Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 222 Second St Eir topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors urge rewrite of 222 Second Street draft EIR, citing residential mischaracterization and shadow, noise and traffic concerns
Summary
At a public hearing on the draft EIR for the 222 Second Street office project, residents and owners near the site argued the document mischaracterizes the area as industrial/commercial, underestimates shadow and noise impacts, and fails to analyze effects on families and nearby parks. Commissioners extended the written comment period to March 25, 2010.
Planning staff opened a public hearing on the draft environmental impact report (EIR) for the 222 Second Street office project and said comments will be transcribed and responded to in a formal comments-and-responses document.
Several neighbors and condominium owners told the commission the draft EIR misrepresents the immediate surroundings as industrial or commercial and therefore omits neighborhood impacts on families, day‑care centers and residential properties. Speakers raised detailed criticisms including shadowing of the planned Transbay park, ingress/egress and traffic impacts on the Second Street corridor, projected construction duration, loss of carshare spaces and off‑street parking, potential noise from generators and chillers and the location of a temporary bus shelter.
Why it matters: The project is in a transitioning area near the Transbay Transit Center and other large developments; neighbors argued the EIR should analyze the site from a neighborhood‑residential perspective and recirculate a revised draft so owners and recent residents receive adequate notice and opportunity to comment.
What happened at the hearing: Neighbors asked for and received an extension of the written comment period; staff confirmed the comment period was extended to March 25, 2010. Commissioners asked staff to respond to specific CEQA and shadow‑analysis questions and to clarify how reasonably foreseeable projects were treated in cumulative analyses.
Representative comments: Armand de Hercovian, representing owners at 246 Second Street, urged rejection of the EIR saying it ‘‘misrepresents the neighborhood we live in with our families as industrial and commercial’’ and argued the analysis understates impacts on sunlight, noise and privacy. Other speakers asked the department to reissue and reexamine parts of the draft and to improve notice to new condominium owners.
Next steps: The commission closed oral testimony for the hearing and instructs staff to collect and respond to written comments received by the extended deadline; revisions and responses will be published in the comment‑and‑response document required under CEQA.
