Exorbitant cost of sprinklers puts almost 200 in violation of fire law

Owners of nearly 200 Los Angeles highrise office towers have failed to file fire-safety plans with the city, as required by a 1988 law, the Business Journal has learned.

While non-complying owners could be fined $1,000 a day, and eventually have their buildings forceably vacated and demolished, the city has not yet issued a single fine.

"The city is trying not to be the bad guy right now," explained Barry Cera, a consultant to highrise owners. "They realize the economic impact of this ordinance, and they're trying to work with building owners."

But city officials, having already over-looked millions of dollars in fines, are apparently losing patience.

"Some of these owners are hoping the ordinance will be changed, or penalties will not be enforced, or political forces will get them exempted," said Inspector Neal Reitzel of the L.A. City Fire Department's Highrise Unit. "But let me assure you, the fire department and building and safety department are committed to bringing these buildings into compliance."

The 1988 ordinance, passed shortly after a fatal fire in the 62-story First Interstate Tower, requires all pre-1974 office towers more than 75 feet high to upgrade fire-safety systems and install fire sprinklers.

Coincidentally, pre-1974 buildings also contain asbestos, some of which becomes airborne when fire sprinklers are installed.

Hence, building owners must simultaneously pay to have asbestos removed in order to comply with federal air-quality standards.

That can get expensive.

"These `retrofits' usually cost a minimum of $8 million and can run up to $20 million," said Cera, who is director of project management services at the consulting firm Law Engineering. "So if my building is worth $20 million, it doesn't make economic sense for me to sink another $10 million into it."

Indeed, owners of some 20 L.A. high-rises have already decided to demolish their pre-1974 towers rather than comply with the new city ordinance, confirmed Inspector Reitzell.

Raising the ante even more, the Los Angeles Department of Building & Safety a few weeks ago began denying building permit applications of non-complying owners who want to build tenant improvements for their new tenants.

"We don't want any new tenants in these buildings until they have acceptable fire-alarm systems," Reitzell said.

Safety benefits of sprinklers are undisputed. Last week an electrical fire on the second floor of the 26-story 400 S. Hope St. Building was quickly extinguished by its sprinklers. Less than $15,000 of damage was reported.

Also, many of those owners who are upgrading their buildings' fire systems on a piecemeal, or floor-by-floor, basis are getting building permits for tenant improvements denied, he said.

Most fire-system upgrades are being done floor-by-floor, and each floor's new fire system is not being tied back into a main panel for the entire building, as required by city law.

The average cost of such tie-ins is about $100,000, Reitzell estimated.

Clearly, the cost of compliance with the city's new fire-safety ordinance is exorbitant, sometimes exceeding the market value of the building.

And the cost of non-compliance appears to be getting stiffer, too, with city officials denying building permits and seriously considering fines.

But an even higher price might be exacted from some non-compliers in the event of a catastrophe.

"If an incident (fire) were to occur, and the building was found to not be in compliance," Cera said, "the owner's liability insurance would be voided. That would subject him to tremendous liabilities, which would greatly exceed any penalties the city might levy."

The main reason behind owners' widespread non-compliance appears to be money. But money also seems to be at the heart of the city's reluctance to undertake stronger enforcement measures.

"The city doesn't want to shut down these buildings because that would be tantamount to cutting off its own nose," Cera said. "It would remove the city's economic base and reduce property tax revenues."

Allowing the wholesale demolition of highrises could also be tantamount to political suiside in Los Angeles, where developers' campaign contributions can sometimes spell the difference between victory and defeat.

Passing the ordinance was politically popular right after the 1988 First Interstate fire, but enforcing the costly law is another matter, sources said.

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles City Council continued to drag its feet last week on consideration of a similar ordinance being proposed for residential towers.

Residential highrises were not included in the 1988 law, fire officials said, because fires in residential towers don't spread as fast as those in office towers.

"Most floors in office towers are relatively open, where fires spread very quickly," explained Fire Captain Richard Watters. "Residential floors, on the other hand, tend to have many more walls, which curtails the rapid spread of fire."

The exclusion of residential towers was also done partially to appease powerful development interests, some sources said.

However, fire officials began pressing for a residential fire-safety ordinance last December, after a fire swept through a Westwood condo tower, causing $25 million in damage.

"Just like the First Interstate fire, it seems to take a huge disaster threatening large loss of life to get an ordinance like this passed," Captain Watters said.

The fire department recently completed a survey identifying as many as 130 L.A. residential towers, housing thousands of occupants, that lack necessary fire sprinklers and other crucial fire-safety systems.

But the Safety Committee of the L.A. City Council last week again postponed considering the proposed ordinance, bumping it back to Nov. 19 from its previously scheduled Nov. 15 date.

The matter had already been postponed several times, and no reasons are being given for the postponements, reported Fire Chief John Badgett.

"It's a political football," added Captain Watters.