HPC concurs that Section 106 MOA is appropriate for Pump Station No. 2, recommends director sign MOA
Loading...
Summary
Commissioners reviewed the Section 106 finding for Pump Station No. 2 (Fort Mason) and agreed to the proposed memorandum of agreement with mitigation measures; they recommended the Planning Director sign the MOA and the commission voted to advise the director accordingly.
The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed a Section 106 finding and a draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for seismic upgrades to Pump Station Number 2 at Fort Mason and concluded that the mitigation measures in the draft MOA were appropriate. Commission staff had asked the HPC to review the draft MOA and to advise whether the Planning Director should engage as a signatory.
Justin Garvin (Planning Department) summarized the project scope and staff’s Section 106 conclusions: the undertaking will have an adverse effect on Pump Station No. 2 (a 1913 reinforced‑concrete mission‑revival structure and contributor to Fort Mason Historic District), principally because seismic strengthening requires shear walls and interior reinforcement that will alter wall thickness and reposition or render inoperable a group of ten small rectangular windows. Staff recommended that the department concur with the finding of adverse effect and that the director sign the proposed MOA with the National Park Service and SHPO to implement mitigation measures.
Scott McPherson (SFPUC) described the engineering constraints and mitigation approach. He explained that shear walls were necessary at the corners and that maintaining operable windows at those locations substantially reduced the structural capacity of the retrofit; the project team proposed to retain facades of boilers and to salvage or relocate historic fabric where feasible. McPherson said mitigation would include recordation (HABS/HAER standards), salvaging interior trim for interpretive installation, interpretive signage and efforts to retain existing windows where possible. He also noted hazardous materials (asbestos) and the need to remove certain boiler components for safety and seismic reasons.
The City Attorney’s deputy advised it is not legally required for the director to sign but that a director signature indicates the process has been followed. Commissioner Zhang moved that the director sign the MOA and the commission voted unanimously in favor, 6–0. Staff will forward HPC comments and the commission’s recommendation to the Planning Director for signature and to the National Park Service and SHPO as appropriate.
