Building Industry Assn. v. City of Livermore

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 445·45 Cal. App. 4th 719·52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 902·96 Daily Journal DAR 5795·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3554
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 20, 1996A070517California7,452 words

Opinion

Opinion

Parrilli, J.

This case presents a single straightforward issue: can California cities require builders to install residential fire sprinkler systems in new or substantially remodeled single-family dwellings? The simple answer to this question is “yes.” Unfortunately, because the Legislature has not spoken clearly concerning this issue, the analysis which leads to this conclusion is neither straightforward nor simple.

I

Facts

In 1992 the City of Livermore (City) updated its building code by enacting ordinance No. 1389. Ordinance No. 1389 adopted the 1991 version of the Uniform Building Code, with certain amendments. In particular, the City amended section 3802 of the 1991 Uniform Building Code, which, in its original version, required automatic fire-extinguishing systems in most buildings except single-family dwellings and duplexes. Ordinance No. 1389 effectively removed this exception and required automatic fire-extinguishing systems in all new construction, including single-family dwellings. (City of Livermore Ord. No. 1389, § 2, p. 8.) To support this amendment, the Livermore City Council made detailed findings that the more stringent requirements for automatic fire-extinguishing…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.