Planning Commission approves adaptive reuse of historic service site at 980 South Claremont

The San Mateo Planning Commission voted 4–0 to approve a resolution allowing the adaptive reuse of the former PG&E service site at 980 South Claremont into a self‑storage facility that retains three existing buildings and adds a new two‑story storage building. Staff presented the proposal, noting that the property was evaluated as potentially eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources and that an initial study and mitigated negative declaration identified mitigation measures for tribal cultural resources, air quality, noise and stormwater.

Associate planner Liz Gagliardi said the Historic Resources Evaluation concluded the property “appears to be eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources,” and that retention and in‑kind repairs would meet relevant standards and CEQA conditions. The staff presentation described the project footprint (approximately 1.37 acres), proposed retention of Buildings A, B and C, construction of a new Building D, 20 parking spaces, two loading zones and landscaping including street trees. Gagliardi also explained the CEQA finding and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program that will be conditions of approval.

The applicant team described design choices intended to preserve character‑defining features — corrugated metal facades, roll‑up door patterns and steel sash windows — while adding a contemporary two‑story element sited behind existing facades. Architect Marcela confirmed existing windows will be preserved or repaired in kind and that new windows on the new building will match the historic profile, using different materials where necessary to meet durability needs.

Public comment included support for preservation and requests for a commemorative plaque. Residents also asked that truck hauling routes be required and construction be staggered with nearby projects. In response, staff said a construction management plan will be required at the building permit stage and that truck routes and other controls will be specified therein. Gagliardi summarized trip‑generation findings that compare the proposed storage use to the existing auto repair use; the comparison was cited as part of staff’s transportation analysis.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions about wine storage and manager’s office space in Building A, window treatment (false/backlit windows vs. preserved window openings), roofing and the language of conditions; staff said a condition was added to avoid specifying “wood” so that replacement can be made in kind with the actual existing material. After deliberation the commission approved the staff recommendation by motion; the clerk called a 4–0 vote in favor.

The decision is effective immediately for purposes of the commission’s action; the project will proceed to the building permit phase and must comply with the mitigation monitoring program and the required construction management plan. Appeals of the commission decision to the City Council are available within 10 calendar days.