Thank you all for responding. Here is some history. Hermosa Beach is a small 
city where the beach cottages/houses have been squeezed in with 2 & 3 foot set 
backs. Because lots are so small the city fire dept allowed new construction to 
encroach into the 5’ set backs with 13D systems. THEN, two or three years ago 
the city disbanded its fire department and began contracting fire suppression 
and fire prevention services with LA County Fire Dept.The County Fire Dept 
brought with them the Modified 13D system and discovered what the HBFD had been 
allowing, Surprise!
Thankfully this project is only in the foundation stage. I was handed the fire 
sprinkler drawings and asked to simply do the 13D calculations. The corrections 
came back without explanation from the sprinkler contractor or the plans 
examiner, hence my surprise and question. The system is now vertically and 
horizontally looped with increased pipe size and a few more dollars in my 
pocket. 
Thank you all for responding. 
Owen
Yes, lessons learned. Just because Harry had been doing it for years, Lloyd ( 
Dumb & Dummer) believed he could continue doing the same thing. 
Regards,Owen


Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS


On Wednesday, February 21, 2024, 6:08 AM, Travis Mack <[email protected]> wrote:

<!--#yiv6703623693 filtered {}#yiv6703623693 filtered {}#yiv6703623693 filtered 
{}#yiv6703623693 filtered {}#yiv6703623693 filtered {}#yiv6703623693 
p.yiv6703623693MsoNormal, #yiv6703623693 li.yiv6703623693MsoNormal, 
#yiv6703623693 div.yiv6703623693MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos", sans-serif;}#yiv6703623693 
a:link, #yiv6703623693 span.yiv6703623693MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6703623693 
span.yiv6703623693EmailStyle21 {font-family:"Calibri", 
sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv6703623693 .yiv6703623693MsoChpDefault 
{font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv6703623693 filtered {}#yiv6703623693 
div.yiv6703623693WordSection1 {}-->
As Steve points out, it is AM&M.  If you are a 3rd party designer and didn’t 
ask if there was an AM&M, as it is quite common in CA, then lesson learned.  If 
the builder, owner or sprinkler contractor didn’t review prior to bid then 
lesson learned for them.
 
  
 
AM&M can be costly.  But it was owner/builder choice to encroach on the 
setback.  So I assume they chose the cost of doing the AM&M was less important 
than building into the setback.
 
  
 
If you had the information up front and didn’t use it, then redo the design and 
move on.  If the owner / builder had it and didn’t get it to you, submit change 
order, redo the design and move on.
 
  
 
As I was taught long ago, all education costs.  Some you pay to universities 
and such.  Others you pay to the School of Hard Knocks.
 
  
 
  
 
Travis Mack, SET
 
M.E.P.CAD| Instructor / Support
 
181 N. Arroyo Grande Blvd. #105 I Henderson, NV 89074
 
www.mepcad.com |m: 480.547.9348| Whatspp: +14805479348
 
Email: [email protected]
 
  
 
AutoSPRINK  |  AutoSPRINK FAB  |  AutoSPRINK RVT  |  AlarmCAD
 
  
 
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 6:52 AM
To: 'Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers' 
<[email protected]>; 'Steve Leyton' 
<[email protected]>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Modified 13D System per FD
 
  
 
I am not sure, but I don’t believe I’ve ever seen rules related to wagering on 
the forum.  I do not believe it would be appropriate however, in the unlikely 
event of “off-track” betting on the outcome of a code application, the house 
should get 10%.  No vig.
 
 
 
 
 
| 

  | 
| 
Bob Caputo, CFPS
  |
| 
President
  |
| 
American Fire Sprinkler Association
 
c:     760-908-7753
  |
| 
p:
  | 
214-349-5965 ext124 
  |
| 
w:
  | 
firesprinkler.org  
  |
| 
      
  |

 |


 
 
Treat Your Apprentices Like VIPs!
 
AFSA’s Virtual Instruction Program (VIP) for Apprentices is training that comes 
straight from our expert instructors. They lead the way to ensure your men and 
women are trained, letting you focus on OJT. Click here to learn more and enroll
 
  
 
From: BRUCE VERHEI <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 2:54 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
<[email protected]>; Steve Leyton 
<[email protected]>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Modified 13D System per FD
 
  
 
Unfortunately I assume we can’t arrange wagers on this forum. I’d give odds 
Steve L is correct on more than one of his points. 
 
One more reason to follow the no installation prior to plans review practice. 
I’ve gone round and round more than once on 13-D that just don’t work 
hydraulically. Knowing there’s not enough margin to spend hours yakking with 
the plan reviewer on these jobs I finally learned to ask ‘Is this already 
installed?’ Uh, yeah. I was hoping to pick up permit today, for inspection 
tomorrow. You gotta approve it the GC is riding me.
 
  
 
i wonder if the u/g is sized adequately. 
 
  
 
Best.  
 
  
 
Bruce V.  
 

On 02/20/2024 2:20 PM PST Steve Leyton <[email protected]> wrote:
 
  
 
  
 
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
 

_________________________________________________________ 
SprinklerForum mailing list: 
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 
 

_________________________________________________________
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]


_________________________________________________________
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to