San Francisco has long been recognized for its progressive approach to public safety, particularly in fire protection for high-rise buildings. One example is their Sleeping Area Ordinance, which requires audible alarms in all sleeping areas. However, recent media coverage and local debates have brought the city’s updated fire sprinkler retrofit requirements into question, with opposition concerned about cost and necessity. This article explores the opposition’s viewpoints, the efforts in Fire and Life Safety education, and the commitment to protecting residents and firefighters.
The Opposition: Financial Concerns and the Importance of Action
Recent media coverage, including reports by the San Francisco Chronicle, NBC Bay Area, and the San Francisco Standard, has spotlighted residents’ concerns over the cost of fire sprinkler retrofits. Condo owners with diverse backgrounds, especially retirees and those on fixed incomes, have expressed their views on potential assessments and the risk of displacement. While the hardships from this are real, it’s essential to recognize that the stakes go beyond economics.
By solely focusing on the above, complacency will result, leaving buildings vulnerable. And by allowing vulnerability, tragedy can strike. Of course, the consequences of not retrofitting aren’t set in stone. No one truly knows when or if a fire will occur. However, the absence of proper fire protection puts both residents and firefighters at risk. Admittedly, the expense is significant. But considering the greater good, it’s vital for everyone who calls these high-rises home.
Official Perspectives: Safety, Necessity, and Policy Challenges
With public outcry over this issue, city officials and members of the fire commission have no choice but to publicly acknowledge the hardship while simultaneously emphasizing the life-saving potential of sprinkler retrofits. A spokesperson for the San Francisco Fire Department told the Chronicle, “Our priority is to protect lives. Sprinklers are proven to make buildings safer for both residents and first responders.” Lt. Mariano Alias, spokesman for the city’s fire department, voiced a similar viewpoint to NBC Bay Area, “When someone dies in a fire, the question becomes why were there no sprinklers? We all know that sprinklers do the job of putting out the fire, initially suppressing it and then allowing us to get there.” Many of those affected wonder why this requirement was created in the first place. Alias cited the November 2020 fire at 440 Davis Ct., where several units were damaged, and four people were injured. To top it all off, the building lacked a sprinkler system, which could’ve prevented the injuries and property damage.
District 2 Supervisor Stephen Sherrill was interviewed by NBC Bay Area and pointed out, “What are our other options? What are the equivalencies? Should we be looking at fire doors? How can we look at hardship exemptions? How can we look at structural exemptions for certain buildings where there literally isn’t space in the walls to install these pipes?” Meanwhile, the Chronicle spoke with real estate agents in the area, who raised concerns about market stability, with one of them saying, “These mandates could have ripple effects throughout the city’s housing market, especially for older high-rises.” Fire safety organizations have responded to such statements, challenging the accuracy of projected costs, insisting the estimates are “highly inaccurate” and don’t reflect the experience of contractors who specialize in retrofits. As reported by NBC Bay Area, homeowners’ associations will need to begin submitting plans and obtaining building permits by January 2027, unless the two sides reach a compromise.
Industry Response: Advocacy and Education Efforts
In light of growing opposition and headline-grabbing media reports, Fire and Life Safety advocates are speaking out to clarify the facts surrounding the requirements. The National Fire Sprinkler Association (NFSA), the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation (NFFF), and Common Voices have taken the lead in sharing accurate cost data, best practices, and policies based on real-world incidents.
The NFSA analyzed contractor bids and completed retrofits in similar high-rise buildings. Their findings revealed that retrofit costs are often significantly lower than the $ 300,000-per-unit figures reported by local media. Typically, leveraging competitive bidding and phased implementation results in projects achieving costs that are less than one-third of such estimates. They cited national success stories, such as the citywide high-rise sprinkler upgrades in Chicago and Maryland’s retrofit program. Overall, this shows that large-scale safety improvements are feasible and affordable when based on transparent data and proven methods.
Chief Victor Stagnaro, CEO of the NFFF, reaffirmed the dual importance of occupant and firefighter safety. “As an organization that deals regularly with firefighter Line of Duty Deaths (LODD), we understand better than most the dangers of non-sprinklered buildings for our nation’s fire service,” Stagnaro said. “When we saw the news coverage on this potential pushback for retrofits, we knew we needed to engage. This is about both firefighter and occupant safety, and we stand with the fire department in support of this retrofit requirement. The fire department is the expert in life safety; our hope is that San Francisco will listen to their fire service leadership and maintain this requirement.”
NFSA President Shane Ray echoed this sentiment. “We are grateful for the NFFF and Common Voices (an advocates coalition of people directly impacted by fire) for engaging to rebut recent media coverage that has misinformation regarding the cost of fire sprinklers,” Ray said. “These groups understand the impact that a lack of fire sprinklers has on firefighters and the occupants of these high-risk occupancies. The cost estimates that have been reported by the media are highly inaccurate. Our contractor members and Local Sprinkler Fitters 483 have extensive experience with retrofitting, and we can assist with the facts that prove affordability and the accommodation of residents.”
When it comes to addressing asbestos and other building hazards, NFSA points to successful mitigation strategies that were implemented in retrofit projects across the country. These include careful planning, phased work schedules, and adherence to safety protocols. All of these keep disruptions to a minimum and ensure resident safety from start to finish.
Looking Forward: Building Consensus for a Fire-Safe San Francisco
The Fire and Life Safety industry remains committed to working with all stakeholders in San Francisco. Educating the public, correcting misinformation, and advocating for proven safety measures enable the NFSA, NFFF, and Common Voices to secure a future in which robust fire sprinkler systems protect high-rise residents and firefighters. As the debate moves forward, the hope is that reasoned dialogue and expert guidance will prevail, keeping all critical life-safety initiatives in place and at the forefront of public policy.
Image via Shutterstock.
