Legislature OKs Sprinkler Bill Fought by L.A. Officials

The state Senate and Assembly have overwhelmingly approved a bill that local authorities fear could preempt Los Angeles’ tough new fire sprinkler ordinance and allow high-rise building owners up to nine years to install the fire-suppressant systems.

City fire officials charged that state legislators caved in to special interests in passing the bill and said they will urge Gov. George Deukmejian to veto the proposed law.

“The special interests have spoken,” Los Angeles Fire Marshal Craig Drummond said. “This is appalling. . . . It is a gross mistake to preempt issues of fire, life and safety.”

Drummond said that if the bill is signed into law, he will ask the Los Angeles city attorney to consider filing suit to stop the measure from taking effect.

City Councilman Nate Holden said the state action was “totally irresponsible. . . . They should hang their heads in shame.”

But Sen. Art Torres (D-Los Angeles), who authored the state measure that was supported by the California Fire Chiefs Assn., said the bill is misunderstood. Torres said local officials would still retain authority over the process.

The city ordinance--adopted in the wake of the devastating First Interstate Bank fire in May that left one man dead and 40 injured--requires all existing office buildings of more than 75 feet in height to install fire sprinkler systems within three years. Buildings with asbestos removal problems have an additional year to complete the job.

High-rises constructed since 1974 are already required to have sprinkler systems.

The state bill, which would specifically preempt the stricter city law, gives building owners one year to file a plan and three years more to install the system. But if building owners need more time, they can apply for an additional three years. And if they can prove they have an asbestos removal problem, they may request an additional two years--bringing the total time period to nine years.

Torres said the extensions are granted at the discretion of local fire authorities and that preserves local control. About half of the 700 commercial high-rises in California that are affected by the measure are within Los Angeles city limits, according to fire officials.

But Drummond said the nine-year period “is almost automatic.” Building owners, he said, “would argue in the appeal process that the intent of the law was to provide the maximum time frame. . . . There is no way we could win a case of less than nine years.”

Torres said, “The statute is clear: (Extensions) are not automatic.”

Building owners, who heavily lobbied in support of the bill, said that flexible time frame under the state measure is more realistic.

“It makes the reality of implementing a little easier,” said Jeff Ely of the Building Owners and Managers Assn.

Proponents of the state bill also argue that the Legislature took on the issue of sprinklers in residential high-rises that has been avoided by the Los Angeles City Council.

“If anyone was caving in to special interests, it was them,” said Dario Frommer, an aide to Torres. The City Council had postponed until October consideration of a separate sprinkler retrofitting ordinance for residential buildings, but the state bill would apply to commercial and residential buildings equally.

Ron Cagle, a lobbyist who represents Los Angeles in Sacramento, said there are other differences between the city ordinance and the state bill that could be critical.

The city ordinance requires most buildings to have a 20,000-gallon water tank and some of the larger towers a 40,000-gallon tank as a backup water source for the sprinkler systems. The state law requires only a 10,000-gallon tank, regardless of a building’s size.

But the primary issue is preemption of city law. Drummond said Los Angeles has many ordinances requiring stricter fire prevention measures that have not been overridden by state law.

The city bans wood roofs in mountain districts and requires smoke detectors in all residences and sprinklers in older apartments and hotels.

A spokesman for the governor said no decision has been made on whether the bill will be signed.