Change of use triggering sprinklers in a single-family home. Correct code interpretation?

[iOne]

I'm working with an older home that had been chopped into several tiny units, with permits, in the 1940's.
Some thirty years ago it converted a single-family home in reality, but not on paper. The home is 134 years old, but not considered historic locally.

The local jurisdiction is willing to paper convert the home, but writes

California Existing Building Code (CEBC) §101.2 Exception states that detached one-family dwellings shall comply with the 2022 California Residential Code (CRC). Due to the fact the building is undergoing a change of occupancy, the building shall comply with the CRC and meet new construction requirements including CRC §R313.3 Dwelling unit fire sprinkler systems.

Does this sound correct?

The California Existing Building Code (CEBC) reads:

Compliance. A change of occupancy shall not be made in any building unless that building is made to comply with the requirements of the California Building Code for the use or occupancy. Changes of occupancy in a building or portion thereof shall be such that the existing building is not less complying with the provisions of this code than the existing building or structure was prior to the change. Subject to the approval of the code official, changes of occupancy shall be permitted without complying with all of the requirements of this code for the new occupancy, provided that the new occupancy is less hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing occupancy. [CEBC 506.1]

But the code official did not so approve.


Cost to add sprinklers is roughly $20,000 for the sprinkler from the riser, $8000 for new service lines to the home (from copper 3/4" to copper 1"), $18000 and 6 months time delay for a new meter (5/8" to 1") and $58,000 in water impact fees, then fees to patch the lath & plaster and repaint, along with an unknown permit fee.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Sounds to me like a certain building official is being a Richard Cranium.

 

[Yikes]

​

1. Not a code question, but: what is the impetus to officially convert it to a single family residence? Isn't t more valuable as an existing multifamily building, even if it is all utilized by just one tenant?
2. Have you made a formal (written) case as to why the change from multifamily to single family is a less hazardous use? Or that you are reverting it to its originally approved 134 year old single family residential use, and might be subject to exception 1 of CRC R313.2?

I am not usually one to advocate "going political", but if you have put this in writing and have not been given a reasonable explanation as to why this is not technically plausible, I would ask either the city manger or your city council rep for assistance in obtaining a formal written explanation form the buildign official as to why the official cannot consider SFR less hazardous based on use than CEBC 506.1.

CEBC [A] 101.2 Scope​

The provisions of this code shall apply to the repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition to and relocation of existing buildings.
Exception: Detached one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress, and their accessory structures not more than three stories above grade plane in height, shall comply with this code or the California Residential Code.

CRC R313.2 One- And Two-Family Dwellings Automatic Sprinkler Systems​

An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in one- and two-family dwellings.
Exceptions:

1. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required for additions or alterations to existing buildings that are not already provided with an automatic residential sprinkler system.

[RB] ALTERATION. Any construction, retrofit or renovation to an existing structure other than repair or addition that requires a permit. Also, a change in a building, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system that involves an extension, addition or change to the arrangement, type or purpose of the original installation that requires a permit.

 

[steveray]

Does cali use the IEBC? The existing appendix of the IRC? I don't think there is a good "code bridge" going from IBC to IRC, but I would treat it as R2 to R3 and likely sprinklers would not be required...

 

[iOne]

1. Not a code question, but: what is the impetus to officially convert it to a single family residence? Isn't t more valuable as an existing multifamily building, even if it is all utilized by just one tenant?

It's owner occupied.

The issue is a local vacancy tax which means the paper units will be taxed $28,000 per year unless
the home is split back up, or paper converted. The value is in the eyes of the current owners, who don't want to move. A speculator might count this differently: tiny units have a greater profit per square foot.

But this area now allows by right conversions of single family homes into 8+ units, so really if a speculator bought it they'd just knock the entire thing down and build tiny apartments new. Cheapr, betr.

2. Have you made a formal (written) case as to why the change from multifamily to single family is a less hazardous use? Or that you are reverting it to its originally approved 134 year old single family residential use, and might be subject to exception 1 of CRC R313.2?

Yes, made that.

I am not usually one to advocate "going political", but if you have put this in writing and have not been given a reasonable explanation as to why this is not technically plausible, I would ask either the city manger or your city council rep for assistance in obtaining a formal written explanation form the buildign official as to why the official cannot consider SFR less hazardous based on use than CEBC 506.1.

Going that route now.

 

[iOne]

The code official's response is that "CRC R313.2" does not apply, because it's not an alteration,
it's a change of use from R2 to R3.

506.1 did not do the trick:

[CEBC 506.1]
Changes of occupancy in a building or portion thereof shall be such that the existing building is not less complying with the provisions of this code than the existing building or structure was prior to the change. Subject to the approval of the code official, changes of occupancy shall be permitted without complying with all of the requirements of this code for the new occupancy, provided that the new occupancy is less hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing occupancy.

 

[iOne]

I like sprinklers.
But the local water agency, EBMUD, wants $18,000 for a minimum 1" meter for dual service,
regardless of the number of heads. And up to $58,000 in capacity charges. Plus $15,000 or so in permits.
That's on top of the actual sprinklers, and supply plumbing.

 

[Joe.B]

CA law requires the jurisdiction to hear an appeal. This is worth appealing, IMO.

 

[iOne]

CA law requires the jurisdiction to hear an appeal. This is worth appealing, IMO.

I'm working my way up the chain from the plan checker, to the fire marshal, to the chief.

The plan checker is interpeting clearly that a change of occupancy brings new construction rules in the California Residential Code
I see:

CEBC [A] 101.2 Scope
The provisions of this code shall apply to the repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition to and relocation of existing buildings.
Exception: Detached one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress, and their accessory structures not more than three stories above grade plane in height, shall comply with this code or the California Residential Code.

 

[steveray]

CEBC....shall comply with this code or the California Residential Code.

If you can actually get to the IEBC, you should be good, but I don't know Cali....

 

[e hilton]

Curious about the total sf of the house, and the number of units.