Duplex with lead in soil
Hi there. My fiancé and I are looking to purchase a duplex in San Francisco to live in one unit and rent the other. We’ve looked at several properties over the last 3 years. We found one that is in move in ready and in a neighborhood we like.
However, the disclosures show high lead in the soil. In 2020, the house was being painted and tenants complained about lead. The soil was tested and showed 100 mg/kg. The owner’s response was to cover the backyard with plastic and bark chips.
Now, our realtor is significantly downplaying it. She says that lead paint is super common in San Francisco and we can cover the backyard with Astro turf. How severe is this? If we have kids, I’m assuming they can’t play outside? I’m assuming that if we remodel, we will be put at risk?
Most Popular Reply
I'd ask the sellers to clean it up as part of the negotiation process. Since those lead numbers are on the books, the disclosure will follow you and you may be required to clean it at some point. If this deal doesn't go through, find another realtor as It seems they are representing their financial interest more than yours.
Based on the below, I think lead in older buildings in San Francisco (and the rest of the Bay area for that matter) is pretty common but I would not personally downplay it given how harmful lead can be to a child's development. See the below article to see what can be done to minimize exposure.
My guess is the lead level disclosures came about because the previous tenants complained. Otherwise, you could buy a house that just comes with a general lead risk disclosure and still might get a house with a yard/soil that has high levels of lead. That 3,700 reading does sound very high when compared to "The EPA’s standard for lead in bare soil in play areas is 400 ppm by weight and 1200 ppm for non-play areas [EPA 2000a]" per the CDC. Astro Turf might work but it will break down over time.
Depending on how much you like this house and its location, you could negotiate for lead remediation to mitigate the risk or continue looking.
Btw, what neighborhood is this in San Francisco?
https://www.sfdph.org/dph/EH/CEHP/Lead/InfoOwner.asp
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/leadtoxicity/safety_standards...
https://sfbaypeds.com/Lead-Is-a-Poison-What-You-Need-to-Know
I'd ask the sellers to clean it up as part of the negotiation process. Since those lead numbers are on the books, the disclosure will follow you and you may be required to clean it at some point. If this deal doesn't go through, find another realtor as It seems they are representing their financial interest more than yours.
Yes, we are concerned about the risk because we want to have kids. We’re also considering laying down brick or paving the entire backyard to not expose anyone to it. However, we will be at a disadvantage when we sell the place in the future, because will have to disclose it in perpetuity or if it’s completely removed.
We like the place, but I think will use this as leverage to negotiate a lower price. It’s located in the inner Richmond.
I don't understand why this is an even an issue.
Hard no. Why the heck would you even think about risking your kids livelihoods like this? They fix the issue with an inspection to verify it, or no deal. Why play in these waters?
I suspect that the difference between this and homes without disclosure of lead is this home knows its lead level. This does not imply that the other properties you look at in that area do not have the same issue.
CA requires the disclosure of lead to renters if you know your unit has lead. I provide the disclosure pamphlet every time even though I only highly suspect there is lead (based on the year of build) but do not actually know there is lead (except for one unit where I do know because a fire and needing to do abatement - it was tested before work being done). I provide the pamphlet because the pamphlet provides guidance on what not to do in homes that have lead. I have never had a renter backout of the unit due to me providing the lead pamphlet. This is because even though I suspect many LL do not provide the pamphlet, their units in the area (assuming built around the same time) have similar levels of lead as my units.
My point is that the owner disclosed what they knew as they are legally required to, but I am unconvinced that other properties you look at in the area will not have similar levels of lead that the owner simply has not tested for and therefore can indicate they are unaware of any issue and therefore are not required to make a disclosure.
Good luck
Aloha,
It is not uncommon with older homes that they would have been painted on the exterior with lead based paint, as well as the interior. When the exterior gets prepped for paint, if there is much scraping, sanding, or actual peeling/chipping of multiple layers of the old paint, it all ends up on the ground. While some may get cleaned up, most will just get worked into the soil over time, causing those lead levels to be significant closer to the house. If testing is done 15 feet away, likely much lower levels, if any. The problem is, at this point of time the lead is so mixed in with dirt and debris, proper remediation requires removing several inches of depth of the top soil, and replacing it with "clean" topsoil. This can get expensive. And even more expensive if you do not follow EPA guidelines for the removal.
I'd start by understanding what the remediation process is and its cost to make an informed decision.

