Board affirms EIR for 706 Mission Street Mexican Museum and residential tower after lengthy hearing

After more than four hours of testimony and detailed legal and technical argument, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday affirmed the Planning Commission’s certification of the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 706 Mission Street Mexican Museum and Residential Tower project (Items 19–22). The motion to affirm the EIR (Item 20) passed by unanimous roll call, 11–0.

The hearing was convened as a public appeal of the EIR and followed a structured sequence: appellants (two groups) were allotted up to 20 minutes in total, public comment for appellants followed, Planning Department staff made a presentation, the project sponsor presented, supporters of the project spoke, and appellants were given a short rebuttal.

Appellants’ claims Appellants — including the 765 Market Street Residential Owners Association, Friends of Yerba Buena, TODCO and the Yerba Buena Neighborhood Consortium, and several individual residents — argued that the EIR was legally inadequate in several areas: - Historic preservation: appellants said the EIR failed to properly analyze the tower’s impact on the Aronson Building and the Montgomery‑Mission‑Second Street Conservation District, and they challenged the EIR’s treatment of Article 11 (the City’s historic‑preservation code) jurisdiction. - Shadow and recreation: appellants argued the EIR undercounted or mischaracterized shadow impacts on downtown public open spaces, especially Union Square and Jesse Square, and that certain alternatives — including a reduced‑height building that would avoid added Union Square shadow — were feasible and should have been analyzed in more depth. - Pedestrian safety and circulation: appellants and neighborhood groups argued the project’s transportation analysis did not adequately address peak and event‑day pedestrian loads around the Moscone/Yerba Buena area and that the EIR’s baseline and cumulative analyses were insufficient for the area’s unique event‑driven pedestrian peaks. - Air quality, noise and other technical claims were also raised; appellants questioned the suitability of thresholds used and whether mitigation measures were sufficiently defined.

Planning Department and sponsor response Planning staff and the applicant’s counsel defended the sufficiency of the document. Planning staff said the EIR analyzed historic resources, shadow, noise, air quality and transportation consistent with CEQA, that the City may appropriately rely on certain agency thresholds supported by substantial evidence, and that the EIR included an explicit reduced‑height alternative (the board heard reference to a 351‑foot reduced‑shadow alternative) that would avoid Union Square shadowing and was provided to inform decision‑makers.

Tom Lippe, counsel for a group of appellants, focused legal objections on the EIR’s treatment of Article 11 and argued the EIR failed to assess the tower’s inconsistency with that historic‑resource framework and that the EIR did not adequately evaluate the cumulative shadow "creeping incrementalism" problem downtown. Appellants also called for further independent review of financial assumptions tied to floor‐area transfers and the project’s ability to fund the museum component.

Public testimony and community views Dozens of members of the public testified for and against the project. Supporters — including arts leaders, Mexican Museum trustees and cultural organizations — emphasized the long struggle to establish a permanent home for the Mexican Museum, the cultural and economic value of the museum, and a private contribution and endowment commitments said to be part of the project.

Opponents — including residents of 765 Market and neighborhood organizations — highlighted pedestrian safety, traffic congestion on Stevenson/Third, shadowing of Jesse Square and Union Square, and the need for a more robust cumulative pedestrian analysis that accounts for large, recurring conventions and event‑day peaks.

Board decision After considering presentations, public testimony and legal arguments, the Board voted to affirm the Planning Commission’s certification of the EIR. Supervisor Kim, the district supervisor for the site, moved to affirm; the motion was seconded and carried 11–0. The clerk announced: "The motion to affirm the final EIR certification is approved."

Why it matters The vote allows the procedural record to move forward: EIR certification does not in itself authorize construction, but it clears the environmental‑review step so that subsequent land‑use, permitting and commission approvals (including any Article 11 historic‑preservation permits, Rec and Park and planning actions) may proceed. The hearing surfaced ongoing neighborhood concerns about shadows, pedestrian safety, and how cumulative impacts from downtown growth are assessed — topics supervisors said would be followed through in subsequent permit hearings and implementation stages.

Provenance: The appeal hearing and the Board’s roll‑call affirmation of the EIR are recorded in the Board transcript (Items 19–22); the hearing sequence and time allotments were announced and the record includes appellants’ briefs, Planning Department responses and public testimony.