Planning commission upholds mitigated negative declaration for Market St. project after appeals over soil contamination

The Planning Commission on April 16 denied an appeal seeking an environmental impact report for a planned nine‑story, mixed‑use project at 1960–1998 Market Street, upholding the department's mitigated negative declaration by a 6–1 vote.

What the commission decided

After hearing technical testimony and written comment, the commission voted to uphold the PMND — meaning staff's conclusion that identified mitigation measures would reduce potential environmental impacts to less‑than‑significant levels stands and an EIR will not be required at this stage. Commissioner Mike Antonini moved to deny the appeal and the motion carried 6–1 (Commissioner Catherine Moore opposed).

What the appeal said

The San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council, represented at the hearing, argued that available site data and independent reviews present a "fair argument" under CEQA that the project may have significant hazardous‑materials impacts. Appellant Tanya Golissarian told the commission that laboratory results show concentrations above California's residential screening levels for contaminants such as nickel and asbestos in serpentine soils, as well as petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater. She said the project's soil management plan incorrectly estimated the volume of material to be excavated (the appellant's expert had initially cited a typographical error in earlier documents and estimated hundreds of thousands of cubic feet) and warned that moving large volumes of contaminated soil would raise air‑quality and worker‑safety risks and require many truck trips.

Staff and sponsor responses

Planning staff (Deborah Dwyer) and the project's geotechnical and remediation consultants told the commission the PMND includes appropriate baseline studies and identified mitigation; Department of Public Health review and Bay Area Air Quality Management District permitting will enforce remediation standards and worker protections. Project counsel called some large volume figures in appellant filings typographical errors and presented geotechnical reports concluding the site could be remediated under existing regulatory procedures. Consultants said naturally occurring asbestos in serpentine was identified and that remedial steps and soil‑handling measures were incorporated in the mitigation program.

Expert testimony

A credentialed geologist (Tim Cohen) told the commission that station‑closure and soil remediation work is routine and enforced by state and local regulators; other consultants (e.g., the geotechnical firm that prepared the site report) described soil and groundwater conditions and the remedial approach, and the project sponsor said the Department of Public Health reviewed the soil management plan.

Why the commission upheld the PMND

Staff told the commission that identified mitigation measures, Department of Public Health oversight, and permit requirements administered by other agencies address the hazardous‑materials, groundwater and air‑quality concerns raised in the appeal. Commissioners who voted to uphold the PMND said they were satisfied the record contained adequate analysis to support mitigated negative findings; the dissenting commissioner said the appellant raised substantial unresolved technical questions.

What happens next

Upholding the PMND does not mean the commission has approved the project's design or land‑use approvals; it means the commission found no basis in the record to require an EIR on environmental grounds. Project design, conditional‑use permits and zoning variances were taken up in the following agenda item, which the commission continued to a subsequent hearing to allow further design refinements and neighborhood outreach.

Sources: Staff presentation, appellant and consultant testimony, commission roll call vote.