Hearing Update – 2/23/25
On February 23, 2026 the Land Use Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, comprised of Chair Myrna Melgar and Supervisors Connie Chan and Bilal Mahmood, held a hearing to consider an update to the city’s Fire Code. The last version of the Code went into effect in 2023 and the practice is to review the Code every three years.
In addition to the three Committee members, Supervisors Stephen Sherrill and Danny Sauter were present.
Other than minor changes relating to fee amounts, the only significant change proposed to the Code was to extend the interim deadlines for affected buildings to comply with the high rise sprinkler retrofit mandate that was passed in 2022. The prior deadlines were 2027 for buildings to submit permit-ready drawings for the sprinkler installation, and 2031 for installing mandated sprinkler infrastructure. The proposed change was to move both these deadlines to 2032. The ultimate deadline for having sprinklers in place remained 2035.
People arriving to attend the hearing, scheduled for 1:30, were greeted on City Hall steps by a contingent bearing “No sprinkler retrofit mandate” signs. These were sponsored by the civic organization Neighbors for a Better San Francisco.
A long line of people queued up outside the hearing chamber awaiting admittance.
Once admitted, the citizen crowd quickly filled the 250-person capacity chamber. Reportedly, hundreds more were directed to an overflow room.
After an hour devoted to other agenda items such as a street renaming and a couple dozen proposed landmark designations for historic buildings, the Fire Code agenda item was called around 2:30. Supervisors Sherril and Sauter made introductory remarks. Supervisor Melgar expressed a level of discomfort with the proposed postponement, notably with potential risk to the city and county arising from the Fire Marshall’s ability to grant waivers. A city attorney was called up to speak to that concern and indicated it wasn’t a worry.
Next the SF Fire Chief and Fire Marshall were given an opportunity to speak. They made predictable remarks about the life saety benefits of sprinklers.
Then public comment was called. Supervisor Melgar announced that speakers would be allotted one minute each, cutting in half the speaking time people were told to expect.
A line of would-be speakers immediately queued up along the side wall of the hearing chamber and all the way around the back to the entrance door.
As people stepped up to speak, the speaker line kept getting replenished with folks coming over from the overflow room.
More than a hundred people stepped up to the podium to claim their allotted minute.
Speakers ran the gamut from retired teachers in their 80s to young couples. One young woman stated she had married steps away in City Hall just a couple of years previously, and that the mandate was messing with her and her husband’s hopes of starting a family.
The common refrain of most speakers was that the $300,000 cost of complying with the sprinkler mandate would be a financial disaster for them. Many said it would drive them from the city. Some said it would drive them into bankruptcy.
A broad cross section of the 129 affected buildings was represented by speakers, from the Fontana on the northern waterfront to the Hamilton, a 100+ year old building in the Tenderloin.
Several real estate agents spoke to testify that the sprinkler mandate was torpedoing both property valuations and the ability to sell retrofit-exposed condos at all.
For the most part, the public comment period was one warning of calamity after another. A teacher told of how he scrimped and saved to finally buy a studio condo and would be absolutely unable to deal with the financial demands imposed by the mandate.
Some commenters spoke to share an abbreviated summary of rigorous statistical analyses they had done on the actual history of fire risks and perils to life and property for the types of buildings covered by the mandate, suggesting that the benefit offered by sprinklers simply did not outweigh the cost.
One speaker, declaring that the mandate had chopped hundreds of thousands of value of his home, stated an intention to apply for a corresponding reduction in tax assessment. He warned that if all owners affected by the mandate did likewise it could cost the city and county tens of millions a year in lost property tax revenues.
A small handful of speakers – identifying themselves from the building trades or as sprinkler installation contractors – were supportive of the mandate and dismissive of claims regarding high cost and necessity for residents to vacate their units during sprinkler installation. One owner of a sprinkler installation company insisted the work could be done for $60,000 per unit (still a daunting amount for most). He offered to do any building for $5,000,000.
Responding homeowners firmly rejected the idea that residents could remain in dwellings where asbestos and lead paint were being disturbed,
After the last public commenter had spoken his piece, the Committee proceeded with a unanimous vote to recommend the proposed Fire Code update, with the new deadline extensions, to the full Board of Supervisors. It left the impression that the preceding two and a half hours of pleas to repeal the mandate simply hadn’t happened.
Next steps in advocating repeal of the mandate could include lobbying individual supervisors and appearing when the full Board of Supervisors considers the Fire Code update. This site will be updated when the date of that is known.
Also see J. K. Dineen’s excellent article (gift link) on the hearing in the San Francisco Chronicle.