San Francisco commission pauses vote on plan to expand Maher soil‑testing zone

The Building Inspection Commission on May 15 heard presentations on File 130369, a proposed ordinance to amend building- and health-code provisions and to expand the geographic area where the Maher Ordinance triggers soil testing and, in some cases, groundwater testing. City staff said the change would standardize how potentially contaminated soils are identified and handled citywide rather than relying on CEQA in many areas.

Paul Maltzer of the Planning Department told commissioners the original Maher Ordinance (adopted in 1986) applies to a shoreline zone where historic bay fill makes contamination likely. The proposed amendment would extend that codified review to additional industrial and bayfill areas now handled through CEQA, which staff said would make the review more predictable and tie health‑department oversight directly to permit issuance.

Kelly Pretzer of the Mayor’s Office said the ordinance "will increase protection for public health and safety" and make the city’s approach to contaminated soils and groundwater "more predictable, straightforward, standardized, and user friendly." Planning and health staff said the proposal could also be integrated into the permit-tracking system so applicants can see whether a parcel is in the expanded Maher zone before filing a permit.

Commissioners pressed staff on implementation. Several members, including Commissioner Walker and President McCarthy, said the ordinance’s 50‑cubic‑yard threshold could capture many small projects and asked why the trigger would be the building permit rather than earlier planning or environmental-review steps. "Why not when the planning application is filed?" one commissioner asked, noting a remodel that unexpectedly disturbs soil could be delayed if notified only at permit issuance.

Health department staff said the 50‑cubic‑yard threshold dates to the ordinance’s original adoption and is intended to screen out routine small alterations; the department’s Scott Nakamura told the commission the ordinance gives DPH 30 days to review soil reports, though cases can take longer when additional sampling or mitigation is required. He said DPH typically meets with developers and consultants early to expedite review.

Commissioners also asked about health‑department staffing. DPH representatives said current site‑mitigation work is handled with roughly 0.5 full‑time‑equivalent staff on the local oversight program and that the department would assess additional staffing needs if more projects fall under the code; staff noted some positions are contract- or grant‑funded. Planning and DBI said they plan interim measures — including a DPH station at DBI’s fifth floor and permit‑tracking notifications — while longer‑term system integration is completed.

After extended questioning about timelines, examples of projects that required lengthy remediation, and how DBI would manage permits that become subject to Maher during construction, commissioners moved and seconded to continue the item to the commission’s next meeting so staff could provide concrete case timelines, clarify where DBI stands if DPH requires mitigation during construction, and present staffing plans. The commission voted unanimously to continue the item.

Next steps: staff said the ordinance is expected to be before the Board of Supervisors in mid‑June if the commission and other reviewers proceed, but the commission’s continued review means the commission will revisit File 130369 at its next hearing with additional implementation details.