San Francisco delays controversial $300K sprinkler mandate for high-rise condos

City officials put the fire safety requirement on a five-year moratorium after facing backlash from hundreds of impacted residents.

Published on Feb. 24, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

San Francisco officials have delayed a controversial ordinance that would have required owners of pre-1974 high-rise residential buildings to install fire sprinklers in every unit at an estimated cost of $200,000 to $300,000 per unit. The Board of Supervisors committee approved a five-year pause on the mandate after hearing from hundreds of condo owners who said the requirement would devastate property values and force many to sell their units at a loss.

Why it matters

The sprinkler mandate was intended to improve fire safety in older high-rise buildings, but faced significant pushback from residents who argued the costs would be financially crippling. The delay highlights the tensions between public safety regulations and the economic realities for homeowners, as well as the need for more thorough analysis before implementing sweeping new requirements.

The details

The 2022 fire sprinkler ordinance would have required 9,800 units in 126 buildings, mostly located in neighborhoods like Nob Hill, Russian Hill, the Marina, and Telegraph Hill, to obtain permits for sprinkler installations by 2027. Condo owners argued the work could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per unit and force many to sell at a loss. In response, Mayor Daniel Lurie introduced legislation in December 2025 to delay the program by five years and appoint a committee to study its feasibility.

  • The 2022 fire sprinkler ordinance was adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
  • In December 2025, Mayor Lurie introduced legislation to delay the sprinkler mandate by five years.
  • On Monday, the Board of Supervisors committee approved the five-year delay.

The players

Daniel Lurie

The mayor of San Francisco who introduced legislation to delay the sprinkler mandate.

Danny Sauter

A San Francisco supervisor whose district includes many of the buildings impacted by the ordinance.

Stephen Sherrill

A San Francisco supervisor who co-sponsored the legislation to delay the sprinkler mandate.

Eric Sandler

A retired assistant general manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission who criticized the process that led to the sprinkler ordinance.

Chris Ingram

A fire sprinkler contractor who argued the $300,000 per unit cost estimates were overstated.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“How we got here is a misuse of trust between residents and government and for my part I'll do everything I can to try to correct that.”

— Danny Sauter, San Francisco Supervisor (San Francisco Chronicle)

“The cost per unit is $60,000 — all in. I will personally do any building in San Francisco for $5 million.”

— Chris Ingram, Fire sprinkler contractor (San Francisco Chronicle)

“I'm just one of thousands of people who will be affected by this. We each have a personal story about why this is painful for us, why this is not feasible for us, why we are scared that this initiative has passed and we are all hopeful we will be able to work towards a repeal.”

— Lindsay Robertson, Condo owner (San Francisco Chronicle)

What’s next

The Board of Supervisors will appoint a technical advisory committee to examine the feasibility of the sprinkler ordinance and develop potential exemption criteria for some buildings.

The takeaway

This delay highlights the challenges of balancing public safety regulations with the economic realities for homeowners, and the need for thorough analysis and community engagement before implementing sweeping new requirements that could have significant financial impacts.