Special Joint Planning and Historic Preservation Commission Hearing

Date: Thursday, April 17, 2025

This joint hearing of the San Francisco Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission considered four related actions for the Heritage on the Marina residential care facility at 3400 Laguna Street. The project proposes demolishing two non-contributing buildings, constructing two new four-story buildings (Bay Building and Francisco Building), renovating the historic Julia Morgan Building, and modifying the existing Planned Unit Development (PUD). The hearing included staff presentations, 10 minutes each from the project sponsor and organized opposition, and 28 individual public comments. The Planning Commission first certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopted CEQA findings, then the Historic Preservation Commission considered a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA), and finally the Planning Commission considered the Conditional Use Authorization (CUA).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Project Sponsor (Randy Gridley, Carolyn Kiernot, Frank Rockwood): Argued the project is essential for the financial sustainability of the 172-year-old nonprofit, which faces annual operating deficits growing from $3 million to over $8 million. They emphasized the design respects the Julia Morgan landmark and provides needed senior housing.
• Organized Opposition – Save the Marina’s Heritage (Tanya Albuquerque, Christopher Verplanck, Michael Hebel, Terry Peckham, Maurice Fitzgerald): Contended the plans are incomplete (referencing a disclaimer), the new construction would overwhelm and dwarf the Julia Morgan mansion, violating Secretary of the Interior Standards (particularly standards 1, 2, 9, and 10). They also raised safety concerns about the proposed driveway on Bay Street, citing 14 injury crashes in the last 10 years on that block.
• General Public – In Support (approx. 10 speakers, including residents): Spoke about the quality of care at Heritage, the need for senior housing, and the importance of the expansion to ensure the facility’s survival. One resident noted that 25% of current residents receive financial support.
• General Public – In Opposition (approx. 5 speakers, including neighbors): Objected to the scale and massing, loss of open space, increased traffic, and dust during construction. One neighbor stated that the proposal looks “like a prison.”
• San Francisco Heritage (Woody LaBounty, executive director): Did not oppose the project on balance, noting that preservation of the Morgan building and front garden was key, and that the organization’s mission and the recent landmark designation were important factors.

Discussion Items

1. Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and CEQA Findings

• Staff (Jeff Horn, Megan Calpin): Presented the EIR process: draft EIR published August 28, 2024; comment period closed October 15, 2024; 25 commenters; all impacts mitigated to less-than-significant; three alternatives analyzed (no project, rehabilitation, reduced construction).
• Planning Commission Deliberation: Traffic safety on Bay Street was a major concern. Commissioner Moore described the intersection as “potentially an unsafe disaster in the making.” Staff clarified the project would move loading operations away from the intersection, provide a loading dock long enough for 40-foot vehicles, and add right-turn-only access. The project would generate 27 new peak-hour vehicle trips, well below the 300-trip threshold. The Commission certified the EIR (6-0) and adopted CEQA findings (6-0).

2. Certificate of Appropriateness (Historic Preservation Commission)

• Staff (Charles Enchill): Recommended approval, finding the project complies with Secretary of the Interior Standards. Key change: demolition of two non-contributing buildings, new construction compatible in location, size, and finishes.
• Commissioner Nagas Warren: Detailed analysis of Standards 1, 2, 9, 10. Criticized the west end of the south addition as too prominent, stating it needs to defer to the Morgan building via stepping back or better articulation. Also raised concerns about window replacement, seismic connection, and roof equipment.
• Commissioner Baldoff: Echoed concerns about massing on the west side, lack of detailed renderings (materials not shown), and the importance of getting the design right for a landmark. Proposed sending the project to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) rather than approving now.
• Commissioner Foley: Argued for approval with condition to go to ARC for final massing and details, citing the urgent need for senior housing and the risk of the nonprofit becoming financially unsustainable.
• Vote: Motion to approve COA with condition that the project return to ARC for final massing and details. Passed 5-1 (Commissioner Nagas Warren dissenting).

3. Conditional Use Authorization (Planning Commission)

• Staff (Jeff Horn): Request to modify the existing PUD to allow a rear-yard exception. The project is a principle permitted use; the PUD allows modifications. The project sponsor also created a driveway loading and operations plan to mitigate Bay Street safety issues.
• Planning Commission Deliberation: Several commissioners expressed discomfort with approving the CUA without seeing the final design from ARC. Commissioner Imperial raised concerns about approving the CUA before the COA details were settled. Commissioner Brown proposed a motion to continue, but later withdrew it after discussion.
• Programmatic Concerns: Commissioner McGarry noted that any reduction in units or unit sizes could render the project financially nonviable; the sponsor confirmed that the project is designed to just reach break-even. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that industry average unit size in California is 1,500 sq ft, while the proposed average is 750 sq ft.
• Final Motion: The Planning Commission approved the CUA (6-0) with an added finding that the ARC review must retain the programmatic viability of the project, specifically the number of units (109) and unit sizes as proposed, and that the revised plans be shared with the Planning Commission.

Key Outcomes

• EIR Certification: Motion passed 6-0 (Planning Commission).
• CEQA Findings Adoption: Motion passed 6-0 (Planning Commission).
• Certificate of Appropriateness: Motion passed 5-1 (Historic Preservation Commission) with condition to return to ARC for final massing and details. The ARC will include Commissioners Nagas Warren, Baldoff, and Baroni, plus President Matsuda as ex-officio. Target ARC meeting: May 21, 2025.
• Conditional Use Authorization: Motion passed 6-0 (Planning Commission) with a finding that ARC review must maintain programmatic viability (unit count and sizes) and that final plans be provided to the Planning Commission.
• Next Steps: The ARC will meet on May 21 to finalize design details (massing, materials). The project cannot proceed until the COA is finalized, which may require subsequent review by the full HPC. The Planning Commission will receive the final approved plans for informational purposes.