Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Fire Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves first reading of fire‑safety ordinance requiring five‑year sprinkler filings and minimum access for lot splits
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed on first reading an ordinance requiring filing of five‑year sprinkler inspection records, annual fire alarm inspections and a minimum five‑foot access from the public right of way to residential structures on newly subdivided lots.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed on first reading an ordinance Jan. 30 that requires the filing of five‑year inspection records for fire sprinkler systems and annual inspection records for fire alarms and detection systems, and establishes a minimum five‑foot access from the public right of way to residential structures on newly subdivided lots.
Sponsor Supervisor Chan framed the measure as a life‑safety priority, saying narrow lot configurations and obstructed side passages make firefighter access difficult in parts of the city. “This is actually about fire safety,” she said during debate, urging the board to act to protect residents and first responders.
Fire Marshal Ken Coughlin explained that while state law (SB 9) allows a four‑foot access standard in some contexts, San Francisco’s unique building patterns justify a local, more protective requirement: “SB 9 specifically talks about allows up to 4 feet,” the fire marshal said, but added that the measure is designed so ministerial approvals may proceed when the five‑foot access can be met and that discretionary review remains available for exceptions.
Deputy City Attorney John Givner told supervisors the city attorney’s office had signed the ordinance “as to form,” indicating the office considers it defensible if challenged, but said staff would provide a fuller, confidential written explanation if members wanted additional legal analysis before second reading.
Several supervisors pressed for clarity about preemption and compliance with state law. Supervisor Stephanie said she had concerns about possible conflicts with state statutes and asked the city attorney to provide a legal analysis. Others, including Supervisor Preston and land‑use committee chair Supervisor Melgar, emphasized the ordinance was developed through the building inspection and fire department advisory processes.
After a brief procedural moment in which members rescinded an earlier roll call to allow additional remarks, the ordinance passed on first reading by unanimous roll call (11–0). The measure will return for a second reading, during which the board and the city attorney may publish additional analysis and any final edits.
