Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Eirs And Environmental Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission reviews SFMTA Trejo Yard draft EIR; commissioners press for alternatives on air quality and shadowing
Summary
Staff presented the draft EIR for SFMTA's proposed Trejo/Transit Yard modernization at 2500 Mariposa; commissioners asked for additional alternatives to address draft EIR findings of significant and unavoidable historic‑resource and toxic‑air impacts and discussed whether to extend the public comment period (currently July 1–Aug 31, 2021).
The Planning Commission on Aug. 26 reviewed the draft environmental impact report for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s proposed modernization of its Potrero (Trejo) Yard at 2500 Mariposa Street and pressed staff and the project team for additional alternatives to reduce air‑quality and shadow impacts.
Jennifer McKellar, senior environmental planner and EIR coordinator, summarized the draft EIR, describing a proposed replacement transit facility and joint development on a 4.4‑acre site that would demolish an existing early‑20th‑century building (a CEQA historical resource) and construct a modern transit facility with vehicle storage, maintenance bays, battery electric infrastructure and joint‑development residential and commercial space. The draft EIR concluded that demolition would cause a significant and unavoidable historic‑resource impact and that uncertainty around construction emissions could cause a significant and unavoidable air‑quality impact related to toxic air contaminants (TACs); staff identified mitigation measures but said those measures would not reduce the impacts to less‑than‑significant levels.
Commissioner Molin Dimon asked whether the project team could develop alternatives that retained more residential massing or otherwise reduced the number or scale of residential units so the preferred alternative would avoid or reduce significant TAC impacts during construction. Dimon said: “I am wondering if it would be possible to develop an alternative that resembles the project as much as possible ... but that reduces the amount of residential to the point where we get no significant unmitigated impacts with respect to toxic air contaminants.”
Commissioners also raised concerns about shadows cast on Franklin Square — including the children’s playground — during winter morning hours and about impacts to Muni worker parking and operations. Public commenter Sue Hester requested a brief extension to the EIR comment period (suggesting an extension to just after Labor Day) so community members have more time to review the large document; Commissioner Imperial voiced support for an extension and for more outreach.
Planning Department staff advised that CEQA guidelines set a default comment window between 30 and 60 days and that this draft EIR’s comment period (July 1–Aug. 31) is already just over 60 days. Deborah Dwyer, environmental planner, said the environmental review officer could consider an extension if commissioners identify ‘‘unusual circumstances.’’ Staff said they will evaluate submitted comments after the comment period closes, refine the project description as needed and expect the project to return for further review in roughly the next year, depending on the scope of comments and selection of a joint developer.
What’s next: The public comment period remains scheduled to close Aug. 31, 2021; commissioners asked staff to consider additional alternatives addressing TACs and shadowing in responses to comments and to consider whether an extension is warranted under CEQA guidelines.
Who spoke (first reference with role): Jennifer McKellar, Senior Environmental Planner (EIR coordinator); Deborah Dwyer, environmental planner; Commissioner Dimon; Sue Hester (public commenter).
Ending: Staff said the department will review comments and expects the next substantive review in spring/summer next year, subject to comment scope and project refinement.
