Developers offer Redwood Park expansion as tradeoff for minor shadows; commissions take public comment on 555 Washington but defer action

City planning and Rec and Park staff and the project sponsor presented competing analyses and public testimony on May 7 about shadow impacts from the proposed 555 Washington Street development. Deputy City Attorney Marlena Byrne told both commissions they could hold the joint hearing and accept public comment but should not take final approval actions before the draft environmental impact report is finalized and the EIR is certified.

Planning staff described the project as demolition of a 9‑story office and a one‑story retail building and construction of a mixed‑use tower with an approximate finished roof height of 390 feet (425 feet including rooftop mechanicals). Rec and Park staff presented the shadow analysis that attributed about 2,822,513 shadow square‑foot hours to the project on Maritime Plaza (roughly 0.88% of the park’s total potential sunlight), with a maximum modeled daily shadow of about 15,000 square‑foot‑hours on July 26 at approximately 5:45 p.m. On Sue Bierman Park staff reported about 43,682 shadow square‑foot hours (approximately 0.0062% of total potential sunlight), with a maximum daily shadow of about 8,775 square‑foot‑hours on Sept. 20 at about 6:15 p.m.

Project sponsor Liberty Hill Development (Andrew Siegel) said the new building would cast a minor shadow on Maritime Plaza and an infinitesimal shadow on Sue Bierman Park and proposed expanding and renovating the private Redwood Park at an estimated cost of nearly $2 million, then conveying it to the city and maintaining it in perpetuity as public open space.

Public testimony was extensive and split. Supporters — including the Neighborhood Parks Council, San Francisco Parks Trust, Jackson Square merchants, housing advocates and labor groups — said the shadow impacts were minimal relative to the public benefits of adding permanently accessible open space, housing and sustainable design features. Opponents and some neighborhood advocates warned that approving new shadow allowances would set a precedent that undermines the city’s Prop K protections and urged additional cumulative analysis (including other pending projects such as 8 Washington) and clearer staff reports.

Commissioners pressed staff on whether the projected shadows would harm trees or park use and on the appropriateness of examining mitigation (Redwood Park) within a shadow hearing. Staff noted the 1989 memorandum that set downtown shadow limits and explained qualitative factors (time of day, duration, use of the shaded area and net social benefits) that the commissions consider. Several commissioners said the shadow impacts appeared minimal given the late‑afternoon timing, while others called for a more comprehensive cumulative policy review. No final action on shadow limits or entitlements was taken at the joint hearing pending completion and certification of the EIR.