FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT- Proposed for Planning Commission Consideration 280 Divisadero Street Carriage House PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE NO. 2001.1056E STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2008062080 GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS DEPT FEB 1 8 2009 SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY DraftEIRPublicationDate: IVIAY5,2007 DraftEIRPublicHearingDate: JUNE14.2007 DraftEIRPublicCommentPeriod: IWAY5,2007-JUNE18,2007 FinalEIRCertificationHearingDate: FEBRUARY26,2009 MAJOR ENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT | 5/S San Francisco PublicLibrary Govsrnment Informarion Center San Francisco Public Library too Larkin Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 REFERENCE BOOK Not to be taken from the Library 280 DIVISADERO STREET CARRIAGE HOUSE - Final Environmental Impact Report Proposed for Planning Connmission Consideration Planning Department Case No. 2001.1056E State Clearinghouse No. 2008062080 Draft EIR Publication Date: May 5, 2007 Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: June 14, 2007 Draft EIR Public Comment Period: May 5, 2007 through June 18, 2007 Comments and Responses Publication Date: February 12, 2009 Final EIR Certification Date: February 26, 2009 Changes from the Draft EIR text are indicated by a dot (•) in the left margin (adjacent to the figure number for figures). Thisdocumentprintedonrecycledpaper. 203259 \ 3 1223 08514 6778 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS 280 Divisadero Street Carriage House Project • Final Environmental Impact Report Page INTRODUCTION iv SUMMARY I. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 9 II. A. Site Location 9 B. Project Characteristics 12 C. Project Sponsor's Objectives 1 D. ProjectApproval Requirements and General Plan Policies 21 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 24 III. A. HistoricArchitectural Resources 24 B. Cumulative Impacts 39 C. Gro\A/th Inducement 39 D. Other Items Not Included in the Initial Study 40 IV. MITIGATION MEASURES 43 V. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED 45 VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 46 A. No Project 46 B. Preservation Alternative 47 C. Reconstruction Alternative 48 D. New Construction Alternative 51 • VII. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES C&R-i APPENDICES VIII. Appendix A: Initial Study Appendix B: Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation Appendix C: Historic Architectural Review Appendix D: Planning Department Preservation Technical Specialist Memoranda IX. EIR AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS Case No.2001.1056E ii 280 DivisaderoStreetCarnage House TABLE OFCONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES 1. Project Location 10 2. Site Plan (Existing and Proposed) 11 3. Photographs of Carriage House 13 • 4. [Revised] Carriage House Interior 14 5. Proposed Elevation ofCarriage House Showing Major Massing Characteristics 18 6. Existing Elevation With Major Features of Proposed Design 19 7. Rendering of Proposed Project 20 8. Main House 27 — 9. Alternative C Reconstruction Alternative 49 — 10. Alternative D New Construction Alternative 53 — • 11. [Added] Alternative D New Construction Alternative Variant 53a \ Case No. 2001.1056E ill 280 Divisadero StreetCarriage House INTRODUCTION The 280 Divisadero Street carriage house is part ofadesignated cit\' landmark (Cit\ Landmark No. 190, the Charles L. Hinkel House and Carriage House), and is therefore ahistorical resource under the California Environmental Quahty Act (CEQA). Because the project as proposed would result in demolition ofthe carriage house underthe definition set forth in Article 10 ofthe San Francisco Planning Code, thereby constituting a significant adverse change to the resource, an EIR must be prepared forthe proposed project. The project would also include construction ofa new approximateh 1.300-squarc-foot building on the landmark site, andthe effect ofthe new construction is also evaluated in this EIR. The purpose ofthe EIRis to provide decision-makers and the public in general "with detailed information aboutthe effect which aproposed project is likelyto have on the environment; to list waNs in \\hich the significant effects ofsuch a projectmight be minimized: and to indicate alternatives to such a project " (CEQA Sec. 21061). Chronology On October 30, 2001, the project sponsor filed an application fora Certificate ofAppropriateness, pursuantto Article 10 ofthe Planning Code, forwhat was described in the application as exterior alterationstothe carriage house onthe project site, including a new foundation, replacement ofdr\ -rotted and worn-outwood siding, and installation ofnew windows forthe purpose ofcon\erting the building to aresidential use. In addition, the application described removal ofdoors and windows dating from the 1960s, as well as the last remaining original window, and removal and replacement ofthe garage addition roofand ofthe existing mansard shingle roofofthe carriage house. Planning Department staffreviewedthe application and determined that the proposed project was more visually elaborate than staffdeemed appropriate fora building originalh de\eloped and used as a secondary structure onthe lot, and recommended thatthe design be simplified. On December 19, 2001, the projectwas heard atthe Landmarks Preservation Advisory- Board's Architectural Review Committee (ARC). At that meeting, ARC members expressed diffenng opinions aboutthe proposal, but recommendedthat the project design be simplified before it was presented to the full Landmarks Board fora recommendation on the application fora Certificate of.A.ppropnatcncss. The projectwas presentedto the full Landmarks Board on September 18. 2002. At that meeting, staff recommendedthatthe Landmarks Board advise the Planning Commission thatthe project would adversely affectthe Charles L. Hinkel House and Carriage House. The Landmarks Board considered three Case No.2001.1056E iv 280 Divisadero Street Carriage House INTRODUCTION — motions to continue the matterto anothermeeting,1 to supportthe staffrecommendation, andto support the project. The Landmarks Board did not pass any ofthe motions, andthe Landmarks Board thus took • no action on the Certificate ofAppropriateness. Lack ofaction by aprevious Landmarks Board does not constitute grounds fordelaying orpostponing a subsequenthearing on acomplete Certificate of Appropriateness application; with the pzissage in November 2008 ofProposition J, this hearing on the Certificate ofAppropriateness will be held by the Historic Preservation Commission, following Planning Commission certification ofthe EIR. In light ofthe lack ofaction by the Landmarks Board and the Department staffconclusion that the project as proposed would constitute a significant adverse effect on historical resources, the Planning Department's Major Environmental Analysis division determined that preparation ofan EIRwas required. An Initial Study was published on March 20, 2004, and concludedthat, withthe exception of historical resources, the proposed project would not have any significant effects on the environment. Subsequent to publication ofthe Initial Study, Planning staff, in conducting flirther review ofthe proposed project, determinedthatthe project would be considered ""demolition" ofthe carriage house underthe standards set forth in Article 10 ofthe Planning Code (see furtherdiscussion in Section III.A, p. 31). Therefore, whereas the Initial Study described the proposed project as renovation ofand alterations to the carriage house, this EIRdescribes the project as "demolition" ofthe carriage house and construction ofanew residential structure at the same location. Because the change in description is a matter ofterminology and interpretation ofthe Planning Code, ratherthan a change in the physical description ofthe proposed project, none ofthe physical changes identified in the Initial Study need be revisited. No building permitapplication has been filed in connection withthe proposed project. \ According to theprojectsponsor,hereahzedthattheamountofinfonnationhewishedtopresenttotheLandmarksBoard wasoverly lengthy,andheindicatedtliathewishedto submititbeforetliehearing oftheLandmarksBoardinwrittenform priortoadecisiononhisapplication. Case No. 2001 1056E V 280 Divisadero Street Carriage House CHAPTER I Summary A. Project Description (p 9) The project site is at 280 Divisadero Street, on the eastern side ofDivisadero Street between Page and Haight Streets, in the LowerHaight neighborhood ofSan Francisco's Western Addition district. The site (Assessor's Block 1238, Lot 23) consists ofa single parcel, and is 6,875 square feet in area. The project site contains two structures: a four-story single-family dwelling (the "main house") and a t\\o-stor\ building thatoriginally served as acarriage house forthe property (the "carriage house"') and the upper floorofwhichwas usedas a second residential unit beginning at some time before 1964:^ this use was apparently abandoned around 1981. The project site, including both structures and the entire lot, is Cit> LandmarkNo. 190, the Charles L. Hinkel House and Carriage House, named after the builder. The proposedproject is limitedtothe carriage house; no changes to the main house are proposed. The carnage house, located atthe rearproperty line, in the northeastern comer ofthe project site, is not visible from the street. The project sponsorproposesto alterthe carriagehouse, which is in disrepair. ReportedK. the building was last occupied in 1981. The proposal includes both exterioralterations and intenor structural repairs, so thatthe essentially new building can be used as a second residential unit on the lot. Because residential use ofthe carriage house was neverpermitted, however, the project proposes to make the residential use a legal, permitted use forthe firsttime. Based on the proposedwork, Plaiming staffhas determined thatthe projectwould be considered "demolition"' ofthe carriage house underthe standards set forth in Article 10 ofthe Planning Code, Preservation ofHistorical Architectural and Aesthetic Landmarks.-^ Planning Code Section 1005(f) defines demolition, forpurposes ofArticle 10, as (1) removal ofmore than 25 percent ofthe surface ofall external walls facing apublic street(s); (2) removal ofmore than 50 percent ofall external walls from theirfunction as all extemal walls; (3) removal ofmore than 25 percent ofexternal walls from function as eitherexternal orinternal walls; or (4) removal ofmore than 75 percent ofthe building's existing internal structural framework orfloorplates (unless the Cit\' determines that such removal is the onK feasible means ofachieving the seismic standards ofthe Building Code). Planning Department preser\ation TheprojectsponsordisagreeswiththePlanningDepartment'sdeterminationthatonh theuppertloorofthecarriagehouse wasusedasaresidence. Theproject spoiisorassertsthatthecarriagehousewasusedasresidential on both tloors. BasedoncurrentBuildingCodestandards,theproposedprojectisnotanticipatedtobedetinedas"demohtion"bythe DepartmentofBuildingInspection. Case No. 2001.1056E 1 280 DivisaderoStreet Carriage House SUMMARY I. planning staff, based on its review ofplans and the project description submittedto date, has concluded that it appears that eitherorboth ofconditions 1 and 4 apply. The proposed exteriorwork would include: construction ofanew perimeterfoundation; installation of new structural framing; installation ofa new front door; installation ofnew ground-floorwindows, including removal ofthe existing large doorway to the right ofthe front door; removal and replacementof the existing non-historic aluminum-frame sliding dooratthe second-story dormerwith anew wood sash window; and reconstruction and narrowing ofthe dormer and addition ofanew pyramidal cupolaatop the new dormeras a decorative element. Two new oval-shaped wood sash windows would be installed in the westem (front) slope ofthe existing Mansard roof Exteriorwood siding would be removed from the framing system to allow forthe installation ofboth insulation and anew vaporbarrier, then reinstalled, as feasible, based on condition, and replaced, in kind, where necessary. New decorative wood trim would be added aroundthe new doors and windows, along a new horizontal trim line between the first and second floors, and atthe comers ofthe building. A new outside deck would be constructed atop an existing non- historic carport (which is attached to the carriage house), with anew doorway leading to the deck from the second floorofthe structure. The sponsorproposes to add new decorative iron cresting alongthe roofline and anew weathervane atop the cupola. The project also would include installation ofnew utilities, including pumps forwastewaterand storm water. The existing single-carcarport would be converted to an enclosed garage with installation ofanew garage door. There would be no change in parking capacity, and the square footage and height ofthe carriage house would be unchanged from its present condition, with the exception ofthe new cupola, or tower, which would rise about 9 feet above the existing roofline. As discussed above, the extent ofthe proposed work is substantial enough thatthe Planning Department considers the proposed project to be demolition and new construction. B. Main Environmental Effects This environmental impact report, forthe 280 Divisadero Street Carriage House project, focuses on issues regarding historic architectural resources. All otherpotential environmental effects were found to be ata less-than-significant level orto be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with mitigation measuresto be implemented by the project sponsor. (Please see the Initial Study, included in this document as Appendix A, foranalysis ofother issues. Mitigation measures are also discussed on p. 5 herein, and in Chapter IV.) Historic Architectural Resburces 29) (p. The carriage house is acontributing element ofCity Landmark No. 190, making the carriage house a historical resource underCEQA. The proposed projectwould be ademolition ofthe carriage house (under the standards set forth in Article 10) and would, therefore, constitute asignificant and unavoidable impact, which would not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. (Mitigation identified in Chapter IV Case No. 2001.1056E 2 280 Divisadero Street Carriage House