Josh Petray – Paso Robles Press

The Paso Robles City Council staved off making any changes to California Codes until it receives more information on topics of interest to local builders, homeowners and the City Council.

Last week, the council unanimously delayed introducing an ordinance to amend its municipal code to comply with certain state code amendments following uneasiness expressed about some of the proposed amendments. The state updates its codes every three years. The city adopted the codes and can make amendments based only on findings.

The staff reported May 20 that a complicated code item needed to include more information before the council made the necessary findings to move forward with the code changes. Significant discussion centered around a code amendment stipulating that automatic sprinkler systems would be required in new buildings 3,000 square-feet or more, or for buildings with new additions that create 3,000 square-feet or more of total building space with certain exemptions.

Mayor Frank Mecham questioned what the logic was in developing the 3,000 square-foot threshold.

“I just can’t quite understand the justification in the number,” he said.

City Councilman Duane Picanco questioned a building code amendment that addressed water-conserving fixtures and fittings, to which city staff answered that the item effectively falls in line with the energy requirements of the government.

The California Plumbing Code would be amended to include certain restrictions on how many gallons per minute can be delivered from shower heads, lavatory faucets, as well as certain requirements on automatic and coin operated car washes to recycle a minimum of 50 percent of the water required for their daily operation.

City Councilman John Hamon posed questions regarding temporary structures, in particular a statement that stipulates all tents and other membrane structures erected for less than 90 days shall comply with the California Fire Code. He questioned whether sprinklers would be required in a tent, for example, if a circus came to town. Staff responded by saying that things including hay on the ground and fire extinguishers would be included, but not fire sprinklers.

Nick Gilman spoke during public comment and made arguments against the fire sprinkler requirement for residential homes and in favor of using PEX for water insulation.

“It’s a Mickey Mouse thing,” he said. “Come on, guys, is this meaningful change?”

Estrella Associates, Inc. chief executive officer Dick Willhoit was the next person to speak. He said Gilman’s comments were “extremely appropriate.” Like Gilman, Willhoit said he’s fine with the commercial requirements for fire sprinklers, but said he disagreed with city staff on the residential requirement.

The Paso Robles Municipal Code requires the installation of automatic sprinkler system for commercial structures 5,000 square-feet or greater. There is currently no requirement for residential systems, city officials said.

Willhoit told the council that if it approved the 3,000-square-foot as a threshold, that it should consider extending that requirement to 3,500 square-feet. Paso Robles is the only city in the state to use the 3,000 square-foot threshold, he said.

Another member of the public spoke following Willhoit and urged for statistics showing that a 3,000 square-foot home is more prone to burn. Public comment then segued into council discussion.

City Councilman Fred Strong questioned why an apparently wealthier home is more worth saving than a less wealthy one.

“If we’re going to be sprinklering homes, why aren’t we sprinklering all of them?” he asked. “I don’t like the class concept that’s being projected here.”

Mecham iterated to Strong that it wasn’t necessarily about whether someone has an expensive home, but rather the cost relative to installation of the product.

City Manager Jim App said he urged Emergency Services Chief Ken Johnson to express his professional opinion, and that 3,000 square-feet was a compromise.

“We would prefer zero square-feet,” App said.

Strong said he would prefer having it as an option available for anybody who’s willing to pay for it.

Hamon suggested that staff come back with a schedule and show the council the changes, as well as how things would be implemented and work.

“Again, we’re looking at cost issues that the homeowner is going to have to bear,” he said.

Picanco said he supports the idea of requiring fire sprinklers on buildings that are adjacent to open space, but not outright. He also highlighted the cost of installing fire sprinklers on affordable housing.

“If you’re going to require sprinklers, you’re going to require them on a roof that’s adjacent to open space and vegetation,” he said. “And then of course if we start talking about dollars and affordable housing, if you add sprinklers that’s not going to make it any more affordable.”

Mayor Pro Tem Gary Nemeth said he thought that perhaps a 3,500 to 3,600 square-foot threshold might be appropriate and echoed the concerns of Hamon, who suggested staff bring back more information including but not limited to whether or not the state fire code requires fire sprinklers in residences of any size and whether PEX tubing might be allowed.

“For me, who isn’t a contractor, it would be nice to see a list of changes so that I could understand it a bit better,” he said.

Picanco echoed a similar sentiment.

The item was continued to a future City Council date to be determined.

To read the full article click here.