Fire Code Technical Advisory Council - October 2, 2026

4. Budget and Legislative Analyst (BLA) Report [Discussion]

Discussion regarding the BLA report. [SF1]  

Fred Brousseau and Alex Thibodo of the Budget and Legislative Analyst (BLA) office prepared a report on the estimated costs of compliance with fire code requirements for retrofitting high-rise buildings in San Francisco. Mr. Brousseau reported that they worked with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), San Francisco Fire Department (SFFD), and other professionals such as C-16 contractors and professional associations involved in fire prevention efforts and sprinkler installations. Ms. Thibodo reported that approximately 129 buildings could be subject to the Sprinkler Ordinance. About 40% of these buildings are condominiums, while 60% are rental apartments. 76 of the buildings are at least 120 feet tall, with full compliance estimated by January 1, 2035. After working with Bay Area C-16 contractors; SFFD; the Public Utilities Commission (PUC); and reviewed retrofit costs and publicly available documents, the BLA office reported that due to the large scope of a retrofit project, it was more appropriate to survey estimates of key cost drivers and present possible scenarios, rather than estimate the cost of a retrofit project. The BLA office examined factors such as sprinkler design; hydraulic testing; water line flow; permitting; engineering installation; and inspection. There were also municipal infrastructure considerations such as electrical wiring, architectural complexity, and asbestos mitigation. Consequently, these factors increase the costs of the actual sprinkler installation, adding up to $50,000 per unit for a standard 50-unit 14-floor high rise building. Ms. Thibodo reported that the 2016 BLA report which stated retrofits would cost $300,000 per building does not take into account the variable factors in any given building. Ms. Thibodo reported three different cost scenarios: baseline ($17,000-50,000/unit); mid-range ($27,000-30,000/unit); and fully concealed system ($10 million-11 million/building). Any financing program should use a tiered approach to address the differences between condominium and apartment complexes. The BLA office reported that after analyzing fire incidents since July 2016, they found no fatalities in the 86 incidences which originated on at least the seventh floor. 36 incidents had an operating wet pipe sprinkler system, while 46 had no suppression system. However, they did not determine which of these buildings would be subject to the Sprinkler Ordinance. The BLA office reported that other jurisdictions such as San Jose achieved full compliance, while cities like San Antonio had full compliance after exempting condominiums. San Diego repealed its ordinance after multiple compliance extensions. The Pennsylvania state legislator is working on a property tax abatement financing program to install retrofit projects in Philadelphia. The BLA office offered four options for BOS consideration: repealing the Ordinance; modifying the Ordinance; improving cost estimates; and offering financial assistance. The BLA office’s report is attached: BLA report. 

Council Member Ingram thanked the BLA office for their report. He commented that a fourth cost category, “high optional,” should be added to reflect a concealed system which incurs higher cost but is optional. Council Member Ingram commented that Salesforce Tower, the tallest building in San Francisco, would be a different cost in terms of scale and would not be considered a retrofit, but rather new construction. Ms. Thibodo responded that retrofits have difference procedures/costs from new construction. 

Council Member Tsuk commented that a new building like Salesforce Tower cannot compare to retrofits of buildings that are 50+ years old. 

Council Member Miller commented that choosing exposed or concealed pipes is a personal choice. She asked Council Member Ingram if he knew how many homeowners chose Deck-O-Shield installations. Council Member Ingram responded personal residences sometimes choose Deck-O-Shield installations, but it is optional. 

Council Member Tsuk commented that property could possibly lose value and advocated an approach that yields equal home value. 

Council Member Miller commented that the BLA report was lacking in terms of cost analysis; fire statistics related to the affected buildings; and pump rooms. Ms. Thibodo agreed with Council Member Miller. All buildings would need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and that the report estimated costs for a 10-by-10 concrete room.

Council Member Geary thanked the BLA office for their report and commented that the BLA report did not take into account variables such as ceiling height, and specific examples of retrofits. 

Council Member Tsuk inquired if repealing the Ordinance was the BLA office’s primary recommendation. Ms. Thibodo responded that there was no hierarchy in the options presented. Rather, the options are policy options rather than recommendations. Mr. Brousseau responded that their reports always include every option, including repealing policies. 

Council Member Miller inquired how infrastructure costs were analyzed. Ms. Thibodo acknowledged this was a complex issue. She responded that the BLA office included main variable drivers such electrical panels and rewiring which affects cost.

Supervisor Sherrill commented that given all the variables, it would be nearly impossible to determine a cost for each building.

Council Member Ingram commented that SFFD waived several requirements including a backup tank and generator. Ms. Thibodo responded that these waivers were not considered in the BLA report. 

Council Member Tsuk commented that these buildings do not have the infrastructure. 

Council Member Miller expressed concern that SFFD waived the requirement for backup generators. 

Captain Captain O’Keeffe thanked the BLA office for their report, and recommended that the Council evaluate existing buildings to determine feasibility and define criteria.  

Supervisor Sherrill inquired how costs would be passed on to tenants, and if there was a cap on costs passed to tenants under rent control. Mr. Brousseau responded that potential rent increases would help recoup costs, and that he was not aware of a cap. Supervisor Sherrill inquired if the 86 fire incidents included the 126 buildings subject to the mandate. Ms. Thibodo responded that the report did not have that information. Supervisor Sherrill inquired how many buildings were wood frame versus concrete and steel. Ms. Thibodo responded that the report did not have that information. Supervisor Sherrill inquired if San Jose offered financing options, and why condominiums in Houston were exempted. Mr. Brousseau responded no for San Jose. There were feasibility issues in Houston and Florida. Supervisor Sherrill inquired if there were any comps in San Francisco to the proposed tax abatement program in Philadelphia. Mr. Brousseau responded that such a program in San Francisco would require changes to property tax and state laws. City officials could lobby state officials to make these changes. Ms. Thibodo responded that City officials could partner with private companies to help finance retrofits, which does not require State approval. 

A female speaker commented that costs estimates will not be respected and will be at the mercy of contractors. She also commented that Salesforce has more negotiating power than individual citizens. 

A female speaker commented that a retrofit would take longer than the 16 weeks referenced in the BLA report and believed at least a year would be a more realistic timeline. Ceiling heights and an aging water system will be issues. 

A female speaker commented that retrofits would lower flooring levels which impacts public transportation, specifically cable car operations.

A female speaker made public comment regarding the cost of retrofit and its impact on property values. She was concerned about the infrastructure needed for retrofits, and the cost of temporary housing. 

A male speaker made public comment regarding how costs vary based on unit count, and that cost is always an issue when covered by the public sector.

A male speaker commented that affordability could increase the cost of a building, and that there were two fire fatalities in San Francisco last year. 

A female speaker made public comment regarding the differences between mid-range and high range estimates, and inquired if each unit would vary in estimate. 

A female speaker made public comment regarding ongoing construction in her building. She would decline any offer from the City to finance a sprinkler retrofit. 

A male speaker commented that the BLA report was too simplistic, and that estimates can change once construction begins. 

A male speaker commented that the BLA report implied that fire casualties in San Francisco were low, and that each building had a right to make its own decision regarding sprinklers. He was not opposed to sprinkler retrofits in new construction. 

A female speaker commented that the BLA report did not address three data points the Council should consider: AI data centers driving up demand for skilled tradespeople; possibility of sprinkler failure; and impact on large multi-family buildings. She recommended revoking the Ordinance.

A female speaker commented that the BLA report’s estimates were too low; that no interest loans would still requirement repayment; and that displacement is a hardship.

A female speaker commented that the Ordinance is another example of San Francisco’s onerous building requirements, and was in favor of finding reasonable safety measures. 

A female speaker commented that insurance companies are most concerned about water damage above all. 

Supervisor Sherrill moved to make a motion that public comment would be modified to one minute person. Council Member Miller Seconded. Council Members Geary, Miller, Ingram, Bracamonte, Tsuk, Becker, O’Keeffe, Walls, Teahan, and Sherrill voted in favor of the motion. The Motion passed.

 [SF1]This doesn’t need to be super specific but there needs to be a general description of what TAC will discuss