K range.
> 
> There is no financial hardship threshold, review, or possibility.  Seems crazy but it is what it is.  What other jurisdictions have done this?



This is nuts. Check out the details of this. It may not include the cost of everything you are doing like electrical, mechanical, accessibility, landscaping, paving, upgrading for seismic, etc.


----------



## MtnArch (Mar 15, 2022)

This may be a "poison pill" that the municipality has instituted - if you want to do it, you can - BUT it will cost you BIG time.


----------



## JPohling (Mar 17, 2022)

Yikes said:


> I first started seeing these amendments requiring mandatory sprinkler retrofits in the beach communities in Southern California, where summertime traffic jams make it difficult for fire trucks to meet reasonable response times.
> Not long after, many other communities started adopting the requirement as well.  From what I've heard (strictly anecdotal, maybe someone here can verify) NFPA 1710 recommends a maximum 5 minute response time from the first 911 call until the fire department arrives on-scene, but they allow additional time if the municipality enacts a mandatory fire sprinkler ordinance.  Additional response time allows for a larger service radius from each fire station, so a municipality with multiple stations may be able to shut down now-redundant stations and save on pension costs, etc.
> I think NFPA 1710 is voluntary, but it does inform insurance rates in a given area.
> 
> ...


Yikes,  thanks for the Pasadena info.  They are significantly more lenient with the alterations needing to be more than 50% of the value of the structure.  Sonoma is 150K in improvements over a 3 year period.  The good news is the property owners are aware and the leases are written that the owner will pay to bring the building up to code.  so it is on the owner's dime.


----------



## ADAguy (Apr 8, 2022)

leases can transfer this to tenants


----------

