Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board Continues DuPont Court Restroom Appeal; Orders Rec & Park to Work with Neighbors on Historic‑sensitive Redesign
Summary
The Board of Appeals continued the Recreation & Parks restroom replacement project at DuPont Courts to July 16 and directed the department and permit holder to work with neighbors on a redesign that acknowledges the site's WPA‑era historic character. The board cited altered exterior features and post‑permit lead abatement as drivers for further review.
The Board of Appeals on April 9 continued an appeal of a Recreation & Parks permit to demolish and replace a convenience station at the DuPont Court tennis courts, directing the department and the permit holder to work with neighbors on a design that better acknowledges the site’s WPA‑era historic context.
Appellant Jeffrey Kelly argued the WPA‑era restroom is a neighborhood asset and that the planning department could not properly grant a demolition permit until the Arts Commission and appropriate CEQA review were completed; he said demolition work and lead‑abatement activity had removed character‑defining exterior features.
Recreation & Parks project manager Marvin Yi said the restroom was evaluated by a restroom task force as a priority replacement candidate because the existing structure was rated in poor condition and could not be made wheelchair‑accessible without extensive work; the department said it followed a process that included community meetings and Arts Commission design review for a contemporary prototype approved for the site.
Historic preservation staff for the Planning Department (senior preservation planner Tina Tam) told the board a consultant’s historic resources evaluation found the DuPont Courts site contributes to a noncontiguous WPA‑era historic district but concluded the existing restroom building had lost sufficient integrity after exterior alteration and lead‑abatement work to be considered a character‑defining element. Neighbors and preservation‑minded speakers disputed that assessment and urged the board to require a rehabilitation or a replacement that preserves the restroom’s historic appearance.
After extended testimony and questions about outreach, lead abatement methods and alternative designs, the board voted unanimously to continue the matter to July 16. The board asked Recreation & Parks and the permit holder to produce a short, five‑page submission with exhibits two weeks before the continued hearing and requested an opportunity for the appellant to respond.
