Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SF committee presses fire department on Mission fifth‑alarm, backlog and code enforcement
Summary
At a June 29 special meeting, supervisors probed the Fire Department—s response to the June 18 fifth‑alarm fire on Ninth at Mission, asked why some investigation reports are withheld, and heard DBI and DPH enforcement data. Departments committed to provide additional data and the committee continued the item for follow‑up.
San Francisco—s Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee on June 29 pressed city agencies for clearer answers after a five‑alarm fire that affected six buildings in the Mission District and contributed to a backlog of fire investigations.
Chair Supervisor Jane Kim convened the special meeting called by Supervisor David Campos, who opened by describing the June 18 blaze and wider neighborhood impact: "This fire is simply too much," Campos said, noting six buildings involved, 58 people displaced and multiple prior major fires in the neighborhood.
Fire Chief Joanne Hayes White told the committee the department continues interviews and forensic testing and said the building that housed Cole—s Hardware is the current building of origin. Chief White disputed widely reported case counts and said the bureau—s caseload had been reduced from earlier highs: "You'll find out ... we're at a 135," she said, adding that 59 of those are structure fires and two are in the Mission. She also described recent investigator hires and said the bureau is following National Fire Protection Association staffing guidance.
Captain Attica Bowden, who oversees the Bureau of Fire Investigation, outlined the Arson Task Force partnership with SFPD, the district attorney and federal partners, explained investigator qualifications, and acknowledged the age of some open cases: she said the oldest open investigation in the unit dates to 2014. Bowden also described how different reports are handled: "Incendiary fires are not released to the public," she said; accidental and other determinations may be released with redactions for personal information.
Supervisors repeatedly pressed agencies on transparency and timeliness. Supervisor Campos asked why Mission fires made up a larger share of the city's incidents now than a decade earlier; department witnesses pointed to the Mission—s density, older wood‑frame and attached buildings, and unchanged numbers there while citywide structure fires decline. Fire Marshal Dan D—Ocasio explained the complaint intake and response process and said the department is consolidating complaint handling in a new section led by a captain and inspectors to improve tracking and response times.
Deputy Director Daniel Lowery (DBI) reported immediate post‑fire actions: notice of violations for six fire‑damaged properties, two emergency demolition orders for unsafe structures, permits obtained for some repairs, and an estimated nine‑month timeline for restoration work at one SRO. DBI and housing study presenters said the Mission had an above‑average concentration of housing code actions: the study cited roughly 1,300 housing code violations corrected in the Mission in 2015 and noted a high volume of notices in the corridor.
Karen Cohen of the Department of Public Health said environmental health conducted 1,733 inspections in ZIP 94110 in the past two years, representing about 9.12% of citywide inspections and producing 336 violations from those inspections. DPH said it makes cross‑referrals to other enforcement agencies when issues fall outside its regulatory scope.
Many public commenters urged faster investigations, more enforcement against negligent landlords and protections for displaced tenants. Juan Torres, a 2015 fire victim, asked how displaced residents can return to units and recover belongings taken after fires; tenant advocates pressed for faster rebuilds and remedies to avoid permanent displacement.
Legal scope for releasing fire investigation reports was a major point of contention. Supervisors asked whether state law prohibits release of incendiary reports; the department said exemptions in the California Public Records Act guide release decisions and agreed to consult the district attorney—s office and provide clarifying guidance.
The committee voted to continue the item to the call of the chair to allow departments to provide requested data and legal clarifications and to monitor implementation of task‑force recommendations.
What comes next: agencies committed to provide the detailed case counts, complaint response times and any legal guidance from the DA—s office on records release. The committee will revisit the issue in a subsequent meeting.
