Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contaminated Sites topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves mixed‑use replacement at 1088 Howard after neighbors cite lead, sewer and privacy concerns; sponsor agrees extra setbacks and mitigation
Summary
After neighbors raised health and infrastructure worries about demolition of a former paint/manufacturing site, the commission approved a 6‑storey mixed‑use infill at 1088 Howard Street while adding a one‑foot separation condition and noting the project will follow a DPH‑approved site mitigation plan and construction controls.
A public‑initiated discretionary review and accompanying exposure variance for 1088 Howard Street drew substantial neighborhood opposition focused on hazardous soils, potential dust and lead exposure from demolition, sewer and gutter capacity, and privacy and sunlight impacts for adjacent micro‑units. The project proposes to replace a one‑story commercial building and surface parking with a six‑storey residential building containing 24 residential units and rooftop open space.
The Doctor requester (a resident and scientist in nearby 195 Seventh Street) submitted a technical critique of the sponsor’s soil testing, noted high measured lead concentrations in some parking‑lot borings and requested additional independent testing and public disclosure before demolition. Staff and the project team told the commission the site‑specific mitigation plan is overseen by the Department of Public Health and calls for additional testing once partial demolition exposes soils, air monitoring, dust control, encapsulation or remediation where necessary, and stoppage of work during high winds; staff said those measures meet local and state requirements.
Project counsel and sponsor stated the project provides family‑sized units including on‑site BMRs and was designed to match lot‑line development patterns with reciprocating light wells, a mid‑block courtyard and a roof garden placed to limit privacy impacts. The sponsor also offered to extend the light‑well length by one foot to increase separation from property‑line windows and to provide HEPA air purifiers for affected units; staff read that offer into the record as a settlement proposal being pursued with the Doctor requester’s representatives.
Commissioners ultimately voted to take discretionary review and approve the project as presented while adding a condition to increase the separation at certain property‑line windows by one foot; the zoning administrator granted the exposure variance with standard conditions. The commission required that the sponsor comply with the DPH site mitigation plan and standard construction dust/noise controls and reiterated that non‑land‑use concerns (plumbing repairs, private agreements) remain matters for separate remedies and follow‑up with utility agencies.
