After a six-hour Board of Appeals hearing on Wednesday, an appeal to delay a 100-percent affordable housing project at 2550 Irving St. was denied. The project will now almost certainly go ahead.
The decision split the board down the middle in a 2-2 vote. Commissioners Alex Lemberg and John Trasviña favored granting the site permit appeal while Vice President Jose Lopez and Commissioner J.R. Eppler voted against. President Rick Swig was absent.
At least four board members must agree for an appeal to be granted.
The appeal was focused on toxic tetrachloroethylene (PCE) contamination on the parcel, located a block south of Golden Gate Park in the Outer Sunset. PCE is a colorless liquid sometimes used in dry cleaning and industry (the project sits on the site of a historic dry cleaning business). PCE may exacerbate cancer risk at high concentrations, especially in children.
Appellants argued that the public agencies tasked with assessing toxic PCE on the site had not adequately investigated the contamination, and contended that the developers’ suggested mitigation measures were insufficient. They wanted the permit struck down until more tests were conducted and the developers committed to using “soil vapor extraction” to clean up the parcel.
But experts from the city and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control countered that they had already conducted extensive tests. They said that, while PCE had been detected in the site’s soil vapor, the source of the contamination was not on the site of the proposed housing, making extraction and cleaning of the soil unhelpful.
Instead, they defended their proposed mitigation measure, which would install a barrier between the soil and the proposed 90-unit, seven-story building, rather than removing the sandy soil.
“DTSC, in its capacity as lead regulator of hazardous substances for this project, finds no environmental or public health basis to deny this building permit,” said Whit Smith, a senior hazardous substances engineer speaking on behalf of the state agency.
Déjà vu all over again
If this is sounding familiar, that might be because a similar appeal on the same site was heard in February. Similar issues around soil contamination were raised by the same group, the Mid-Sunset Neighborhood Association.
That appeal, launched to nix the developers’ permit to demolish the old Police Credit Union building that was occupying the site at the time, failed in a 3-2 vote. However, after hearing from neighbors near the parcel who had PCE vapor detected in their homes, the Board of Appeals asked the Department of Toxic Substances Control to listen to the neighborhood group and conduct more tests on the land.
In the intervening six months, more tests were conducted — although appellants said yesterday that they were not the tests they asked for.
“We thought the community would be pleased with the amount of work that we did,” said Smith. “The scope cost almost five times what [the neighborhood association] had recommended.”
The new tests involved launching four probes in different locations around the site, focusing on the footprint of the dry cleaning business that once operated on the parcel. The probes took roughly 5,000 measurements, looking for PCE from near the surface down to groundwater some 90 feet below.
“The results of the recent investigation were unequivocal,” said Smith. “PCE was not detected in soil, groundwater, or soil gas within the historical building’s footprint, affirming the absence of a contamination source.”
The vaporous PCE that is present under the site could be leaching in from a source elsewhere in the community, or could be residual contamination from a source that has since been removed, Smith speculated. He said that investigations to find the source are continuing in the surrounding neighborhood, and that cleaning the site’s soil would not solve the problem.
“If we bring in a [soil vapor extraction] system and just sweep the stuff away from the surface, I don’t want to give the community a false sense that we’ve gotten rid of the PCE from the neighborhood,” said Smith. “We want a permanent solution.”
But Dan Grasmick, an engineer and environmental consultant speaking on behalf of the neighborhood association, called the state’s tests “seriously flawed” and said its investigation “appears to have been designed to not identify a primary source.”
Grasmick said that, although no primary source had been found, the ground beneath the proposed housing still contained a “significant PCE soil vapor concentration” that he said “may impact the human health of future occupants on the subject property and current occupants of the neighborhood.” He advocated for cleaning up the soil and for more soil vapor tests.
Dr. Tamer Durrani, a toxicologist at the University of California, San Francisco, said that any amount of PCE can add to the background risk of cancer. He likened the substance to lead and said there was “no safe level” that should be tolerated, if risks can be reduced.
Experts on the side of the developers and the city have characterized the concentration of PCE vapor on the site as below the level expected to lead to negative health impacts.
The commissioners deliberate
Representatives from the Department of Building Inspection, the Planning Department, and the Public Health Department all recommended that the board deny the appeal. However, there was still plenty of disagreement among commissioners.
“I’m ready to grant the appeal, based on an overreliance on, and misplaced deference to, DTSC,” said Trasviña, referring to the Department of Toxic Substance Control. He contended that the agency did not meet and communicate enough with residents, and said he was disappointed it did not complete the additional soil vapor tests the Mid-Sunset Neighborhood Association requested.
“If we really believe in affordable housing, if we really believe in the public health of the people of San Francisco, and future people in San Francisco, then we have to do this right,” he said.
Lemberg also supported the appeal: “There are several things that smell here, for me,” they said, most notably that the Department of Toxic Substances Control did not complete the tests asked for by the appellants.
Eppler voted to deny the appeal, saying he saw the necessary cleanup of PCE in the neighborhood and the building permit before them as separate issues. He also questioned whether the Board of Appeals had the authority to strike down the permit, regardless, due to limitations on their power imposed by state housing law SB35. The law prevents commissioners from taking actions that could “chill” the development of affordable housing.
“I have to ask myself, do we have grounds under SB35 to appeal this?” asked Eppler. “I don’t see a way to get there.”
Lopez concurred, and argued that there needed to be some implicit trust in city and state public agencies for the Board of Appeals to function: “It feels like we’re stepping outside of our element if we’re calling balls and strikes on science.”
The west side of the city has built very little new housing in recent history, so yesterday’s decision will be seen as a big win for the city’s YIMBY faction. The new building will also mark one small step toward meeting the city’s ambitious goal of 82,000 new units within a decade.
90 approved and 81,910 more to go. West Side neighbors (where I grew up) must know Ocean Ave around Beep’s Burgers. It was an area we used to drive through. Now it’s an area we drive to. Thanks to an open-minded community (and visionaries such as Dan Weaver) midrise housing was approved. It transformed that part of Ocean Ave from a thoroughfare for commuters to a high street for pedestrians. They banished the bleakness from my old hood!
Nearly 1,000 of these would need to be built to reach the goal of 82,000 units.
Between this and the approval of Geary bus lanes, I’m delighted. After years of NIMBYism successfully destroying any and all efforts to build any new infrastructure other than parking spots, it’s a joy to see the West side gradually turning into a part of the city that actually builds things for people to live in and move around again.
FYI – MSNA has filled a rehearing request, set to be heard on 9/13.
I am stunned by the Commissioners comments that voted to deny the appeal to clean up this known proven toxic site. The clean up does NOT cost more and does NOT delay the project.
The Commissioners quotes:
Eppler voted to deny the appeal, saying he saw the necessary cleanup of PCE in the neighborhood and the building permit before them as separate issues. He also questioned whether the Board of Appeals had the authority to strike down the permit, regardless, due to limitations on their power imposed by state housing law SB35. The law prevents commissioners from taking actions that could “chill” the development of affordable housing.
“I have to ask myself, do we have grounds under SB35 to appeal this?” asked Eppler. “I don’t see a way to get there.”
My response: I do not understand that statement. The appeal of the permit is inextricably linked to the only way to get remediation (SVE clean-up) of known PCE contamination on the 2550 site. There is no other recourse for clean-up of the toxins. To deny the appeal is to turn your back on public health. The site can be cleaned up, the site clean up will NOT delay or stop the project.
Lopez concurred, and argued that there needed to be some implicit trust in city and state public agencies for the Board of Appeals to function: “It feels like we’re stepping outside of our element if we’re calling balls and strikes on science.”
In February, the BOA asked the DTSC to do the same testing as the contaminated site across the street as the neighbors asked. DTSC did not.
I believe that Commissioner Trasvina comments answer this best:“I’m ready to grant the appeal, based on an overreliance on, and misplaced deference to, DTSC,” said Trasviña, referring to the Department of Toxic Substance Control. He contended that the agency did not meet and communicate enough with residents, and said he was disappointed it did not complete the additional soil vapor tests the Mid-Sunset Neighborhood Association requested.
“If we really believe in affordable housing, if we really believe in the public health of the people of San Francisco, and future people in San Francisco, then we have to do this right.”
This is a no-brainer: Clean it up, Build the project.