Planning for Sprinklers

The Los Angeles City Council has taken a first step toward better protecting people against the dangers of fires like the one that devastated the First Interstate Bank building. But the city must do more, as must the state and other local governments.

The City Council enacted a law Friday requiring owners of all commercial buildings that stand more than 75 feet tall and were built before 1974 to install sprinkler systems within three years. State law already requires sprinklers for buildings constructed since 1974. Now Los Angeles needs a law that provides similar protection for residents of more than 100 pre-1974 high-rise apartment buildings.

The city and Los Angeles County must also make their own tall buildings safer. The buildings in which the council and the supervisors work, not to mention the city Fire Department headquarters, are not protected by sprinkler systems. Nor are the major county court buildings and the principal buildings in three county-run hospitals. The city is at least drafting a bond measure to provide $30 million for sprinklers; the county is doing nothing. The county and state should go the bond route as well.

In San Diego, a city government committee is studying action to take. Orange County already requires retrofitting of the few older high-rises in its Fire Department’s jurisdiction, and several cities in that county are working on ordinances.

The California Legislature is working on a measure that would require sprinkler systems in older high-rise buildings around the state. The legislation faces major opposition by building owners, and its sponsor, state Sen. Art Torres (D-Los Angeles), has apparently agreed to go along with two amendments that would dilute and delay public protection.

We oppose the first, preempting local regulations, because the state should not prevent local governments from protecting their citizens. A second amendment would give owners too long to complete sprinkler installation. Torres’ bill would set a three-year deadline, but the American Hotel and Motel Assn. argues that five years are “necessary in that owners were not forewarned of this impending change in the state law.” Owners do need time to plan the best systems and install them, but the city’s timetable of one year for planning and two for installation seems adequate.

As passed by the state Senate in June, Torres’ bill exempts state buildings. That exemption is understandable for now, given the state’s budget problems, but it is not the kind of example that Sacramento should set for private owners. The state doesn’t have the $92 million estimated cost of installing sprinklers in its buildings, so the bill requires only that the state list its priorities for installing sprinklers if it had the money.

Officials at First Interstate were adding a sprinkler system when fire roared through their skyscraper. The managements of many other high-rise buildings were also planning to add sprinkler systems. Now they’re speeding up that work. Because surveys show that tenants want sprinklers, buildings with good fire protection should have an edge in the competition for tenants.

Fortunately, Los Angeles City Fire Chief Donald O. Manning, who knows what it is like to fight a high-rise fire, has gone on record against the state bill. Let’s listen to the experts, follow the lead of owners who are already acting and get on with the job of getting sprinklers into all tall buildings.