Fire Sprinkler Bill Found Defective; Author Asks Veto

In a strange twist to an already controversial state bill, Sen. Art Torres (D-Los Angeles) said Friday that he has discovered a technical error in the drafting of his legislation requiring fire sprinklers in high-rise buildings and has asked Gov. George Deukmejian to veto the bill.

The move surprised Los Angeles officials who had fought the legislation because it would have preempted Los Angeles’ much tougher fire sprinkler ordinance.

But these city officials welcomed the odd occurrence and said they will continue to fight state efforts to overrule the ordinance and extend the time period allowed for the retrofitting of older high-rise buildings.

“It’s a victory for the people of California and especially the people of Los Angeles,” said City Councilman Nate Holden, who authored the fire sprinkler ordinance.

In his letter to the governor, Torres said that one section of the bill mistakenly provided for an initial four-year implementation period, instead of three years as was intended.

Deukmejian’s office confirmed that it had received the letter, but a spokesman said he did not know whether the governor would veto the bill. The spokesman added that it is unusual for the author of a bill to seek its veto--even for technical reasons.

In the letter, Torres said: “It is my intention . . . to again introduce legislation on this subject matter. I feel it is important to have strong statewide standards to protect the health and safety of those who work and live in high-rise structures in California.”

Instead of seeking a veto, Torres could simply introduce a correcting amendment to the bill in the next session of the Legislature, which begins Dec. 5, legislative experts said.

But Torres said in an interview that he prefers to reintroduce the entire bill and hold extensive hearings in the fall to “clear the air” and “clear up the confusion.”

The Torres bill--which the Legislature approved overwhelmingly--had been criticized by local officials as a “special-interest” measure.

It allowed for special extentions that could give building owners up to nine years to install sprinklers. At the same time, the bill specifically preempted a Los Angeles ordinance that would allow three years to do the job.

The bill had been heavily lobbied by two business trade groups--the Building Owners and Managers Assn. and the California Hotel-Motel Assn. Both acknowledged that they sought to preempt the Los Angeles ordinance, which they consider onerous.

Since the bill was passed, it has come under criticism because of the special-interest nature of the legislation. “I expected him to do this,” Holden said of Torres. “He couldn’t take the heat.”

Assurance From Torres

But Jeff Ely, a lobbyist for the Building Owners and Managers Assn., said he has been assured by Torres that the new bill to be introduced in December will be substantially similar to the one already passed. Ely said his organization will again work for a law that will preempt the Los Angeles ordinance.

“There are some real, serious health implications and liability implications” for installation of sprinklers in buildings with asbestos problems, he said.

Los Angeles Fire Chief Donald O. Manning said he will again urge legislators to oppose any attempt by the state to preempt the ordinance. “Now we’ll get a chance to go back to Sacramento in a much cooler setting and crank out a really good piece of fire safety legislation,” Manning said.