Council committee denies EIR appeal, approves 318‑unit mixed‑use project at 550 Shatto/Shadow Place

The Planning and Land Use Management Committee denied an appeal of the project’s certified environmental impact report (EIR) and upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of a mixed‑use development planned at 550 Shatto (listed in the record as 550 Shadow/Shadow Place). The committee action preserves the commission’s findings and clears the project to proceed under the environmental certification adopted by staff and the commission.

The committee’s vote followed extended public comment, testimony from planning staff, and formal presentations from the appellant and the applicant. Planning Department staff presented the project and recommended that the council deny the appeal and sustain the Planning Commission’s determination. Planning staff said the project had been evaluated for environmental impacts, that mitigation measures were identified, and that findings in the administrative record supported certification of the EIR.

The appeal was filed by an environmental organization identified in the record as Safe First (also rendered in the hearing transcript as variations of that name). The appellant argued the EIR did not adequately analyze impacts under CEQA/SEQUA (as referenced in the record) for air quality, noise and construction‑related emissions and urged the committee to require additional environmental analysis before approval. The appellant’s representative told the committee the EIR “fails to comply with SEQUA” and raised concerns about air emissions, noise and the adequacy of proposed mitigation.

Representatives for the applicant said the EIR and the administrative record addressed the issues raised and urged denial of the appeal. Applicant counsel identified themselves as Ryan Liverman (representing the applicant team) and referenced submittals provided to staff and the committee. The applicant emphasized that project designs preserved a church building on the site and that the project would provide housing and commercial activity at the location.

Public comment included both supporters and opponents. Labor representatives and community members spoke in favor, highlighting construction jobs and the housing supply to be created. Several speakers noted the project’s size and the number of affordable units; speakers described the project as providing “318 units” and noted “35” units designated for very‑low‑income households and more than “32,000 square feet” of commercial space. Other members of the public raised concerns about demolition of the existing church and about impacts the appellant alleged were not fully analyzed in the EIR.

The committee also considered how part of the project’s public‑benefit payments under the TFAR/TFAR‑style provisions should be allocated. Committee discussion centered on whether the public‑benefit portion should be committed to a citywide affordable‑housing trust or designated to a district or center‑area trust. Staff explained the ordinance structure and historical practice: certain transfer‑of‑floor‑area payments carry geographic constraints; benefit‑public payments historically have been directed by the councilmember representing the district where the development is located, though a separate TFAR process and a consultation step are also involved.

After discussion the committee voted to deny the appeal, uphold the Planning Commission’s certification of the EIR as part of the administrative record, and adopt the commission’s findings and conditions for the project. The committee’s action included the staff‑recommended findings attached to the June 2025 record and instructions reflecting the project description and mitigation measures contained in the certified EIR.

Committee members recorded an affirmative vote to deny the appeal and approve the project. The item passed on the committee floor by the recorded majority and the committee directed appropriate follow‑up to staff on TFAR/benefit‑public allocation questions raised during debate.

What happens next: The committee action sustains the Planning Commission’s environmental certification and project approval as described in the administrative record. The project remains subject to the regular ministerial and ministerial/permitting steps (building permits, final engineering, and any monitoring or mitigation obligations spelled out in the certified EIR and the council’s conditions).