Building Inspection Commission backs moving sprinkler rules into fire code, urges cost and displacement studies for retrofit ordinance

The San Francisco Building Inspection Commission on April 20 voted unanimously to adopt amendments that shift code language about sprinklers for existing high‑rise residential buildings from the city's building code to its fire code, and to recommend approval of a broader ordinance requiring sprinkler retrofits — while asking the sponsor and staff to return with a cost study, a tenant displacement plan and a clearer implementation timeline.

The commission's action came after a multi‑hour discussion with staff from Supervisor Aaron Peskin's office, fire‑safety officials and members of the public. Lee Hepner of Supervisor Peskin's office described the proposal as a response to a November 2020 Gateway Apartments fire and said the 1993 ordinance left about 130 older high‑rise residential buildings under‑sprinklered. "If we do nothing, we are only waiting for the next disaster to occur," Hepner said.

Why it matters: many of the affected buildings were constructed before 1976 and are concentrated in Districts 2 and 3; the city estimates many are less than 20% sprinklered and about 60 are below 10% coverage. Commissioners and advocates said the ordinance aims to improve life safety in a housing stock that houses long‑term residents, but several commissioners stressed that cost and tenant impacts could be large and must be quantified before the Board of Supervisors acts.

Key details: the sponsor outlined a tiered, phased approach intended to reduce disruption. Fire Department staff described a compliance framework with four implementation steps and a conceptual schedule in the draft ordinance: obtain permits within two years of the ordinance's effective date, install risers and control valves within four years, and finish full sprinkler installation within six years. Fire technical staff emphasized flexibility in designs and delegated authority for the fire marshal to approve modifications where full compliance is impractical.

Public testimony: labor and safety advocates urged action. Dan Torres, representing sprinkler fitters, said retrofits will cause inconvenience and cost but argued the benefits justify the work: "if retrofitting these residential high rises save 1 life, it's worth it." Daniel Chacon of the Lee Van Roosch Burn Foundation spoke of the human and financial toll of burn injuries, saying burn care and recovery can be catastrophic for survivors and families.

Commission concerns and requests: commissioners repeatedly asked for a transparent pro forma and cost modeling that disaggregates building typologies and ownership models, and asked the sponsor to analyze contractor capacity and timeline feasibility. They also requested a plan to minimize tenant displacement during construction and to estimate the program's overall fiscal impact.

Outcome and next steps: the commission adopted the building‑code amendments by roll call (motion by Vice President Tam, second by President Vito) and then voted unanimously to recommend approval of the ordinance while asking the sponsor to return with the requested cost studies, displacement analysis and status updates. The ordinance's file number cited at the meeting is S.F. Supervisor File 220038; the item will continue through committee review and the Board of Supervisors.

What to watch next: the sponsor said staff and contractors are assembling pro formas and ownership‑model scenarios; commissioners said they expect to see that analysis before the ordinance proceeds to final approval.