Council fails to pass urgency ordinance on sprinklers for new and relocated mobile homes

The Yucaipa City Council considered and rejected an urgency ordinance on Aug. 25 that would have required newly constructed and relocated mobile homes and manufactured homes to be equipped with fire sprinkler systems and — in designated high fire severity zones — to use ignition‑resistant materials.

City Attorney Steven Graham told the council the ordinance was brought on an urgency basis in response to state action (AB 306 language adopted in the budget) that freezes many local amendments to building codes through 2031 unless they qualify as necessary emergency standards. Graham said the city could adopt an urgency ordinance now to grandfather the sprinkler and materials requirements before the state moratorium takes effect.

After discussion and public comment, the council voted 3‑2 on the ordinance, falling short of the four‑fifths vote necessary for an urgency ordinance to take immediate effect. The roll call was Bieber — yes; Miller — yes; Woolsey — no; Venable — no; Thorpe — yes. The motion to approve the ordinance was moved by Council Member Miller; the second was not identified in the public record. Because an urgency ordinance requires four‑fifths support, the measure failed.

What the ordinance would have done Staff’s amended urgency ordinance removed language that would have required sprinklers when an existing unit is remodeled; the final version before the council applied only to newly constructed and relocated mobile and manufactured homes. Staff also added a requirement that units in high fire severity zones be constructed with ignition‑resistant materials and practices.

Supporters and opponents Supporters of the ordinance, and of measures to harden manufactured housing, emphasized wildfire risk. Opponents and mobile‑home advocates warned the cost and infrastructure demands of sprinkler systems could be significant for mobile‑home parks. Mark Westwood, chair of the Yucaipa Mobile Home Residence Association, urged a cautious approach and emphasized that the amended ordinance no longer applied to remodels; he also cited local mobile‑home counts presented in the hearing.

Several councilmembers and residents questioned operational issues such as water pressure and the cost of retrofits. Council Member Miller raised concerns that sprinkler systems can require higher pressure and that parks might need pressure regulators or pipe replacements; staff said pressure regulators are a typical technical solution but that the council should seek engineering advice when considering mandates.

Public record and clarifying details Speakers at the hearing noted local conditions and costs: Westwood said, on the record, that there are about 4,018 mobile homes in the city as of 2023 and cited one relocation estimate of roughly $12,000 plus pump costs reported in the public comments. Staff said the sprinkler requirement would apply citywide for new and relocated units, while the ignition‑resistant materials requirement would apply only in state‑designated high fire severity zones.

Why the urgency route mattered Staff said they sought an urgency ordinance because the California Legislature used budget‑bill language to limit local code changes (derived from AB 306) and that narrow, targeted changes necessary to protect health and safety could still be enacted now and be grandfathered in. Without a four‑fifths vote tonight, the city retains the option to bring a non‑urgency ordinance through normal public hearings and a later adoption process, but those changes could be subject to the state moratorium.

Ending The council’s failure to reach the four‑fifths threshold means the proposed sprinkler requirement will not take effect immediately. Staff said council may return with revised proposals or pursue a regular adoption process; any future ordinance would require follow‑up hearings, technical analysis and, if moving forward, attention to implementation issues such as water pressure, costs and funding for retrofits.