L.A. Officials Alarmed Over Sprinkler Cost for High-Rises

Los Angeles officials fear that the high price of retrofitting City Hall and five other publicly owned high-rise buildings with sprinkler systems might prompt cost-conscious private high-rise owners to abandon their grudging support for a mandatory sprinkler law.

According to “rough” estimates, contained in a report released Wednesday, the grand total could climb to more than $36 million over the next few years. That is more than double the previous estimate.

While pro-sprinkler councilmen said Wednesday they feel that public safety requires the city to pay whatever is necessary, they wondered aloud whether the steep price tag for municipal high-rises might trigger major opposition to retrofitting from owners of privately owned office towers.

Following City’s Lead

Councilmen Richard Alatorre and Nate Holden have both contended that the city should ask owners of private high-rises to retrofit only if the city itself is willing to install the sprinklers.

“I hope we don’t move in a manner that so inflames the environment that the business community is going to go crazy,” said Alatorre, chairman of the council’s Police, Fire and Public Safety Committee.

There are an estimated 520 buildings in Los Angeles at least 75 feet tall that lack automatic sprinklers because they were built before a 1974 state law requiring them. Some of those buildings, such as the fire-devastated First Interstate Bank, were voluntarily installing sprinklers.

But, in the wake of the May 4 First Interstate fire, Bradley and others have contended that mandatory retrofitting is necessary to protect the tens of thousands of people who work in and visit both public and private high-rise buildings.

Not Strongly Supported

Bradley’s plan has attracted only lukewarm support from building owners who say that if retrofitting is required, some of the oldest high-rises should be eligible for low-interest loans. The mayor has voiced opposition to any such bail-out, but Alatorre said in light of some of the steep costs that may be involved--particularly asbestos removal--”I don’t know if (Bradley) understands the ramifications of what we’re talking about.”

Alatorre and other city officials expressed shock and doubt that sprinkler installation at City Hall and the five other high-rises would cost the $13 million, or an average of $6.50 per square foot, outlined in a report released Wednesday by two key departments. That is more than double the figure of $2.80 per square foot--a price that included engineering costs--that the First Interstate Bank agreed to pay for its nearly completed sprinkler system.

“When I look at a building the size of First Interstate that can do almost a million square feet for $3.5 million, I’m a little bit shocked at what our (city building) costs are,” said Deputy Fire Chief Craig Drummond. “I think (the city estimates) damage what the city is trying to do.”

The council committee was told that retrofitting a building such as City Hall, with its historic architectural design, would cost considerably more than a contemporary high-rise such as First Interstate.

Officials said final estimates of the sprinkler retrofitting--including asbestos removal ($15 million) and other repairs ($7 million) could change dramatically when certain factors are weighed. Those include the projected number of new installers that may enter the industry, what type of retrofitting timetable is mandated by the city, and inflation.

Asbestos removal is considered part of upgrading for fire safety because of the danger of allowing retrofitting work to proceed while the cancer-causing substance, used as a fire retardant in older buildings, is present.

In addition to City Hall and City Hall East, city buildings that would fall under the proposed retrofitting law would be City Hall South, Parker Center police headquarters and the two City Hall branches in Van Nuys and San Pedro.