Planning Commission hears 55 Laguna design; preservation groups and affordable‑housing advocates press for more time

Architects for the 55 Laguna project presented design concepts to the San Francisco Planning Commission on Dec. 6, laying out a plan that would convert the former campus into rental housing, a community center and a publicly accessible park while preserving most of the site’s historic fabric.

Fred Pollock of Van Meter Williams Pollock told commissioners the project aims to be a national pilot for LEED Neighborhood Development and would preserve roughly 83 percent of the significant landmarked square footage while adding Waller Park and a community garden of more than 10,000 square feet. The design calls for adaptive reuse of Richardson Hall and Woods Hall, new rental apartments and a continuing care retirement building, along with green‑street connections, permeable paving and bioswale stormwater treatments.

The presentation prompted a split response from the public. Tim Kollan, executive director of the San Francisco Housing Action Coalition, praised the project as “a great deal for the city of San Francisco,” telling commissioners it provides rental housing, a high level of affordable units and substantial public amenities. Several preservation organizations, including Save the Laguna Street Campus and Friends of 1800, said the commission should delay any certification of the final EIR and the rezoning action until the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board and San Francisco Architectural Heritage can review detailed plans for adaptively reusing buildings now on the National Register.

“Two of the buildings are proposed for demolition that are both on the register,” Cynthia Cervetnick of Save the Laguna Street Campus told the commission, adding that a preservation alternative in the EIR had been judged feasible and environmentally superior. “We believe it’s premature to approve the rezoning or the EIR without a full review of how these historic resources will be treated.”

Commissioners and staff underscored that the Landmarks Board has jurisdiction over certificates of appropriateness for landmarked structures and noted scheduling and noticing constraints. Staff advised that the project is set for initiation or more detailed review on Dec. 20 pending whether the sponsor and staff can answer outstanding questions about historic‑resources documentation, mitigation and the distribution of affordable units. Planning staff said they will follow up with the commission and the city attorney on procedural sequencing for certification, conditional‑use review and Landmarks action.

Next steps: The commission set follow‑up hearings and asked the project sponsor and staff to coordinate with Landmarks and the Board of Supervisors; no entitlement vote was taken at this session. If the item remains on the Dec. 20 calendar, commissioners said they expect supplemental materials addressing the preservation alternative and specific affordability and community‑benefit commitments.