# No Water for sprinklers



## mark handler (Feb 25, 2014)

Plans for 3 new Oakhurst hotels hit a snag

Monday, February 24, 2014

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=9443919

OAKHURST, Calif. (KFSN) -- Plans to build three large hotels in Oakhurst are now in jeopardy. The developer says he may pull out of the project because Madera County is demanding too much from him.

Crews are already doing groundwork off Highway 41 for the first of three hotels the developer wanted to build on a large lot. But now he says he might back out of the project altogether. Construction workers are leveling the ground for a new Holiday Inn Express and Suites, and several stacks of lumber have arrived at the site. But now the project could come to a sudden stop.

"It would be very disappointing for the community because we certainly need the employment; we need some more hotels because it's a main route up to Yosemite," said Ron Thompson, a Madera County resident.

The Patel family initially planned to build the Holiday Inn Express and then add a Fairfield Inn and Suites and a Hampton Inn. The family already owns several other hotels in Oakhurst and Mariposa.

Paul Patel told Action News over the phone that the new ones would create more than 100 jobs and give the county $1.5 million each year in transient occupancy and property taxes. He feels the county is now making unfair demands for a huge water tank and other expensive changes. But Madera County Fire Marshal Deborah Keenan says the requirements are a matter of public safety.

"Unfortunately the water company is not able to produce the 3,000 gallons a minute, so a water tank is required to be built," said Keenan.

Keenan says sufficient water is critical to fight fires in this community because of limited engines nearby and largely volunteer crews. Just last May, flames destroyed the Oakhurst Lodge, and it took several hours to contain the blaze. Keenan also says the new hotels would be the area's largest development in more than a decade.

"Four-story building, 60,000 square foot, and we don't have the primary tool we need to fight the fire, that's a huge liability for our fire staff who are risking their lives to go in there and also the county in general," said Keenan.

Despite the challenges, Supervisor Tom Wheeler says the project is very important to his district, and he plans to continue working with the Patel family to make it happen.

Madera County Director of Planning and Building Norman L. Allinder, released the following statement to Action News on Monday afternoon:

"Madera County has worked extensively with the developer of the proposed hotels in Oakhurst. We have had numerous meetings over the past several months with the project team, and it is unfortunate at this time that the developer is unable to meet the minimum requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, and California Fire Code. We remain optimistic that the developer will at a later date meet the minimum requirements to ensure the safety of the future occupants and existing community of Oakhurst."

Patel had hoped to open the Holiday Inn Express by this summer and finish the other two hotels by the end of the year. He says he'll make a decision on whether to move forward by the end of the week.


----------



## Frank (Feb 25, 2014)

Actually it looks like not enough water for hose streams.


----------



## JBI (Feb 25, 2014)

Typical business response to vital Code required elements.

Frankly the project sponsors design professional should have identified this as a potential issue early in the planning phase, not at start of construction.


----------



## cda (Feb 25, 2014)

JBI said:
			
		

> Typical business response to vital Code required elements. Frankly the project sponsors design professional should have identified this as a potential issue early in the planning phase, not at start of construction.


It kind of hints that this was told up front::

"Madera County has worked extensively with the developer of the proposed hotels in Oakhurst. We have had numerous meetings over the past several months with the project team, and it is unfortunate at this time that the developer is unable to meet the minimum requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, and California Fire Code. We remain optimistic that the developer will at a later date meet the minimum requirements to ensure the safety of the future occupants and existing community of Oakhurst."

BUT, why they let the project move dirt without it being resolved is a good question??

Plus the developer/ city can't lay some new mains to get some better water with out doing a tank??

Seems like it would help both the city and developer to get better water in the area.


----------



## steveray (Feb 25, 2014)

We don't have that much of a water issue here...we often do not get flows and calcs until well after the building is under way....That being said, I know of one that they had to do alot of reworking to get it where it needed to be....(3 stories on a hill)


----------



## jar546 (Feb 25, 2014)

My guess is that they were fully aware but were doing a "deferred submittal" for the fire sprinkler system knowing they would have to be compliant but not wanting to face reality waiting for the right time to play to the media.  Yes, very typical business move.


----------



## cda (Feb 25, 2014)

jar546 said:
			
		

> My guess is that they were fully aware but were doing a "deferred submittal" for the fire sprinkler system knowing they would have to be compliant but not wanting to face reality waiting for the right time to play to the media.  Yes, very typical business move.


as above, sounds like this is more of a fire hydrant flow requirement, than sprinklers


----------



## Alias (Feb 26, 2014)

Actually, the developer should have been aware of the CA codes requiring structures built in high fire areas to meet certain requirements of the fire code.  There is a punch list of required items such as type of siding, roofing windows, facia etc. so, a water tank might not be totally out of the question.  Oakhurst is about the size of where I was employed, about 2800 folks, and probably does not have the infrastructure in place to provide adequate fire protection in the event of a wildfire.

Sue


----------



## fireguy (Feb 26, 2014)

Look at the bright side, At least they won't have to worry about those pesky sprinkler heads causing all that water damage when the place has a fire.

The owners knew about the requirement for sprinklers prior to the permit process.  they were just trying to slide by


----------



## mjesse (Feb 26, 2014)

jar546 said:
			
		

> My guess is that they were fully aware but were doing a "deferred submittal" for the fire sprinkler system knowing they would have to be compliant but not wanting to face reality waiting for the right time to play to the media.  Yes, very typical business move.





			
				fireguy said:
			
		

> The owners knew about the requirement for sprinklers prior to the permit process.  they were just trying to slide by


Yep.

Developer trying to appeal to the public sympathies by crying about the big bad government rules.

It's likely a calculated gamble they made to try and save some dough. Gotta pad the bottom line where you can.

As building officials, it's helpful to know the tactics of the other side. Stand your ground in the face of opposition, sometimes they're just playing with you.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 26, 2014)

mjesse said:
			
		

> Yep. Developer trying to appeal to the public sympathies by crying about the big bad government rules.
> 
> It's likely a calculated gamble they made to try and save some dough. Gotta pad the bottom line where you can.
> 
> As building officials, it's helpful to know the tactics of the other side. Stand your ground in the face of opposition, sometimes they're just playing with you.


As for accessibility, big bad government rules, As building officials, it's helpful to know the tactics of the other side.

Stand your ground in the face of opposition, sometimes they're just playing with you......

People deciding which Laws/rules they want to enforce, Yep.


----------



## mjesse (Feb 26, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> People deciding which Laws/rules they want to enforce, Yep.


It's human nature. Individuals also choose which rules/laws they want to obey, Risk vs. Reward and all that.

_"Sometimes they're just playing with you" - mj_

Many times the instigators just want to see you get agitated regardless of what they believe. Know anyone like that?

Keep fighting the good fight mate!


----------



## mark handler (Feb 26, 2014)

mjesse said:
			
		

> Keep fighting the good fight mate!


'that true....


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 27, 2014)

Or, or...big bad business was in negotiations (talks and dialog) and hints or suggestions were made by the super innocent government types, or super duper innocent local supervisors, and big bad evil business was led to believe there would be assistance or tax breK accociated with construction.

After all, super duper innocent locals want jobs and tax income from evil robber barons (substantial tax income from hotels which funnel in money from outside the district).

Then once Kim Jung Un committed to construction all deals fell off the table.

I wonder...

Brent.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 27, 2014)

I've played this game way too many times.  Once did I see the local politicians and fire department make promises that I could not keep which caused a major ruckus and I no longer do work for that city.  99.9% of the time, the business owner is ignorant to the facts and uses whatever means necessary to gain sympathy from the community as they had no intention of doing it right to begin with.

Example:

* Someone wanted to open up a bar-restaurant in an abandoned building that was once a gym but never had a C of O.

* FD Assistant Chief with some arm bending from politicians gives approval for an occupant load of 150

* I get involved as a sub of the BCO and find this out

* I bring this to the owner and BCO and say that you cannot have an occupant load of 150 for an A2 that is narrow and 115' deep with only one exit at grade (front) and no exits or fire escapes out the back (2 floors above grade). Single story built on slope. Non-Sprinklered.

* Kitchen built at the back of the restaurant (no plan review) and I say no way, nothing more than 75' from the only exit in the building.

* Owner threatens litigation for being told one thing until I got involved.

* Business opens with just electrical inspections only.  No accessibility.

* FD requires smoke detectors for whatever reason and a 50 cent non-illuminated exit sign at the front door.  (3 of the FF's are IFC certified under the ICC)

* My services are never utilized with that City again.

The owner was catered into doing whatever he wanted and stated had he known the truth, he would have never opened a restaurant-bar there.  He spent his retirement on this business and found out the truth afterwards, hence the litigation threat.  He was lead down the wrong path by the politicians just to get a business opened.  He is a tenant of the building.  Owned by the family of the former mayor.  Go figure.


----------



## JBI (Feb 27, 2014)

I've had situations where a Town Supervisor told a developer to 'just go and get a use variance and then go to the Planning Board'. This was a closed door meeting that left the Zoning Official (and Code Official) out, primarily because I would have told the developer the truth... You can't get a use variance because you can't meet the statutory requirements to get one.

I would, however, have explained that a Zoning CHANGE would've been both doable and expediant.

Politicians need to stay the hell out of the way and let the appointed officials do their jobs.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 27, 2014)

Another example #2:

* Owner of a dry cleaning business completely guts the interior after a major flood.  2 boilers in basement completely underwater, only a load bearing center wall left as all plumbing and electrical was stripped out.  There is an apartment above the business that was not flooded.  Building is non-sprinklered.

* owner caught renovating without a permit very early on, told to apply for permit.

* application has no specs, just to return building back to the way it was.

* application rejected for lack of specifications, no layout, ADA, elec, mech, plumb, energy, fire separation, etc.  I ask for all of those and request an RDP due to the amount of detail needed (request, not demand but contractor or owner not capable of have knowledge)

* Owner goes to mayor for help as they just want to put it back the way it was

* Mayor tells owner to go to the UCC appeals board and he'll make sure they take care of it for him

* I am notified of the appeal and find out the mayor contacted one of the board members telling him to give the owner what he wants.

* I contact the board member the mayor called (there are 3 total board members) and remind him that they have no power to give a variance just simply verify whether or not my interpretation is correct.

* I present my case at the hearing and all 3 members side with me.  He must secure a permit and comply with all code requirements.

* The next month my contract is terminated with that Borough.

So yes, municipalities do meddle where they are not suppose to and tell applicants and owners what they want to hear.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 27, 2014)

Lets throw in another example with the same borough above in example #2

* Borough has major 500 year flood event

* State UCC applies

* Required flood plain ordinance applies per FEMA in order to participate in NFIP

* We have a meeting with FEMA who confirms requirements

* The next 2 months are a complete uphill battle with no communication from council or mayor

* I am called into the office by the mayor and president of council, door closed behind us.  Just us 3 guys sitting at a table.

* The mayor tells me that there is a complaint.  I ask what the complaint is and get this answer verbatim "You knocked on someone's door and told them they needed a permit."

* I then say, OK, what is the complaint?

* Mayor repeats himself "You knocked on someone's door and told them they needed a permit."

* I then look at the president of council who too was flooded and ask him if he pulled a permit for the work he did.  He states he did not have to because he was just putting his house back the way it was.

* I remind them of the flood plain ordinance and the fact that I am working with FEMA who is questioning me as to the low percentage of permits being issued that we are working on

* within a few months my contract with that borough was terminated


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 27, 2014)

It's almost like some of the officials and mayors and what not are kinda not square. Like in cahoots and stuff.

Hard to believe.

Brent.


----------

