Board of Appeals continues 2550 Irving demolition appeal after neighbors and experts clash over PCE contamination

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Feb. 8 continued an appeal of the demolition permit for 2550 Irving Street after residents, consultants and city officials sharply disagreed over soil and soil‑vapor contamination related to historic dry‑cleaning operations.

Residents represented by the Mid Sunset Neighborhood Association (MSNA) and an independent environmental consultant, Don Moore, told the board that prior sampling shows tetrachloroethylene (PCE) vapor levels above screening thresholds in nearby homes and that a focused source investigation on or adjacent to the 2550 Irving parcel remains incomplete. MSNA attorney Enoch Wong said the demolition offers a last practical opportunity to collect soil and soil‑vapor samples in the former dry‑cleaner footprint and asked the board to deny the permit or condition any approval on agreed testing during demolition.

TNDC, the permit holder, and its environmental consultant David Grunat said the parcel has been characterized, that regulatory oversight is in place (including a DTSC‑approved response plan and a Maher/DPH site management plan), and that the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has not identified the parcel as a source of PCE. TNDC and its counsel argued SB 35 and related state law limit the board’s ability to add substantive conditions to demolition permits for qualifying projects.

DTSC project manager Parag Shah told the board that DTSC’s characterization of the 2550 Irving parcel indicates low risk on that parcel and that DTSC is conducting additional off‑site investigation, including repeated indoor‑air sampling at a small set of residences. DPH and DBI staff explained that DPH’s Maher review deferred certain cleanup authority to DTSC and that demolition permit review for a site under half an acre does not require a site‑specific dust control plan, though TNDC voluntarily included dust and VOC monitoring in its site management plan.

Public comment was lengthy and sharply divided: some neighbors reported indoor‑air PCE detections and urged that evidence be preserved during demolition; trade unions and housing advocates urged denial of the appeal and prompt construction of affordable housing, saying standard site mitigation approaches are routine and protective.

The board debated three paths: impose a condition requiring specific, jointly agreed sampling during demolition; deny or uphold the permit outright; or continue to get fuller DTSC testimony. A motion to grant the appeal with a sampling/oversight condition failed on a split vote. The board then voted to continue the matter to Feb. 22 so DTSC could provide more detailed testimony and so parties could attempt a narrowly defined, mutually agreeable sampling protocol. The hearing record shows the parties intend to work on a focused protocol for sampling in the former cleaner footprint that both sides say can be done during demolition; TNDC cautioned that any open‑ended scope could threaten financing and schedule.

Next steps: the board will reconvene on Feb. 22 with additional DTSC representation; the demolition permit remains administratively approved but procedurally stayed while the appeal is pending.