Suit Puts Heat on Sprinkler Law

Encinitas artist-collector Robert Perine doesn’t know which he fears most--fire or rain.

In his soon-to-be-completed home, a 5,600-square-foot dwelling he calls an artist’s dream house, the 66-year-old Perine is placing hundreds of works gathered over a lifetime. They include African sculptures, acrylics, oil and watercolor paintings--some created by himself and friends, others by more celebrated names.

And, although he knows a fire could wipe out his priceless collection, Perine has another nagging concern: He fears that a fire sprinkler system the city is requiring him to install in his home could one day go off by accident, staining and cracking the oil-based works--the rain from the ceiling running together the delicate dabs of watercolor, turning much of his collection into something of a Jackson Pollock collage.

“The people from the city tell me there’s only a one-in-a-million chance of these water sprinklers ever going off by accident,” he said. “But the chances of having a fire inside my home may be even slimmer. Frankly, I don’t know which one is more dangerous.”

Perine is a member of a tiny group called Taxpayers Against Sprinklers--a collection of Encinitas homeowners who are challenging the city’s 2 1/2-year-old sprinkler ordinance, claiming that the devices are not only expensive and unnecessary, but that the city is violating their rights by requiring them.

Encinitas fire officials, however, contend that the sprinklers cut labor costs and save lives because they contain the blaze at its point of origin until firefighters arrive.

And, although the North County coastal town was among the first in California to pass a fire sprinkler law--in November 1988--more than 130 communities statewide have since followed suit, officials say.

Tonight, members of the anti-sprinkler group plan to converge on Encinitas City Hall to voice their disapproval of the ordinance as it faces routine review before the City Council.

And, on May 31, a Vista Superior Court judge is expected to rule on a lawsuit the group filed last fall. Judge Kevin Midlam will decide whether the law oversteps state building codes, which exempt residential dwellings from sprinkler requirements.

Members of Taxpayers Against Sprinklers hope a ruling in their favor will stem the tide of similar sprinkler ordinances statewide, causing officials to rethink such laws--which might one day be challenged and overturned in court.

They also hope that a ruling against the city’s right to dictate use of the anti-fire devices would send a message to Sacramento, where legislators last year passed what group members call a carefully worded law that allows cities across California to pass stringent fire sprinkler ordinances.

“Fire sprinklers really are a good idea--I’d have them in certain places in my home,” said Wayne Holden, an Encinitas home designer who spearheaded the anti-sprinkler movement. “But I think homeowners should be able to decide for themselves and not have the devices rammed down their throats.”

Holden, president of Taxpayers against Sprinklers--which is backed by several statewide construction groups--says that automatic sprinklers can cost as much as $8,000 to install in new homes. And the price tag can increase sharply in areas where water districts assess extra charges for sprinkler systems.

He said the law is wrongheaded because new homes have a significantly smaller chance of fire than older homes--which are not covered by the city’s ordinance. In any event, he said, smoke detectors have proven to be a much more effective early warning device for residential and office fires.

He also points out that, with a smoldering fire in a bed or sofa, the room temperature might not get high enough to trigger a sprinkler before a person succumbs to toxic smoke.

Officials from the National Assn. of Home Builders--as well as Los Angeles County fire officials--acknowledge that there are some fires the sprinklers can’t handle--such as an explosion that could damage the system or create a fire too large for it to handle.

“Everything about this law is out of whack,” Holden said. “Statistics show that 96% of fires occur in older homes because that’s where the attic crawl spaces and faulty wiring are. But this ordinance is attacking only the newer homes. Well, that’s not where the fires are.”

Encinitas Fire Chief Robert La Marsh argues that more fires occur in older homes simply because there are more older homes. Anyway, the bottom line of the group’s argument against fire sprinklers is money--a consideration he said he refuses to weigh.

“No matter what justifications we come up with, they aren’t going to satisfy these people’s base-line complaint--that the system costs them too much money,” he said. “Regardless of what they say, these sprinklers save lives and property--they keep the fires small and controllable until we can get to them.”

The sprinklers are also a way to have citizens help share the costs of fire protection. The devices could save the city $700,000 annually by the end of the decade, La Marsh said.

“These people who are complaining are creating a problem for us by adding to our responsibility,” he said. “They’re increasing our service demand, and the expectation is for us to expand our system to accommodate their new homes--by either adding men or cutting back on our services to others.

“What we’re saying is that, ‘Look, we’ve got a set level of service now. You add on to it and you should pay the cost.’ It’s that simple.”

La Marsh said other communities--including Spring Valley, Solana Beach and San Marcos--have similar versions of the mandatory fire sprinkler ordinance. San Marcos, however, exempts homes under 5,000 square feet and with good access for firefighters.

“Politically, not everyone can stand the heat of such an ordinance,” La Marsh said. “The building industry is pretty powerful and they’re behind a lot of this. They apply pressure to people. And not a lot of communities can stand up to that.”

Holden discounts the city’s claim that the sprinkler systems are necessary because Santa Ana conditions increase the fire hazard and coastal fog often slows firefighters’ response.

He said the group would welcome a compromise limiting the types of new homes affected by the mandatory sprinkler ordinance or, better yet, calling for a fire protection system that features interconnected smoke alarms in each bedroom as well as hallways and remote garages.

Robert Perine wholeheartedly agrees. He knows the drawbacks to the sprinkler system. Once on, the systems have to be turned off manually, even if the fire is out. Most systems cannot be shut off without turning off the water to the rest of the house.

So, even if the sprinkler saves his precious paintings from fire, it may damage them. “I don’t relish spending $8,600 to install this system,” he said.

But he’s keeping his eye on the upcoming court decision.

“If Encinitas is unable to enforce its law, then hopefully I’ll be spared.”

But Fire Chief La Marsh said he has an answer to that kind of thinking. “If he has a fire in one room, that sprinkler system can confine it to one room--without much smoke or heat damage to the rest of the structure,” he said.

“Without it, he’s risking his whole house.”