City, Menlo fire district lock horns over fire sprinkler proposal City, Menlo fire district lock horns over fire sprinkler proposal (April 28, 2004)

** Fire district officials irritated by Menlo council's delay of sprinkler decision.

By Renee Batti
Almanac News Editor

Advocates call it a life-and-death matter, while opponents say it is an over-reaching, overly costly solution to a rarely seen problem.

For a majority of the Menlo Park City Council, a fire sprinkler ordinance being pushed by the local fire district is in need of a major adjustment if it is to be effective in making homes, and the people in them, safer.

While agreeing with several specifics of the proposed ordinance, the council on April 13 delayed action on it, asking for more information from city staff and the Menlo Park Fire Protection District.

The district has taken the ordinance proposal to all three cities in its jurisdiction: Atherton and East Palo Alto, which have endorsed it; and Menlo Park.

Fire district officials, who had hoped to implement the ordinance in all three cities at the same time, have decided not to wait for Menlo Park's decision and to instead move forward with the formal approval process for the two towns that have agreed to the law, which requires the installation of fire-suppression sprinklers in new buildings over a certain size and in many homes undergoing remodeling.

Meanwhile, at the April 20 fire district board meeting, frustrated board members instructed Fire Chief Paul Wilson not to comply with the council's request for more information.

"I was ready to do it, but I can't now," Chief Wilson said. Fire district staff had already done additional research after two prior meetings with the council, and the board doesn't want staff to continue providing new information to a council that appears reluctant to approve the ordinance, he explained.

The fire district's proposed ordinance would require installation of sprinklers in all buildings of more than 2,500 square feet that undergo remodels or expansions exceeding 50 percent of the existing space; in all new buildings, including single-family homes, of more than 1,000 square feet; and in existing buildings where a basement is being added.

Fire officials say the automatic sprinklers could help prevent the death of residents trapped in burning houses and minimize property damage to homes and businesses.

Disagreement

During prior discussions of the proposal, council members supported requiring sprinklers in new buildings, but challenged the wisdom of requiring sprinklers in remodeled homes. At the April 13 meeting, city staff recommended a revision that would require sprinklers in remodeled houses only when changes or additions to the house exceed 75 percent of the existing square-footage.

At that meeting, the council majority, with Councilman Chuck Kinney in sharp disagreement, endorsed in concept the staff-recommended "75 percent" rule. Councilwoman Mickie Winkler said she feared that increasing the cost of remodels by requiring sprinklers would discourage homeowners from making upgrades that could increase safety, such as new electrical systems.

Councilman Nicholas Jellins raised new questions about the need to require sprinklers in the entire house when a homeowner added a basement exceeding 250 square feet. He and Mayor Lee Duboc said they want to see a more compelling argument for the requirement.

Mr. Kinney argued that though the proposed sprinkler requirement may seem extreme now, it will become standard in the future, just as double-glazed windows and insulation are now standard after being resisted when first advocated.

After the meeting, Councilman Kinney said he is "looking long-term" in his support of the ordinance, noting that the added cost "is miniscule over time," but the investment leads to "a better product -- a safer product."

The council asked the fire district to provide more information on the need for installing sprinklers when basements are added to houses, and to respond to information in a document presented by resident and architect Michael Lambert. Mr. Lambert cited the document, the state fire marshal's report on structure fires and sprinkler effectiveness, as evidence that sprinklers aren't as effective as local fire officials claim.

Fire district challenged

Mr. Lambert presented a number of arguments to the council challenging the fire district's data supporting the sprinkler proposal, including the cost estimates. Whereas the district estimates the cost to be between $1 and $1.55 a square foot for a remodel, Mr. Lambert put the cost far higher. He obtained cost estimates for installing sprinklers his own home from three contractors, he said, and the average cost was $3.95 per square foot.

His own house, he said, is hooked into a monitored home fire alarm system that is bundled with a home security system -- an alternative he said is far more advantageous to homeowners than sprinklers.

Calling the fire district's reports and statistics supporting the ordinance "a campaign of misinformation and propaganda," Mr. Lambert also questioned the fire district's motives for pushing the ordinance. At a time of projected budget shortfalls and the need to cut costs, the district appears to want to "shift the burden of fire-suppression services, and this can be done by putting more of the burden on the homeowner, through the requirement of home fire sprinkler systems," he stated in written comments to the council.

'Ticked off'

Mr. Lambert's charges and the council's delay in acting on the ordinance proposal were not well-received by the fire district's board of directors. At its April 20 meeting, the board passed a resolution requiring staff to provide all Menlo Park business- and home-owners who submit building plans to the district with a copy of the proposed ordinance so that they "may make a fully informed decision regarding their voluntary compliance with the proposed ordinance."

Board President Ollie Brown said after the meeting that he was "quite offended by some of (Mr. Lambert's) statements." Noting that the fire district has a reputation for being progressive and proactive, he said Mr. Lambert's charge that the district is trying to shift the fire-suppression burden onto homeowners was "completely erroneous and ... it really ticked me off."

"Our one and only motive for doing this is to protect life and property," Mr. Brown said. A firefighter and administrator with the district for decades before retiring and joining the board, Mr. Brown said, "I wish Mr. Lambert could be with firefighters when they put a body in the bag, and smell skin burning."

Mayor Duboc, while defending her position on scaling down the fire sprinkler requirements, said she has never questioned the fire district's motives in pushing the ordinance. "I really believe they're looking out for our safety ... and I have the utmost admiration" for them, she said.

Chief Wilson said he will meet with city staff this week to tell them he won't be providing the information the council requested and to determine how to proceed with the ordinance proposal.

Staff writer Rebecca Wallace contributed to this report.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.