Advertisement

19 High-Rises Excluded From Sprinkler Law

Share
Times Staff Writer

Besieged by condominium owners claiming that the cost of installing fire sprinklers could force them from their homes, the San Diego City Council on Tuesday exempted 19 residential buildings from its plan to retrofit the city’s 56 older high-rises with the devices.

The unanimous decision came despite national statistics showing that 490 of the 540 high-rise fire deaths during the past 20 years occurred in residential structures.

The council excluded 11 condominium buildings and eight apartment structures from the sprinkler ordinance, proposed in the aftermath of the May 4 fire at the First Interstate Bank Building high-rise In Los Angeles that killed one person.

Advertisement

Twelve hotels, 24 privately owned office buildings and City Hall--all more than 75 feet tall and all built before 1976--will still be required to add fire sprinklers. The list includes the Great American Building, which was evacuated three times last week because of electrical fires and problems with its existing fire safety system.

Complained of Cost

The amendment to the sprinkler ordinance came after condominium owners, most of them seniors, complained that retrofitting their buildings could cost $20,000 to $75,000 per unit, a price that would have driven many from their homes.

City fire officials estimated that the average cost of installing the sprinklers would be $20 per square foot if building owners had to remove asbestos fireproofing during the retrofitting, but some homeowners quoted even higher prices.

“Many of these people, and many throughout San Diego, simply cannot afford these costs,” said J. Wesley Fry, an attorney representing condo owners at the 114-unit La Jolla Seville, who voted unanimously to oppose the ordinance. “There is no way in the world they can come up with this money.”

“Based on the unacceptable expense, many condominium owners simply cannot agree to the option that is being proposed,” said another resident.

The high-rise dwellers who packed the council chamber Tuesday were notified of the proposal only in the past two weeks. During the Oct. 10 meeting at which the council tentatively approved the sprinkler program, council members Ed Struiksma, Bruce Henderson and Judy McCarty suggested that residents and owners of every building affected be contacted before a final vote.

Advertisement

Ready for the Outcry

Councilman Ron Roberts, who sponsored the ordinance, was ready for the outcry and proposed the exemption before the public was allowed to speak.

Virtually every council member praised the condo associations for mounting a letter-writing campaign and packing the council chamber to make their grievances known.

“I want you to feel assured when you leave here that we have heard your concerns and we are not going to impose upon you the regulations that were first suggested,” said Struiksma of District 5. But the council members also warned condo owners to prepare to organize a similar campaign when state legislators consider a sprinkler measure during the next year. The Legislature approved a sprinkler retrofit plan this year, but Gov. George Deukmejian killed the final altered product at its author’s request.

Installation by 1999

The city ordinance requires owners of buildings more than 75 feet tall to submit retrofitting plans to the fire chief by Jan. 1, 1990, and complete installation of the devices by 1999. The city has required sprinklers in all 71 high-rises built or planned since 1976.

In buildings in which asbestos removal is not required, owners would be required to meet interim deadlines for partial installation of the sprinklers in 1993 and 1996. In buildings where encapsulation or removal of asbestos is required, owners were given until 1996, but do not have meet interim deadlines.

Fire officials “conservatively” estimate the cost of retrofitting City Hall at $4 million. The cost of installation at the 55 privately owned structures was pegged at $141 million, but did not include the price of temporarily relocating office tenants if asbestos work cannot be conducted while they work.

Advertisement
Advertisement