Some residential housing buildings in San Francisco, like at 618 Bush Street, second from right, may need to install fire sprinklers.
Lea Suzuki/S.F. Chronicle
In 2022 Kenneth Cofflin had a big job to do.
At the time he was the San Francisco fire marshal in charge of updating the city’s fire code, an 800-page document that included a controversial requirement that residential high-rises built before 1974 have sprinklers installed in every room. He ushered the legislation through the fire commission and the board of supervisors before former Mayor London Breed signed it into law.
Now, retired from that position for a little more than a year, Cofflin has started a fire safety consulting business. Among the services he provides: Helping condo homeowner associations obtain “exemptions” to the very sprinkler ordinance he wrote.
Article continues below this ad
For a fee his company, Code 403, provides a “San Francisco residential sprinkler evaluation” that helps homeowner associations “anticipate objections early, right-size scope and secure faster approvals … including exemptions of phased compliance where allowed.”
Cofflin’s new business comes as the Board of Supervisors is slated to vote on legislation that would delay by five years the requirement to install fire sprinklers in 126 older residential high-rises, which fire safety advocates say could save lives but many condo owners say will be cost-prohibitive and lower property values.
San Francisco Chronicle Logo
Make us a Preferred Source to get more of our news when you search.
Add Preferred Source
Under the legislation, the 9,800 units covered by the sprinkler ordinance — most of them in Nob Hill, Russian Hill, Pacific Heights, the Marina and Telegraph Hill neighborhoods — would have until 2032, instead of 2027, to obtain permits for the sprinkler work, which some home owners associations have estimated would cost between $200,000 and $300,000 per unit. Some sprinkler installers have said the estimates are overblown and that many units can be done for $50,000 or less. The legislation also calls for a technical advisory committee to look into the ordinance
The idea that the author of the sprinkler ordinance is now offering to help homeowner associations navigate exemptions was not well-received by supervisors Danny Sauter and Stephen Sherrill, whose districts comprise most of the impacted buildings.
Article continues below this ad
“If it’s true that someone so involved in creating this expensive sprinkler mandate is trying to profit off it, well that’s just corruption,” Sherrill said. “I am deeply, deeply concerned.”
Sauter, who represents Russian Hill, North Beach, and Telegraph Hill — neighborhoods that are known for their historic apartment towers — said “proponents of the fire sprinkler mandate pushed it through with no regard for cost or risk of displacement.”
“The former fire marshal championed this flawed mandate,” he said. “If he now stands to profit from the chaos he created, the public deserves to know. I’m eager to see more facts come to light.”
San Francisco ethics rules impose a 12-month ban on ex-officers or employees “communicating with their former department, or any other unit of government under the direction or control of their former department.” In addition, former city officers or employees may not communicate before any court or public agency regarding “issues in which the former officer or employee participated personally and substantially as a City official.”
In an interview Cofflin, who spent 27 years with the fire department before retiring in January of 2025, said he had no idea he would become a consultant when he wrote the sprinkler ordinance. He said none of the impacted HOAs in the 126 buildings have hired him thus far.
Article continues below this ad
“We are talking three and half years ago — I didn’t plan on doing this consulting thing prior to designing the code,” he said. “That is far-fetched. It’s grasping at straws.”
Cofflin said the hysteria the sprinkler ordinance has generated has been the result of a lack of understanding of the requirements. He said many of the buildings would qualify for some form of exemption. About 20 of the buildings are already “50% sprinklered,” he said. Rather than installing sprinklers in every room, some buildings could successfully petition to place a single sprinkler at the front door of each unit.
“There is a lot of room in the way it’s written for different ways of doing things, different levels of coverage that people could petition for,” he said. “Instead everyone went out and grabbed the worst case scenario. ‘Oh it’s going to cost $200,000. I won’t be able to sell my unit.’ Let’s get rid of the ordinance.”
The big discrepancy in cost estimates proves the need for an expert to help HOAs weigh the best approach, he said.
“Of course the sprinkler companies are going to give you the Mercedes model but maybe you just need the Toyota,” he said. “That is why people need somebody to consult.”
Article continues below this ad
Nicolas Tsuk, an architect who owns a condo at 631 O’Farrell, said he was not amused to learn that the former fire marshal was offering his expertise.
“It would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious,” he said. “We have someone who claims to have bought into this mandate and subsequently proceeds to profit from it. There is probably a word for that.”
Tsuk said his building, on the edge of the Tenderloin, is mostly studios and the owners are “teachers and nurses and retirees on a fixed income.”
“A lot of people are under water, there is not a lot of turnover because if you sell your unit now you are taking a loss,” he said. “It’s a wonderful building. The neighborhood gets a bad rap but we love living in the city so that is why we are here.”
Article continues below this ad
But Tsuk and other homeowners say the city should scrap the ordinance altogether and craft a new one after studying the mandate’s logistical and financial feasibility.
“We are interested in having real dialogue and real investigation,” he said. “We need the (Public Utilities Commission) to see if they have enough water supply and for PG&E to see if we have enough electrical supply. We need the technical advisory committee to investigate whether it’s financially feasible and what alternative methods might be considered.”