Board hears hours of testimony on 555 Washington EIR; appeal sent back for further review

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday conducted a lengthy de novo hearing on an appeal of the Planning Commission’s March 18 certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for a proposed project at 555 Washington Street. Appellants, neighborhood groups and dozens of residents urged the board to find the EIR inadequate on multiple grounds; the board did not finalize certification and directed additional review and continuation of the matter for further analysis.

Appellants including the Telegraph Hill Dwellers and San Francisco For Reasonable Growth told the board the FEIR failed to meet CEQA’s requirements for adequacy, accuracy and completeness. Their primary complaints included that the document did not: analyze the proposal’s cumulative shadow impacts on nearby parks under Proposition K (San Francisco Planning Code section 2.95); provide a genuinely code-compliant alternative; fully model wind hazards; or adequately study transportation, parking and pedestrian impacts associated with a project that proposes far more parking than would ordinarily be permitted.

Telegraph Hill Dwellers spokesperson Susan Brandt Holly said the EIR contained "judgmental, subjective statements" rather than the clear, objective analysis CEQA requires. Attorney Sue Hester, representing San Francisco For Reasonable Growth, urged the board to note that the project effectively seeks to reclassify the site’s height district from 200 feet to roughly 400 feet — a change she said runs counter to the Downtown Plan’s intent to taper height at the northern edge of downtown. “You are being asked to approve this height reclassification to 400 feet,” Hester told supervisors, “which is totally not analyzed in the EIR.”

Speakers also raised concerns about impacts on three public spaces — Redwood Park, Sue Bierman Park and Maritime Plaza — and criticized the FEIR’s treatment of Redwood Park. The park is currently privately owned but proposed in project materials to be conveyed as a public benefit; appellants said section 2.95 (Proposition K) protections apply to parks designated for acquisition and that Redwood Park should have been treated as such in a quantitative shadow study. Park advocates and arborists emphasized the high value of the redwood trees on the proposed park site and warned that construction activities and altered wind and shadow patterns could harm the grove.

Bird experts and naturalists also objected to the EIR’s conclusions about bird collision risk, saying Ferry Park and Ferry Building Plaza are important for migratory and local bird populations and that proposed glass and lighting mitigations in the FEIR were insufficient.

The real party in interest and project sponsor argued the FEIR is accurate and complete and said the process has already been exhaustive: they noted multiple public hearings, consultant reviews and a multi-year analysis. The sponsor’s representative suggested the sponsor could pursue a lower-height, code-compliant alternative but said redoing or recirculating the EIR would add substantial cost and delay.

Planning staff and consultants defended the FEIR’s methodology but acknowledged places where additional clarification could be provided. Planning staff explained that they had performed shadow and sunlight analyses for the parks referenced and that Redwood Park had been studied for post‑project shadow conditions; they also noted distinctions between a Proposition K (section 2.95) decision by Recreation and Park Commission and CEQA’s separate significance analysis.

After extended deliberations and multiple motions on the record, the board took procedural action to continue further work on the matter and obtain additional analysis and clarifications (members discussed a return date of May 18). The board considered motions to reverse certification and to remand; the outcome recorded on the floor was that the matter will be continued for additional analysis and that staff should return with the requested clarifications and any required recirculation determinations.

Why it matters: the project proposes major upzoning on a transition block near the Financial District and North Beach/Chinatown and would affect historic views, open space and neighborhood scale. Appellants argued the FEIR’s shortcomings could set a precedent for other projects; sponsors said the EIR is sufficient and that a project could yield public benefits including a publicly available park, housing and jobs.

What’s next: the board directed planning staff to return with more detailed analyses responding to questions raised in the hearing (including Prop K quantitative analysis for parks designated for acquisition, wind hazard details, a careful review of the code-compliant alternative, and transportation/parking trip modeling). The matter was continued for further review; supervisors flagged the potential need for recirculation of the FEIR if new significant impacts or new mitigation are identified.