If you have a set-back deficiency and the project was permitted with the upgraded sprinkler system as a condition of approval, it’s perfectly legit. Before you designed the system, did the owner or their agent inform you that there were alternative means and methods required? I would first ask them, because if the situation is what LACFD informed you that it is, then the owner has almost certainly been informed of these upgrades in writing and the information wasn’t conveyed to the construction team. Did you look at the code analysis in the plans to see if it’s there? Are you the contractor or a contract designer? If you’re a 3rd party, did the contractor bid off of plans that may include this information and they’re the ones that didn’t convey to you?
Steve L. From: Owen Evans <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 1:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Modified 13D System per FD I designed a standard 13D system for a new SFR in Hermosa Beach Ca.. The city of Hermosa Beach contracts with LA County for their fire protection. I received corrections requiring a 4 head calculation, heads in all compartments and attic, and under all exterior overhangs. They call it a modified 13D system. I spoke with the plans examiner and he stated this is an LA country requirement with approval from the city of Hermosa Beach. I asked for the amendment that allows this “modified 13D” system. He stated that because the SFR encroaches into the 5’ setback, it’s an alternate means and method, no amendment required. This is going to result in a significant cost increase. Is this situation legit? Owen Evans Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/aol-news-email-weather-video/id646100661>
_________________________________________________________ SprinklerForum mailing list: https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
