title
Report regarding consideration of an application for Design Review and Certificate of Alteration to convert existing second floor office space to four new residential units at 304 Grand Avenue in the Grand Avenue Core (GAC) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. (Christy Usher, Senior Planner)
body
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission determine that the conversion of existing office space to four residential units in a historic building at 304 Grand Avenue is categorically exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) CEQA per Class 1, Section 15301, Minor Alterations of Existing Facilities and Section 15331, Class 31 Historic Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation, and approve a Certificate of Alteration (HR22-0001) and Design Review Permit (DR22-0029) based on the attached Draft Findings and subject to the attached Draft Conditions of Approval.
MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Make CEQA determination and findings and approve the entitlements request and Certificate of Alteration subject to conditions of approval
BACKGROUND
The South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) requires a Certificate of Alteration to be approved for proposed changes to a designated historic resource. Pursuant to Section 2.56.130 of the SSFMC, the Certificate of Alteration shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) and then forwarded for final review and approval by the Planning Commission, which is the body designated with the power and duty to review applications for, and issue certificates of alteration authorizing alteration, demolition, or construction affecting designated historic resources. (SSFMC § 2.56.100(b)).
The DRB reviewed the project on September 20, 2022 and recommended it for approval to the Planning Commission (Attachment 3).
A Historic Resources Evaluation report was prepared for the project dated December 28, 2021 that concludes the project will not result in impacts to the historic building and that the project is compatible with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Attachment 4).
Body
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is an approximately 3,500 square foot corner lot located at 304 Grand Avenue at the corner of Linden and Grand avenues in the City’s downtown Grand Avenue Core Zoning District. The lot is developed from lot line to lot line with an existing two story, 40-foot tall historic commercial structure that is approximately 6,685 square feet. An approximately 3,457 square foot restaurant occupies the ground floor and professional offices occupy the existing second story space of 3,228 square feet. There is an existing subterranean basement that is currently used for storage. No vehicle parking exists on the site and no vehicle parking onsite is proposed.
The proposed project is to convert the existing 3,228 square foot second-story office space into four residential units including:
1) Two studio apartments:
a) 435 square foot; and
b) 475 square foot.
2) Two one-bedroom residential units:
a) 575 square feet; and
b) 699 square feet.
The roof of the existing commercial building is proposed to be converted to an outdoor amenity space that includes outdoor seating, greenery, and a recreation feature. The roof deck amenities and features are the only exterior changes proposed although they are not expected to be visible from public right of way areas in the project vicinity. The existing restaurant would remain and the existing basement would continue to include storage but would also include storage for the units, bike parking and a trash room for the residential units.
Zoning Compliance
The proposed change of land use from professional office to residential is permitted under the zoning code, as residential is a permitted use under Section 20.090.002. Likewise, the proposed density is also permitted as Section 20.090.003 permits a density of 4 dwelling units. It should be noted that the conversion of existing office space to four residential units does not result in an exterior changes to the existing commercial structure. Likewise, a new roof deck amenity space is proposed which is anticipated to have little to no visual impact from public right of way area.
No onsite parking exists or is proposed. Consistent with AB 2097 which will take effect January 2023, the zoning code does not require off-street parking for any use located within a Transit Station Area as defined in Chapter 20.621. The proposed project site is located within a TSA and therefore no onsite parking spaces for the proposed residential units is required.
Certificate of Alteration and Design Review
The existing commercial building has been identified as historically significant by the City’s Historic Preservation Commission Historic Marker Program that identifies 50 sites that have significance as part of the history of South San Francisco. The building was constructed as a bank in 1918.
The building is a designated Historical Resource, per the City’s historic preservation survey conducted in 1985-1986. The two-story concrete commercial Beaux architectural style building was constructed in 1918. Upon completion, the basement and the first floor of the building was occupied by the Bank of South San Francisco. The City’s first financial insinuation, founded in 1905. The second floor was occupied by then-City Attorney John Colebard, and Dr. J.C McGover, one of the first dentist in the town.
The historic resources report prepared for the project concluded that the proposed project would not result in impacts to the historic building because there are no interior or exterior historic features or finished on the second floor or roof; therefore, based on the analysis in the historic report the project is in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Thus, the proposed project would not result in impacts to the historic building and no improvement measures are recommended.
The South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) requires a Certificate of Alteration to be approved for proposed changes to a designated historic resource. Pursuant to Section 2.56.130 of the SSFMC, the Certificate of Alteration shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) and then forwarded for final review and approval by the Planning Commission, which is designated with the power and duty to review applications for, and issue certificates of alteration authorizing alteration, demolition, or construction affecting designated
historic resources. (SSFMC § 2.56.100(b)).
A Certificate of Alteration may be approved by the Planning Commission if the required findings are made:
The action proposed is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 2.56 of the Municipal Code; and will not be detrimental to a structure or feature having significance as an historic resource
In evaluating an application for a Certificate of Alteration, the Planning Commission shall consider, among other things, the following:
• The historic value, architectural value and significance of the historic resource, as well as present and prospective effects or hardships upon the owners and occupants of the affected properties.
• The Design Review Board’s report and recommendations, architectural features of the building or structure in question.
• The landscaping or natural features of the site in question, and the position of such buildings, structures or sites in relation to the street or public way and to other buildings, structures, or sites.
• The United States Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Rehabilitation shall provide base criteria for evaluating proposed alterations to an historic resource.
As set forth under SSFMC Section 2.56.080, the purpose of historic preservation in the City includes:
• The identification, protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of structures, sites and areas that are reminders of past eras, events and persons important to local, state or national history, or which provide significant examples of architectural styles of the past or are elements in the history of architecture or which are unique and irreplaceable assets to the city of South San Francisco and its neighborhoods, or which provide for this and future generations examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.
• The development and maintenance of appropriate settings and environments for such structures, in such sites and areas.
• The enhancement of property values, the stabilization of neighborhoods and areas of the city, and the increase of economic and financial benefits to the city and its inhabitants.
• The preservation and encouragement of a city of varied architectural styles, reflecting the distinct phases of its history: cultural, social, economic, political and architectural.
• The enrichment of human life in its educational and cultural dimensions in order to serve spiritual as well as material needs by fostering knowledge of the living heritage of the past.
The historic resources report prepared for the project concluded that the proposed project would not result in impacts to the historic building because there are no interior or exterior historic features or finished on the second floor or roof; therefore, based on the analysis in the historic report provided below the project is compatible with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The project would not result in impacts to the historic building and no improvement measures are recommended. Accordingly, staff recommends approval of the project because it complies with the intent of SSFMC Section 2.56.80 (Historic Preservation) and is consistent with the requirements set forth under SSFMC Section 2.56.130 (Certificate of Alteration).
Historic Resource Evaluation Report
EVALUATION FOR CONSISTENCY WITH SECRETARY OF INTERIOR’S STANDARDS
When a proposed project has the potential to affect a historic resource, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, hereinafter “Standards”) are used to provide guidance to review the potential impacts to the historic structure. There are four Standards for the treatment of historic properties: Preserving, Rehabilitation, Restoring, and Reconstructing.
The current project is not attempting to preserve or restore the building, but to reorganize and reprogram the interior spaces while preserving the exterior of the building. Therefore, the Rehabilitation Standard is appropriate for this project. The proposed project was evaluated in the Historic report through the application of the Rehabilitation standard from the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, 1995.
The proposed project should adhere to the following Standards:
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.
The conversion of the second floor to apartments does not change the building’s distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationship and is consistent with Standard #1.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
The conversion of the second floor will not remove distinctive materials or alter features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. Therefore, the project is consistent with Standard #2.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
The conversion of the second floor does not propose to add conjectural features and is therefore consistent with Standard #3.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.
No documented changes to the property have achieved historic significance; therefore, the addition of a flue is consistent with Standard #4.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
The conversion of the second floor does not remove distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship and therefore is consistent with Standard #5.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
The conversion of the second floor will not repair or replace historic features and is consistent with Standard #6.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
The conversion of the second floor will not involve chemical or physical treatments and is consistent with Standard #7.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
This report does not evaluate potential archeological resources.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
The conversion of the second floor will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. Therefore, the project will be consistent with Standard #9.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in a such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
The conversion of the second floor and addition of rooftop deck could be removed and would not impair the form and integrity of the building and therefore are consistent with Standard #10. The addition of a rooftop deck appears to be minimally or barely visible from the Grand Avenue and Linden Avenue sidewalks and will not impact the historic appearance of the building
Although the second floor is not considered historic, the project was reviewed using the guidance contained in the National Park Service Preservation Brief 18 “Rehabilitating Interiors in Historic Buildings: Identifying and Preserving Character-Defining Elements.” This guidance states:
…the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation calls for the preservation of exterior and interior portions or features of the building that are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values…
…Secondary spaces are generally more utilitarian in appearance and size than primary spaces. They may include areas and rooms that service the building, such as bathrooms, and kitchens. Examples of secondary spaces in a commercial or office structure may include storerooms, service corridors, and in some cases, the offices themselves…
In addition to evaluating the relative importance of the various spaces, the assessment should identify architectural features and finishes that are part of the 11 interior's history and character. Marble or wood wainscoting in corridors, elevator cabs, crown molding, baseboards, mantels, ceiling medallions, window and door trim, tile and parquet floors, and staircases are among those features that can be found in historic buildings. Architectural finishes of note may include grained woodwork, marbleized columns, and plastered walls. Those features that are characteristic of the building's style and period of construction should, again, be retained in the rehabilitation.
The guidance has ten “Recommended Approaches for Rehabilitating Historic Interiors:”
1. Retain and preserve floor plans and interior spaces that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. This includes the size, configuration, proportion, and relationship of rooms and corridors; the relationship of features to spaces; and the spaces themselves such as lobbies, reception halls, entrance halls, double parlors, theaters, auditoriums, and important industrial or commercial use spaces. Put service functions required by the building's new use, such as bathrooms, mechanical equipment, and office machines, in secondary spaces.
2. Avoid subdividing spaces that are characteristic of a building type or style or that are directly associated with specific persons or patterns of events. Space may be subdivided both vertically through the insertion of new partitions or horizontally through insertion of new floors or mezzanines. The insertion of new additional floors should be considered only when they will not damage or destroy the structural system or obscure, damage, or destroy character-defining spaces, features, or finishes. If rooms have already been subdivided through an earlier insensitive renovation, consider removing the partitions and restoring the room to its original proportions and size.
3. Avoid making new cuts in floors and ceilings where such cuts would change character-defining spaces and the historic configuration of such spaces. Inserting a new atrium or a lightwell is appropriate only in very limited situations where the existing interiors are not historically or architecturally distinguished.
4. Avoid installing dropped ceilings below ornamental ceilings or in rooms where high ceilings are part of the building's character. In addition to obscuring or destroying significant details, such treatments will also change the space's proportions. If dropped ceilings are installed in buildings that lack character-defining spaces, such as mills and factories, they should be well set back from the windows so they are not visible from the exterior.
5. Retain and preserve interior features and finishes that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. This might include columns, doors, cornices, baseboards, fireplaces and mantels, paneling, light fixtures, elevator cabs, hardware, and flooring; and wallpaper, plaster, paint, and finishes such as stenciling, marbleizing, and graining; and other decorative materials that accent interior features and provide color, texture, and patterning to walls, floors, and ceilings.
6. Retain stairs in their historic configuration and to location. If a second means of egress is required, consider constructing new stairs in secondary spaces. The application of fire-retardant 12 coatings, such as intumescent paints; the installation of fire suppression systems, such as sprinklers; and the construction of glass enclosures can in many cases permit retention of stairs and other character-defining features.
7. Retain and preserve visible features of early mechanical systems that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building, such as radiators, vents, fans, grilles, plumbing fixtures, switchplates, and lights. If new heating, air conditioning, lighting and plumbing systems are installed, they should be done in a way that does not destroy character-defining spaces, features, and finishes. Ducts, pipes, and wiring should be installed as inconspicuously as possible: in secondary spaces, in the attic or basement if possible, or in closets.
8. Avoid "furring out" perimeter walls for insulation purposes. This requires unnecessary removal of window trim and can change a room's proportions. Consider alternative means of improving thermal performance, such as installing insulation in attics and basements and adding
storm windows.
9. Avoid removing paint and plaster from traditionally finished surfaces to expose masonry and wood. Conversely, avoid painting previously unpainted millwork. Repairing deteriorated plasterwork is encouraged. If the plaster is too deteriorated to save, and the walls and ceilings are not highly ornamented, gypsum board may be an acceptable replacement material. The use of paint colors appropriate to the period of the building's construction is encouraged.
10. Avoid using destructive methods-propane and butane torches or sandblasting-to remove paint or other coatings from historic features. Avoid harsh cleaning agents that can change the appearance of wood.1
Historic Report Conclusion
The project is consistent with all 10 recommended approaches because there are no historic features or finishes on the second floor. The project would not result in impacts to the historic building. No improvement measures are recommended. The Historic Resources report concluded the project is compatible with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
Design Review Board
The project was reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) on September 20, 2020. The DRB had a positive reception to the project and recommended approval to the Planning Commission (Attachment 3).
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan (and Downtown Station Area Specific Plan), which designates the site as Downtown Transit Core in that the proposed residential units are a permitted use that will further the purposes of the City’s goals related to protecting historic resources and providing diverse housing opportunities in the Downtown to give all people opportunities to live and remain in Downtown.
Policy LU-3.1: Create affordable and workforce housing.
Actively facilitate adding affordable and workforce housing in all South San Francisco neighborhoods equitably.
Policy: LU-3.3 Encourage diversity of housing types and sizes.
Encourage a variety of housing types to be developed at a range of densities to equitably serve varying household types, including, but not limited to, single-family attached and detached, accessory dwelling units, studio and microunits, multifamily apartments, townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and condominiums.
Policy SA-3.4: Focus housing growth Downtown.
Focus housing growth Downtown around the Caltrain Station and along Airport Boulevard.
GOAL SA-4: New opportunities are created to live Downtown and to protect existing residents against threats of displacement.
GOAL ES-9:
Protect important historic architectural resources for the aesthetic, educational, economic, and scientific contribution they make to South San Francisco’s identity and quality of life.
Policy SA-4.3: Encourage moderate density housing types. Encourage development of moderate density housing types to increase the supply and diversity of housing Downtown.
Policy ES-9.5: Require historic surveys as part of development project requirements.
Require the submittal of historic reports and surveys prepared as part of the environmental review process.
Policy ES-9.3: Encourage adaptive reuse of historic resources.
Encourage historic resources to remain in their original use whenever possible. The adaptive use of historic resources is preferred, particularly as inns, vacation rentals, light commercial use, museums, educational facilities, or visitor-serving uses, when the original use can no longer be sustained.
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Guiding Principle 5: Encourage variety in new housing development.
LU-8: Encourage a mix of housing types including ownership, rental, family, and senior housing, and also encourage provision of units accessible to persons with disabilities
Guiding Principle 8: Focus increases in residential and mixed-use densities within 1/4 mile of the Caltrain Station and in areas proximate to Grand Avenue to increase patronage of
Caltrain as well as Grand Avenue businesses.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
It is staff’s evaluation that the proposed project is categorically exempt under the provisions of CEQA, Class 1, Section 15301, Minor Alterations of Existing Facilities because the conversion of existing office space to residential will result in no exterior changes with very minor changes to the roof area to provide for some outdoor amenity space for residents. The project site is an existing developed property surrounded by existing commercial uses.
It is also staff’s evaluation that an additional categorical exemption would apply: Class 31, Section 15331, Historic Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation also applies to the proposed project. The existing structure has been identified as a historic resource, and the proposed project is making some modifications to a historical resource that requires a certificate of alteration, but the modification does not result in a substantial adverse change to the historical resource because the project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for historic buildings, as described in the attached historical evaluation under Attachment 4. That analysis submitted by a historic preservation architect has also concluded that the proposal is consistent with SOIS criteria for historic resources. Thus, the project is exempt under CEQA under the two exemptions described herein.
CONCLUSION
The proposed residential land use and parking reduction is consistent with the City’s Zoning Code, General Plan, and Downtown Station Area Plan and, subject to the Conditions of Approval as proposed, satisfy the requirements outlined in the SSFMC. Therefore, it is recommended that the Planning Commission approve P21-0002: DR22-0029 and HR22-0001 based on the attached Findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1. Draft Findings of Approval and Conditions of Approval
2. Project Plans, dated November 2, 2021
3. Design Review Board letter, dated October 5, 2022
4. Historic Resources Evaluation report, dated December 28, 2021