Board affirms certification of 55 Laguna EIR after appellants press preservation alternatives

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on March 4 heard appeals challenging the adequacy of the final environmental impact report (EIR) for the proposed 55 Laguna Street mixed‑use project in Hayes Valley and ultimately affirmed the planning commission’s certification of the EIR.

What the hearing covered: Appellants alleged the EIR and the planning commission’s findings under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) failed to adequately analyze feasible preservation alternatives that would avoid demolition of two contributing historic buildings on the former UC Berkeley Extension campus. Appellants urged the board to order recirculation of the EIR or to require the project sponsor to study a modified preservation alternative that they said would permit the developer’s housing goals while retaining key historic structures.

Appellants’ case: Tamara Colby, representing Save the Laguna Street Campus, said demolition of Middle Hall (the campus gymnasium) and the Richardson Hall Annex would “materially impair and likely cause the delisting” of the property from the National Register of Historic Places. The appellants argued that an alternative that retained Richardson Hall Annex and a portion of Middle Hall was feasible and could qualify for historic preservation incentives (including federal historic tax credits), and that the project sponsor’s economic pro formas and consultant memos did not provide substantial evidence showing preservation alternatives were infeasible.

Supporters and project sponsor: AF Evans and OpenHouse (the proposed senior housing operator) and their counsel defended the EIR and the planning commission’s action. Counsel said the EIR identified preservation alternatives but that independent financial analyses and a third‑party review (Seifel Consulting) demonstrated substantial economic infeasibility for the preservation options as designed: the preservation alternatives would require materially larger equity infusions and still leave a financing gap that would prevent the project from being built and from delivering the planned affordable and senior units. Project representatives also cited the public benefits of the proposed project, including hundreds of new rental homes, senior housing, community facility space and public open space.

Planning staff and third‑party review: Planning staff and the independent reviewer (Seifel) told supervisors that they had examined the sponsor’s pro formas and assumptions and concluded that the alternatives that avoided demolition of the two contributing buildings were not financially feasible and that the planning commission’s findings were supported by the administrative record.

The board’s action and next steps: After public testimony on both sides, the board voted to affirm the planning commission’s certification of the EIR and to table motions seeking to disapprove the certification. Supervisors repeatedly urged the project sponsor to continue detailed consultations with the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, to implement the mitigation, monitoring and reporting program identified in the EIR, and to delay any demolition permits until appropriate certificates of appropriateness or other preservation approvals are secured.

Quotes: “The EIR…identified potentially feasible preservation alternatives,” said planning staff; “the question is whether those alternatives are actually feasible given the demonstrated financing gap,” said AF Evans’ counsel. An appellant speaker said demolition “will be felt by the city” and urged preservation of the district’s WPA‑era fabric.

Why this matters: The site is a National Register‑eligible historic district; demolition of contributing structures could alter the district’s listed status. The project’s tradeoffs—historic‑resource preservation versus deep affordability and new senior units—are the focus of contention.

Votes and procedural outcome: The board affirmed the EIR certification. The board directed continued review of design details and monitoring measures, and emphasized that demolition or other irreversible actions should not proceed until required preservation consultations and approvals are complete.

What wasn’t decided: Approval of rezoning, specific plan amendments and conditional use permits associated with the project are separate legislative and administrative steps and will come before the board (or other decision‑making bodies) later; appellants and preservation advocates said they will continue to press for alternatives in those proceedings.

Key participants and speakers included appellants’ representatives (Tamara Colby, Save the Laguna Street Campus), community speakers and preservation advocates (Steve Zeltzer, Mark Paez, Jack Gold), preservation consultants (Alan Martinez, Seifel Consulting) and project counsel and sponsors (Steve Vettel for AF Evans/OpenHouse).