Supervisors hear city and CalOSHA on crane safety; item filed for follow-up

Vice Chair John Avalos and sponsor Supervisor Aaron Peskin convened a hearing to review San Francisco’s permitting, inspection and enforcement practices for cranes as the city experiences a construction boom. Presenters included Tom Huey, director of the Department of Building Inspection (DBI); Gary Ho, DBI structural engineer; James (Jim) McCarthy of CalOSHA’s crane unit; Dan Lowry, DBI deputy director of Inspection Services; and Jerry Sanguinetti of Public Works’ Street Use and Mapping division.

The hearing centered on how the city and state share responsibilities. DBI outlined its permitting requirements for tower cranes: a building permit, site plans showing crane location and boom swing, stamped structural plans and calculations, geotechnical reports, third‑party special inspections for critical elements (concrete, embeds, welding), and a crane site safety plan and compliance agreement. Gary Ho said DBI relies on documents it identified as APO 23 and IS‑01 and requires engineering stamped by California‑licensed professionals and calculations that reference the 2013 California Building Code and ASCE 7‑10 standards.

CalOSHA’s James McCarthy described the state’s role as focused on employee safety. He recounted the 1989 jacking operation accident that killed the crane operator and others and said that accident drove the development of Title 8 regulations governing erection, operation, climbing and dismantling. McCarthy said operator licensing accepted by CalOSHA is issued by third‑party testing organizations (NCCCO) and the state enforces employer responsibility for training; CalOSHA inspects operations, can order cessation of work on unsafe sites and can cite or pursue employer sanctions (but typically acts against employers rather than directly debar individual operators).

Presenters gave concrete operational details: DBI requires special inspectors and signed special‑inspection reports on footing, rebar and embeds; DBI enforces prohibited hours for installation, climbing and dismantling (generally disallowed during 7–9 a.m. and 4–6 p.m. without prior agreement) and requires a flagger when lifts pass over roadways or pedestrian walkways during specified hours. McCarthy said CalOSHA conducts an initial review, returns every six months for a repeat inspection, and requires an annual third‑party certifier to verify readiness to operate per manufacturer specifications; he also said the CalOSHA crane unit has three staff covering Northern California.

Supervisors and staff debated gaps affecting mobile cranes, cherry pickers and rough‑terrain forklifts. CalOSHA acknowledged that mobile cranes and truck‑mounted lifts are frequently operator‑dependent and can be subject to insufficient supervision or training. Public Works noted it issues temporary occupancy permits (nine active permits were reported) and primarily regulates right‑of‑way occupancy, while CalOSHA retains worker‑safety oversight. Committee members asked whether local rules could be stricter than Title 8; McCarthy said Title 8 establishes a minimum and that the committee should consult the City Attorney, but he did not identify a state preemption that would bar stronger local standards.

Supervisor Peskin raised two specific follow‑ups he wants staff to consider: extending flagger/forbidden‑work windows to match broader pedestrian peak times and evaluating whether some mobile‑crane work should require an on‑site safety representative or stricter local permitting tied to training. DBI staff said they would review the suggestion about adjusting existing prohibited-hour windows and noted DBI currently requires an on‑site safety representative for tower cranes but not for many mobile crane operations.

The committee took no legislative action at the hearing; Supervisor Peskin asked to file the item and the committee voted to file Item 3 without opposition. Committee members asked staff to continue working offline with state and city partners to determine whether administrative or legislative changes are warranted.

Next steps: the item was filed for the record and staff were asked to return with options or draft changes after follow‑up coordination with CalOSHA, DBI, Public Works and the Municipal Transportation Agency.