Abatement Appeals Board continues Unit 7 remediation dispute to March after conflicting testimony on lead, asbestos

The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board on Feb. 19 continued a contested order of abatement affecting Unit 7 of a nine‑story building after hearing sharply divergent accounts from the owner and occupants about contamination and access.

The Board voted 4–2 to continue the matter to its March 19 meeting, with President Clinch, Commissioner McCarthy, Commissioner Maher and Commissioner Lee voting yes and Vice President Melgar and Commissioner McCray voting no. The continuance followed extensive testimony about notices of violation issued in March and May 2013 and a 7‑day order of abatement imposed by a hearing officer in December 2013.

Owners’ attorneys said the property owners have been working with consultants and contractors and have undertaken remediation and repairs since the notices were issued. Attorney Alan Nolley told the Board owners had “expended substantial resources” and were cooperating with city agencies. Co‑counsel Brian Soriano said the tenants had filed “a lawsuit for over $750,000” that has complicated access and remediation efforts and said Department of Public Health staff initially worked with owners on testing protocols.

Tenants and their counsel disputed the owners’ account. Tenant Dr. Amy Hower: “Pretty much everything that was said is not true,” and described months of unresolved leaks and dust infiltration she said began in 2012. Dr. Hower told the Board she evacuated because of dust she said she could not breathe and later lost a pregnancy; she and tenant counsel said independent and public‑health testing has shown lead and asbestos contamination in the unit and tenant belongings.

Both sides debated whether remediation firms engaged were properly certified and whether cleaning protocols addressed lead, asbestos and mold. Tenants’ counsel Kelly Shields said the parties had repeatedly urged the owners to present a licensed plan for lead and asbestos remediation; staff and commissioners emphasized that environmental cleaning must follow approved protocols and involve certified personnel.

Rosemarie Bosque, the department’s Chief Housing Inspector, told the Board the notices remain unabat ed and staff had recommended a 7‑day order earlier because of the health and safety concerns. Bosque said staff’s priority is to secure access so inspectors and certified contractors can perform required work.

Several commissioners urged the parties to agree to a contractor and protocol vetted by the Department of Public Health and to present progress at the next hearing. Commissioners were divided on whether to issue an immediate order; ultimately a majority favored a 28‑day continuance to allow the parties and health department to confirm an appropriate contractor and remediation plan.

The Board also handled a separate rehearing request for case no. 67812278 concerning a property on 40 Second Avenue. After staff recommended denying rehearing because the petition contained no new information, the Board voted unanimously to deny the rehearing.

The case of Unit 7 will return to the Abatement Appeals Board on March 19, 2014, when members said they expect parties to report on contractor vetting and remediation progress; no formal abatement order was adopted at the Feb. 19 meeting.