Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports·Decided July 26, 2017·No. 16-801·Published

Opinion

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

State of California

XAVIER BECERRA

Attorney General

_________________________

:

OPINION : No. 16-801

of : July 26, 2017 :

XAVIER BECERRA :

Attorney General :

CATHERINE BIDART :

Deputy Attorney General :

________________________________________________________________________

RUBIN E. CRUSE, Shasta County Counsel, has requested an opinion on the following question:

Does Health and Safety Code section 13146 prohibit fire protection district chiefs from enforcing the State Fire Marshal’s building standards and regulations as they relate to R-3 dwellings?

CONCLUSION

Health and Safety Code section 13146 does not prohibit fire protection district chiefs from enforcing the State Fire Marshal’s building standards and regulations as they relate to R-3 dwellings.

16-801

ANALYSIS

A Fire Protection District1 is a public agency, separate from a city or county, that provides fire protection services within a defined geographical area.2 Fire protection districts have chiefs, who are vested with all the powers necessary to carry out the fire and safety purposes of their districts,3 including the power to issue citations for violations of fire protection codes and district ordinances.4

Health and Safety Code section 13146 addresses the authority of fire protection district chiefs to enforce the State Fire Marshal’s building standards and regulations,5 both in general and as those regulations relate to “R-3 dwellings”—a term that encompasses residential occupancies including single-family homes, as well as a variety of licensed facilities such as adult care centers, day-care centers, foster family homes, and drug recovery homes.6

1 Fire Protection Districts are created pursuant to the Fire Protection District Law of 1987 (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 13800-13970), but our conclusions would apply equally to other districts when exercising authorized fire protection powers. (E.g., Gov. Code, § 61100, subd. (d) (community services district); Pub. Resources Code, §§ 5786.7, subd. (d) (recreation and park district), 13070, subd. (c) (resort improvement district); see also Pub. Util. Code, § 16463.5 (utility district); Wat. Code, §§ 31120, 71680 (water districts).) 2 Health & Saf. Code, § 13810 (“Any territory, whether incorporated or unincorporated, whether contiguous or noncontiguous, may be included in a fire protection district”). (See 92 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 83, 83 (2009).) 3 Health & Saf. Code, §§ 13861-13862. 4 Health & Saf. Code, §§ 13871-13872. 5 The State Fire Marshal has a duty to “foster, promote, and develop ways and means of protecting life and property against fire and panic,” and may adopt building standards and other regulations to further these purposes. (Health & Saf. Code, § 13100.1; see, e.g., Health & Saf. Code, §§ 13108.5, 13143.2, subd. (a), 13144.4, 17921, subd. (b).) The State Fire Marshal’s regulations may be found in Title 19 and in Title 24 of Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations. 6 In its entirety, section 310.5 of Part 2 of the California Building Code provides: Residential Group R-3. Residential Group R-3 occupancies where the occupants are primarily permanent in nature and not classified as Group R-1, R- 2, R-2.1, R-3.1, R-4 or I, including: Buildings that do not contain more than two dwelling units Boarding houses (nontransient) with 16 or fewer occupants Boarding houses (transient) with 10 or fewer occupants Congregate residences (nontransient) with 16 or fewer occupants

In this opinion, we consider whether section 13146 is meant to prohibit fire protection district chiefs from enforcing the State Fire Marshal’s building standards and regulations as they relate to R-3 dwellings. For the reasons that follow, we find that the statute’s language does not compel such an interpretation, and that the statute’s context within the state fire protection statutory scheme as a whole counters such an interpretation.

In construing any statute, our purpose is always to give effect to the legislative intent expressed in the statute. We “look first to the words of the statute themselves, giving to the language its usual, ordinary import and according significance, if possible, to every word, phrase and sentence in pursuance of the legislative purpose.”7 On the other hand, where ambiguity exists, “consideration should be given to the consequences that will flow from a particular interpretation.”8 Also salient to our inquiry here is the principle that statutory language must be read “in the context of the statutory framework as a whole in order to determine its scope and purpose and to harmonize the various parts of the enactment.”9

Congregate residences (transient) with 10 or fewer occupants [HCD 1] Efficiency dwelling units Adult care facilities that provide accommodations for six or fewer clients of any age for less than 24 hours. Licensing categories that may use this classification include Adult Day Programs. Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery homes (ambulatory only) Child care facilities that provide accommodations for six or fewer clients of any age for less than 24 hours. Licensing categories that may use this classification include, but are not limited to: Day-Care Center for Mildly Ill Children, Infant Care Center, School Age Child Day-Care Center. Family Day-Care Homes that provide accommodations for 14 or fewer children, in the provider’s own home for less than 24-hours. Foster family homes (ambulatory only) Adult care and child care facilities that are within a single family home are permitted to comply with the California Residential Code. Lodging houses with five or fewer guest rooms 2016 California Building Code (effective Jan. 1, 2017) (italics and bold omitted). 7 Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1386- 1387. 8 Id. at p. 1387. 9 Coalition of Concerned Communities, Inc. v. Los Angeles (2004) 34 Cal.4th 733, 737; see also Select Base Materials, Inc. v. Bd. of Equalization (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645,

We begin with the text of section 13146, which provides, in relevant part:

The responsibility for enforcement of building standards adopted by the State Fire Marshal and published in the California Building Standards Code relating to fire and panic safety and other regulations of the State Fire Marshal shall be as follows:

(a) The city, county, or city and county with jurisdiction in the area affected by the standard or regulation shall delegate the enforcement of the building standards relating to fire and panic safety and other regulations of the State Fire Marshal as they relate to R-3 dwellings, as described in Section 310.5 of Part 2 of the California Building Standards Code, to either of the following:

(1) The chief of the fire authority of the city, county, or city and county, or his or her authorized representative.

(2) The chief building official of the city, county, or city and county, or his or her authorized representative.

(b) The chief of any city, county, or city and county fire department or of any fire protection district, and their authorized representatives, shall enforce within its jurisdiction the building standards and other regulations of the State Fire Marshal, except those described in subdivision (a) or (d).

(c) The State Fire Marshal shall have authority to enforce the building standards and other regulations of the State Fire Marshal in areas outside of corporate cities and districts providing fire protection services.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion, (Cal. 2017).

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion (Untitled California Attorney General Opinion) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stafford v. Los Angeles County Employees' Retirement Board
270 P.2d 12 (California Supreme Court, 1954)
Select Base Materials, Inc. v. Board of Equalization
335 P.2d 672 (California Supreme Court, 1959)
Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission
743 P.2d 1323 (California Supreme Court, 1987)
Coalition of Concerned Communities, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
101 P.3d 563 (California Supreme Court, 2004)