Fort Mason Center Cultural Landscape Report Part II ...0104.nccdn.net/1_5/202/370/15b/FortMasonCLR.pdfFort Mason Center Cultural Landscape Report Part II ... From approximately 1909

Fort Mason Center Cultural Landscape Report Part II Overview Summary In 2009, the consultant completed the Part II of a Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) for Lower Fort Mason, known as the Fort Mason Center, a National Historic Landmark, located on San Francisco’s northern waterfront. Fort Mason Cultural Landscape Report Part II Description of the Project The Cultural Landscape Report Part II: Treatment (CLR) for the Lower Fort Mason campus supplements the Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Mason Golden Gate National Recreational Area, Volume One: Site History, Existing Conditions and Analysis, dated September 2004, prepared by the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation. Located at the site of the US Army’s historic San Francisco Port of Embarkation, Fort Mason Center is currently a regional cultural arts and events center situated in a landscape rich in military history. Occupying 13 waterfront acres, Fort Mason Center consists of buildings, piers, and open space within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA). Heralded since the late 1970s as a national model for the adaptive reuse and conversion of a military base, Fort Mason Center operates performing and visual arts theaters, museums, lecture halls, classrooms, exhibition halls, and conference facilities in former military structures. Hosting more than 15,000 events annually, this historic site is intensely used. From approximately 1909 to 1962, the site served as the Point of Embarkation for American military personnel headed to the Pacific and was crucial in receiving, storing, and transporting supplies to American holdings and bases in the Pacific. The waterfront construction served as an exceptionally tangible consequence of the emergence of the United States as a world power. In 1985, the site was designated as a National Historic Landmark (NHL) for its central role in United States logistical strategy during World War II. The site’s NHL status set a high threshold for sustaining its currently high level of integrity. The client’s principal goal for the project was to produce a guiding document for long-term use. The client sought a document that would inform the site’s continued re-use in light of its NHL status and to ultimately provide a document

that would facilitate dialogue about treatment of the resources among the site’s many stakeholders, users and decision-makers. Understanding how the military and maritime aesthetic and the urban industrial feeling of the place could be enhanced while creating a plan that appreciates the context of the site was a priority, as was addressing appropriate levels of change in light of proposed projects of the site. To analyze and fully understand the site, the consultant evaluated the character-defining landscape features of Lower Fort Mason using the standards, terminology and criteria set forth in the NPS’ The Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. The consultants identified cultural landscape characteristics and developed conceptual guidelines to address the pedestrian experience, circulation and paving, lighting, vegetation, buildings, structures, walls, boundaries and edges, views and vistas, site furnishings, life safety, and wayfinding. The treatment guidelines were developed in light of the historic context. Recommendations pertaining to all areas of analysis are presented in an annotated and illustrated format. The consultant’s long-term commitment to the site is of note. The site was well documented by a Historic Structures Report (HSR) completed by the same consultant in 1991. The HSR has remained in use by the client as a blueprint for use and treatment of the structures providing guidance over a 20-year period. During the course of the project, the consultant met with various stakeholders and decision makers including a broad client team, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and staff from Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) and the National Park Service (NPS). The client has notified the consultant that the work product exceeded their expectations in every way and has resulted in supporting documentation that will continue to inform their work and mission. Of the report, the client commented, “We use this work every day, what better value is there than that?”

Fort Mason Cultural Landscape Report Part IITop L: Panoramic view of site; Top R: Historic photo of site before construction;

Bottom L: Historic photo of workshops and garages; Bottom R: Photo of concrete steps

4

1 2

3

Top L: Historic aerial view photo;

Bottom L: Aerial view photo; Bottom R: Historic photo of warehouse foundation construction

7

5

6

Fort Mason Cultural Landscape Report Part II

Top L: Historic photo of troops in transport; R: NPS Interpretive Panel;

Bottom L: Historic photo of crowds greeting returning troops

98

10


Top L: Use Analysis and Annotated Treatment Recommendations; Top R: Historic photo of Pier 1 shed;

Bottom R: Photo of tenant signage ca. 1990

12

13

11


Top L: View Analysis and Annotated Treatment Recommendations ; Top R: Site furnishings

Bottom R: Historic view of pier shed

14 15

16


Top L: Historic photo of site during WWII with railway circulation;

Top R: Circulation Analysis and Annotated Treatment Recommendations

17

18


Top L: Water edge seawall Analysis and Annotated Treatment Recommendations; Top R: Historic view of pier sheds and waterfront;

Bottom R: Rare historic view of site from north

19

20

21


Top L: Treatment aAalysis and Annotated Treatment Recommendations; Top R: Historic photo of salvage repair shops;

Bottom R: Historic photo of Storehouse Building

22

23

24


CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT PART II: TREATMENTFort Mason Center

June 2009

prepared forFort Mason Center, San Francisco, California

prepared by[deleted]

i

Fort Mason Center Cultural Landscape Report Part I I June 2009

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Signifi cance Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Period of Signifi cance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Previous Studies, Documentation and Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

II. Cultural Landscape Characteristics / Character-Defi ning Site Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Natural Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Spatial Organization and Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Views and Vistas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Buildings and Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Small Scale Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

III. Management Philosophy and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

IV. Treatment Philosophy and Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Preferred Treatment for Fort Mason Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Treatment Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Functional Needs Assessment of Current Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

V. Treatment Guidelines with Recommended and Not Recommended Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Spatial Organization and Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Views and Vistas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43Ground Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49Water’s Edge / Seawall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54Buildings and Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60Small Scale Features: Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68Small Scale Features: Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72Small Scale Features: Site Furnishings and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75Small Scale Features: Signage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80Small Scale Features: Art and Interpretive Installations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

Table of Contents

ii


VI. Treatment Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87 Description of Proposed Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87 Treatment Application for Future Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

VII. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95

VIII. Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

AppendicesAppendix A Matrix of Fort Mason Center Buildings and Features with List of Classifi ed StructuresAppendix B Historical ImagesAppendix C Site Plan Illustrating Existing Conditions by [consultant] dated June 2009Appendix D Site Plan Illustrating Management Period by [consultant] dated June 2009Appendix E Annotated Images Illustrating Treatment RecommendationsAppendix F Report: The California Center for a Sustainable Future at Fort Mason’s Pier One, completed for Course CP 238, University of California at Berkeley, College of Environmental Design, Fall 2008Appendix G Technical Appendices NPS Preservation Services Bulletin No. 15 Treatment of Interiors in Industrial Buildings NPS Preservation Services Bulletin No. 16 New Infi ll for Historic Loading Door Openings NPS Guidelines for Rehabilitating Cultural LandscapesAppendix H Tables of Reviewers’ Comments dated May 2009

Table of Contents

1


I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction[Consultant] has been retained by Fort Mason Center (FMC) in collaboration with the National Park Service/Golden Gate National Recreation Area (NPS/GGNRA) to produce a Cultural Landscape

Report Part II: Treatment (CLR Part II) to articulate a preservation strategy for the Lower Fort Mason campus based on signifi cance, existing conditions and use. This document supplements the Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Mason Golden Gate National Recreational

Area, Volume One: Site History, Existing Conditions and Analysis, dated September 2004, prepared by the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation. In general, a Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) serves the client and the National Park Service (NPS) as the primary treatment document for cultural landscapes, a strategy for long-term preservation, and a tool to inform day-to-day management decisions. In light of future projects and anticipated change at Fort Mason Center (See Section VI ), the next best step to ensure success is the CLR Part II. Undertaking the Part II has been thoroughly considered by FMC, NPS/GGNRA, and other partners and stakeholders. The principal project goal is to effectively manage and maximize the diversity of use and experience that presently occurs on the site focusing on continued re-use and development consistent with the site’s National Historic Landmark (NHL) status and the best practices of the NPS/GGNRA. [Consultant] has contracted with the landscape architecture fi rm of Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey (RHAA) to assist in the production of this report.

Located at the site of the US Army’s historic San Francisco Port of Embarkation, Fort Mason Center is a regional, cultural arts and events center, a destination for thought provoking programming, events and organizations which support and refl ect the evolving cultural fabric of San Francisco situated in a hardscape landscape rich in military history. As an exceedingly vital cultural resource within San Francisco, FMC occupies 13 acres of waterfront and consists of buildings, piers, and open space within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), a division of the National Park Services (NPS).

The NHL status sets a high threshold for sustaining the currently high

Current aerial view of Fort Mason Center (downloaded from Google Earth, 2009).

Executive Summary

1923 aerial view of the site, prior to the enlargement of Piers 2 and 3 (Appendix B, Image 39).

2


level of site integrity. Understanding how the military and maritime aesthetic and the urban industrial feeling can be enhanced while creating a plan that appreciates the context of the site is a priority, as is addressing appropriate levels of change.

Military base conversions all over the country present challenges of reuse. Approaching the question about what level of change is appropriate for the site, it is useful to look at what FMC has become and how it is used (See Section IV).

As a guiding document for long-term use, the CLR Part II focuses on treatment guidelines for existing cultural landscape features. The treatment guidelines and recommendations set forth in Section V are organized by landscape characteristics and range from broad conceptual goals for the site that would follow established planning processes to fi nely detailed suggestions for improvement, quick fi xes. This report is illustrated with annotated images representing site conditions and treatment recommendations (See Appendix E for the comprehensive set of annotated images).

Signifi cance Summary Fort Mason is a nationally signifi cant historic site. (See Site Plan, Appendix D for historic conditions). At Fort Mason Center, most existing resources and all contributing landscape features manifest themes and events of national and local signifi cance:

Dating to 1909, the piers and warehouses built at Lower Fort Mason, originally known as the Army Supply Depot and Transport Terminal, represented a signifi cant shift in American foreign policy and logistical strategy. The waterfront construction served as an exceptionally tangible consequence of the emergence of the United States as a world power.1

From approximately 1909 to 1962, the site served as the Point of Embarkation for American military personnel headed to the Pacifi c and was crucial in receiving, storing, and transporting supplies to American holdings and bases in the Pacifi c.

The need for and construction of the Army Supply Depot

Executive Summary

Warehouse foundations under construction, prior to backfi lling the site,

July 1, 1910 (Appendix B, Image 5).

Crowd greeting POWs at the Port of Embarkation following the Korean War,

August 1953. (Source: Life Magazine Image).

3


was a direct response to the devastation of San Francisco’s earthquake and fi re of April 1906. Planning for the depot happened in the immediate post disaster period due to the destruction of other related facilities in the City. Funds for the depot were allocated by the federal government in June 1906.

Out of this disaster, the government realized that the Army needed its own ships, piers, and warehouses to supply its commitments in the Pacifi c. As it was only Puerto Rico that was transferred to United States control on the Atlantic coast, this new American enterprise was contained almost entirely within the Pacifi c. The Army Transport Service piers and warehouses at lower Fort Mason represented something new and signifi cant in American military history and foreign policy.2

Construction of San Francisco’s Panama Pacifi c International Exposition of 1915 affected Fort Mason’s infrastructure. The tunnel beneath Upper Fort Mason was constructed by promoters of the exposition and the municipal electric streetcar line was a remnant of the fair.

Related to the work programs of the New Deal (1932-1943), a major building campaign at Lower Fort Mason in conjunction with the Civilian Conservation Corps was begun in the 1930s. Ten separate projects at the Lower Fort Mason waterfront were under way in 1934 and resulted in:

o undergrounding of the overhead electrical system to a system of electrical ducts, manholes, cables, transformers and service connections

o new streetlights installedo construction of the Marine Repair Shops (now

Landmark Building A, Building 308)o construction of the new Fire Station near Pier 1o construction of the Battery Charging Stationo construction of the Entry Gate and Wallo construction of the Guard Stationo construction of the Identifi cation Building o extension of the retaining wall

Executive Summary

1921 aerial view of the site, prior to the construction of the Marine Repair Shops, now Building A (Appendix B, Image 27).

4


o demolition of the Washing Shed, Oil Shed, Chemical Laboratory and Garage and Machine Shops east of Pier 3 and the current Landmark Building E, Building 315

o new paving and rail track replacement

The 1941-42 construction of the vast Oakland Army Base represented an ease of general depot responsibilities on the Fort Mason waterfront.3 The shift to troop transportation operations resulted in extreme modifi cations to the site as there was a greater need for circulation rather than storage and warehousing. Modifi cations to achieve the shift in function included:

o demolition of Building 310 (also known as Warehouse E) in 1943 and 1945

o demolition of Building 311, after 1941o demolition of Building 20 (also known as Building 60)

the Signal Corps Storehouse in 1943o demolition of Building 313 in 1943 and 1945o demolition of Building 247, the Fuel Oil Tank in 1941

In 1962 the San Francisco Port of Embarkation ceased operations and the 1970s saw the transition to the GGNRA and adaptive reuse to create a cultural center at Fort Mason through a cooperative agreement between the NPS and the FMF. Fort Mason Center began operation early in 1977. Tenants, organizations involved with the performing arts, education, and fi ne arts and crafts, were offered free rent in exchange for their investment in building repair and restoration. By 1979, FMC reported 180,000 users and was heralded as a model for adaptive reuse. In 1978, the FMF’s vision for the site included this quote:

In this complex of renovated old army buildings, at the hub of an urban National Park, visitors will discover all the vitality and diversity that make the San Francisco Bay Area one of the most exciting cities in the world. The concept of that inspired creation of the GGNRA was to bring the park to the people – and it will continue to be the bustling activity at Fort Mason

Executive Summary

Pre-1942 view of the Transformer Vault at left, now-demolished Building 60 in the center, and Warehouse C in the distance

(Appendix B, Image 22).

In 1977, tenants began moving into the converted warehouses at Fort Mason

Center (Appendix B, Image 75).

5


Center that brings people to the park…Fort Mason will combine, as perhaps no other place in the country, a magnifi cent setting in the heart of a great city with recreational and cultural activity for people of every social and economic background.4

As FMC was being developed, Landmark Building E became the home of the J. Porter Shaw Library, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area archives and collections, and later, the San Francisco Maritime National Park headquarters.

Period of Signifi canceVarious periods of signifi cance have been attributed to the site. The entire Fort Mason district reached the zenith of its military mission during WWII and the highest point of its physical development somewhat later, during the Korean Confl ict.5 First listed on the National Register in 1972, the Period of Signifi cance for the Fort Mason Historic District is related to US military history and has been defi ned as 1855 – 1953. This Period of Signifi cance covers Fort Mason in its entirety and is not directly applicable here.6

On 4 February 1985, the buildings and cultural landscape at Lower Fort Mason, the San Francisco Port of Embarkation, were designated as a National Historic Landmark for signifi cance related to historical events, Criterion A, based on the central role of these facilities in United States logistical strategy during World War II. The Period of Signifi cance for the National Historic Landmark is listed as 1912-1945. According to the nomination, “Between December 1941 and August 1945, 1,745,000 personnel embarked at San Francisco. In addition, more than half a million veterans of the war debarked at San Francisco during the same period. In the Bay Area, Fort Mason oversaw port operations at no fewer than thirteen other installations.” 7

Management Period The CLR Part II defi nes the Management Period for Fort Mason Center as 1935 to 1945. This date span is directly related to historical events at the Port of Embarkation site, numerous physical modifi cations that occurred between 1935 and 1945, and the present integrity level of the site. When making decisions about future projects at Lower Fort

Executive Summary

Undated view of Entrance Gate, looking east into Fort Mason Center (Appendix B, Image 44).

View of the San Francisco Port of Embarkation, now Fort Mason Center, taken during the Management Period (Appendix B, Image 48).

6


Mason, the site should be managed to this period. The end date of the Management Period relies on the same end date as determined by the National Historic Landmark designation.

The Port of Embarkation’s last major building campaign, carried out by the Civilian Conservation Corps, ended by 1935 and all of the historic district contributors and contributing features were in place, including the rail lines, Piers 1-3, Pier Sheds 1-3, Landmark Buildings A-E, the Fire Station, the Battery Charging Station (now the Firehouse), the Entry Gate and Wall, the Guard Station, the Identifi cation Building (the Provost Marshal’s Offi ce), and the retaining wall, associated elements of the overhead electrical system, transformers and service connections, streetlights, and other small scale features.

Another round of improvements changed the face of the site. In 1938, the steps on the Northwest Embankment were rebuilt in concrete replacing wooden stairs, the railroad tracks were re-laid and wooden ties were replaced with steel, and additional retaining wall modifi cations and general rehabilitation was carried out. During the mid to late 1930s, utilitarian service buildings, the Oil Shed, the Garage and Machine Shop, the Washing Shed, the Chemical Laboratory and other carpentry shops were all demolished. Most of these buildings were located on the east side of the site, abutting the eastern boundary set by the retaining wall. They were located south of Firehouse and faced the east elevation of Landmark Building E, Building 315.

Later demolition of the large-scale “temporary” warehouse buildings had a much greater impact on the appearance of site. Between 1941-1945, the removal of these structures, Buildings 310, 311, 60, 313, originally constructed between 1913-1917, meant that infi lled spaces, specifi cally, the spaces in between Buildings B and C and in the vast space across the north-south length of the site, in front of Pier 2, were opened up.

In conclusion, the Management Period, 1935 to 1945, is based on a major 1930s building campaign that added structures that remain at present. The demolition of large scale warehouses, completed by 1945, altered the site in dramatic ways, decreasing density of the built environment, revealing open space, and creating an appearance that is

Executive Summary

C. 1920s view, showing various buildings which were subsequently removed,

reducing the density of the site (Appendix B, Image 40).

The original wooden stairs at the Northwest Embankment were rebuilt in

concrete in 1938 (XxxPhoto, 2009).

7


close to what remains today. The period end date of 1945 corresponds to end of World War II and the end date of the Period of Signifi cance as defi ned by the National Historic Landmark Designation.

Previous Studies, Documentation and DesignationsLower Fort Mason is under the jurisdiction of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area which is part of the National Park Service.

Previous studies on the site include the Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Mason Golden Gate National Recreational Area, Volume

One: Site History, Existing Conditions and Analysis, dated September 2004, prepared by the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation and the San Francisco Port of Embarkation, Historic Structures Report prepared by [consultant], dated February, 1991. Both documents are available online at http://www.nps.gov/goga/historyculture/publications.htm.

National Register of Historic Places

The Fort Mason Historic District, comprising 82 acres over both Upper and Lower Fort Mason, and four buildings of historic signifi cance on the eastern side of Upper Fort Mason, was fi rst listed on the National Register in 1972 (National Register #72000109). In 1979, the district was amended to expand the boundaries, an increase totaling 1,120 acres containing forty-fi ve buildings, ten structures, and two objects of historic signifi cance (National Register #79000530).

National Historic Landmark

Lower Fort Mason became a National Historic Landmark on February 4, 1985.

MethodologyThe methodological approach for this report was based on documentary research conducted at the Golden Gate National Recreation Area Park Archives and Record Center at the Presidio and the J. Porter Shaw Library, San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park at the Fort Mason Center. Documents provided by the client included a variety of reports and internal documents. Site visits were conducted in December 2008 and January 2009. The site, piers and building exteriors were photographed and analyzed during fi eldwork. Various meetings have

Executive Summary

Current view of the site, looking towards Pier 2. The demolition of Building 313, located between Buildings C and D, dramatically reduced the density of the site (XxxPhoto, 2009).

8


taken place since the project began; Facilities Committee of the Board of Trustees provided input. A CLR Scoping Meeting with the client, NPS, GGNRA, [consultants] was held in September 2008. The purpose of the meeting was varied: to share the goals of this project and to understand the stakeholder perspectives.

This report relies on the NPS’ The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines

for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (1996). The Secretary

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are designed to be applied to all historic resource types included in the National Register of Historic Places—buildings, sites, structures, landscapes, districts, and objects. The Guidelines for the Treatment of

Cultural Landscapes apply to a specifi c resource type: landscapes.

Explanatory Note Regarding TerminologyFor purposes of this report, the preferred terminology is to use Fort Mason Center to refer to both the client and the place, except when in reference to the historic Lower Fort Mason. Landscape Zones and Landscape Character Areas referred to herein have been previously defi ned in the Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Mason Golden Gate

National Recreational Area, Volume One. Current building names are used throughout but historic names, related to use, appear in historic context. As an example, Landmark Buildings A - E were originally known as the Storehouses. Often due to a change in function, building names have changed over time. Refer to Appendix A, the Matrix of Fort Mason

Center Buildings and Features with List of Classifi ed Structures for historic and current names and numbers of buildings and structures.

Executive Summary

9


II. CULTURAL LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS / CHARACTER-DEFINING SITE FEATURES

This section is based on the fi ndings of the Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Mason Golden Gate National Recreational Area. Volume One:

Site History, Existing Conditions and Analysis dated September 2004 and prepared by the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation (CLR Part I). That document states that the Fort Mason landscape is generally understood to contain two primary zones: the older Upper Fort Mason and Lower Fort Mason, the area built on fi lled land reclaimed from the bay in the early 20th century. While the CLR Part I deals with the property in its entirety, its geographical focus is Upper Fort Mason; the CLR Part I states that Lower Fort Mason has already been well documented by a Historic Structures Report (HSR), a reference to ARG’s 1991 report.8

Historically, and up to the present time, Upper and Lower Fort Mason are places of contrast. Vegetation was not an element of the Lower Fort Mason landscape. When it functioned as a working waterfront it was a landscape of “utility and work” where the public was not welcomed.9 Lower Fort Mason was planned and used as an independent facility, and its design was a “simple, unifi ed composition”. More complex and eclectic, the landscape of Upper Fort Mason evolved over time through many designs and eras and served a number of functions, exhibiting layers of a longer history.10

Lower Fort Mason is differentiated from the upper fort not only by the dominance of hard surfaces and a corresponding lack of vegetation, but also by the severe boundary created by the hard edge of the retaining wall; this edge represents the FMC boundary as defi ned in the Fort

Mason Center Long-term Lease. Upper and Lower Fort Mason are physically divided by a row of Monterey Cypress trees.

The CLR Part I defi nes Landscape Zones and eight distinct Landscape Character Areas within Upper Fort Mason. Those relevant to this document are:

The Lower Fort Mason Landscape Zone is both a primary landscape zone and a landscape character area. No landscape character sub-

Cultural Landscape Characteristics

1923 aerial view of Fort Mason; Lower Fort Mason appears at the upper left corner of the photo and Upper Fort Mason to the right and bottom of the photo (Appendix B, Image 39).

View of the Lower Fort Mason Landscape Zone from Upper Fort Mason, looking west (XxxPhoto, 2009).

10


areas are identifi ed within Lower Fort Mason, as the landscape character is consistent throughout.

The North Cliff Landscape Character Area is one of the few areas of unaltered coastal bluff within the City of San Francisco. It is relevant to the discussion of Lower Fort Mason due to its proximity and as the location of contributing structures.

The Northwest Embankment Landscape Character Area is an engineered slope stabilized by massive retaining walls dividing Upper and Lower Fort Mason. This embankment contains an even-aged stand of Monterey cypress, planted as a windbreak in the 1930s, and concrete stairs, both contributing features. The embankment provides a backdrop to Lower Fort Mason and as such has a strong visual impact on the character of the site.

Landscape features, organized by landscape characteristics, which are applicable to an analysis of Lower Fort Mason have been excerpted from the CLR Part I and include the following:

Natural Systems The current landscape is fundamentally altered. The landscape includes remnants of native plant communities that survive in isolated areas such as vestiges of the coastal bluff scrub on the Northern Cliff. Plantings of Monterey cypress have colonized widely, comprising much of the current tree canopy on the entire property.

The one location on the site where there is some remnant native landscape is the North Cliff area, the rocky slope at the bay edge just east of the Firehouse. This area contains a mix of native vegetation such as Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) along with adapted non-natives such as Monterey Cypress which has naturalized at the site.

Spatial Organization and Land UseThe spatial organization of Fort Mason is defi ned by its two primary landforms. Thirteen acres of landfi ll lie only a few feet above sea level (Lower Fort Mason), while the adjoining fi fty-fi ve acres rise one hundred and twenty feet to an upper plateau (Upper Fort Mason). Functional


View of the North Cliff Landscape Character Area, from Upper Fort Mason

looking north (XxxPhoto, 2009).

View of the Northwest Embankment Landscape Character Area, with its

retaining walls, engineered slope, and Monterey cypress tree windbreak

(XxxPhoto, 2009).

11


characteristics further defi ne the properties into two primary landscape zones. Informal tree plantings enclose the perimeter along the southern and western boundaries of Fort Mason further reinforcing the spatial qualities of the site.

TopographyThe defi ning physiographic features of Fort Mason, and the reason for its inclusion in the coastal defense system, is its sandy plateau rising gently towards the east, bounded by steep cliffs to the north and east. The topography creates a clear division between Upper and Lower Mason, the latter having been constructed primarily on landfi ll, reclaimed from the bay. An engineered embankment accomplishes the grade change between the two areas.

Views and VistasThe existing views and vistas incorporate the backdrop of the San Francisco Bay and the City of San Francisco into the landscape of Fort Mason. While the prominent visual relationship between the San Francisco Bay and Upper Fort Mason remains, the once panoramic views of the bay are now fi ltered by dense vegetation. This is especially evident in the North Fortifi cation area, where sight lines once critical to coastal defense have become blocked. The extreme topography of the City of San Francisco makes itself visible from almost everywhere on the site.

VegetationAn even-aged Monterey cypress stand at the perimeter of the engineered embankment marks the boundary between Upper and Lower Fort Mason. The cypress spread into the fortifi cation zone but is being managed. The once open character of the sight lines surrounding the batteries has disappeared due to the dense volunteer growth of woody perennial plants.

CirculationParking lots are found at Upper and Lower Fort Mason, as well as provisions for on-street parking and private driveways. Unusual circulation features include the railroad tunnel below Upper Fort Mason, and the railroad tracks through it, extending into Lower Fort Mason.


Steep cliffs separate Lower Fort Mason from Upper Fort Mason to the east, at the right side of the image (XxxPhoto, 2009).

Fifty-fi ve of the structures at Fort Mason, including Landmark Building D (a former warehouse), are historically signifi cant and are listed as contributors to the Historic District (XxxPhoto, 2009).

12


The National Historic Landmark nomination for the Port of Embarkation lists the railroad tracks as a historically signifi cant feature of the original construction, noting that in 1914 the tracks were laid into the port area with single tracks to the three wharves and double tracks to the storehouses. After Pier 3 was enlarged in 1934, the tracks were relayed and repaired with steel ties replacing the original wooden ones. The rail tracks convey an original circulation pattern at the lower port area and are partially extant.

Buildings and StructuresOf the eighty structures extant at Fort Mason (Upper and Lower), fi fty-fi ve are historically signifi cant according to National Register of Historic Places documentation. Collectively, they represent a continuum of U.S. Army use extending from the mid-19th century into the 20th century. As noted in the National Historic Landmark nomination for the Port of Embarkation, the historically signifi cant structures of the former San Francisco Port of Embarkation at Fort Mason’s port area include the four storehouses, the three piers, the three pier sheds, the marine repair shops, the fi re station, the battery charging station, the Provost Marshal offi ce, the entry gate and the guard post. All contribute to the NHL status. All are extant. (See Section V and Appendix A).

Small Scale Features Of the wide-ranging inventory of small-scale features found at Fort Mason, four main feature types are the greatest contributors to landscape character. These include fencing, lighting, signage, and utility related elements. A remnant section of chain link fence survives at the top of the engineered embankment dividing Upper and Lower Fort Mason. The fence fragment is part of a fence that once ran the entire length of the top of the Northwest Embankment. The majority of Fort Mason’s inventory of street and site lighting is of post WWII vintage, the most common being hollow, concrete light poles fi tted with tubular steel cross-arms. Made of cast concrete, the streetlight fi xtures can be dated to well before the mid-1950s, as they have stylized fi ttings more typical of the 1930s and 1940s. The rarest of street light fi xtures on site are those installed in 1935. Only two of these fi xtures survive in the Northwest Embankment landscape character area between Upper and Lower Fort Mason. Signs found at Fort Mason include entrance


The site includes a variety of small scale features, including this entry sign

(XxxPhoto, 2009).

13


signs, street signs, directional and regulatory signs, wooden interpretive signs (thought to be installed by the CCC), and interpretive waysides installed by the NPS. Entrance signs designed and installed by the NPS are located throughout. A collection of various scales and styles of fi re hydrants are found throughout the site.


14


15


III. MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY AND GOALS

This section regarding the management philosophy and goals for Fort Mason Center is summarized from two sources, (1) the 1980 General Management Plan for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GMP) prepared by the NPS, and (2) the 2004 Fort Mason Center Long-term Lease, which serves as the governing document for FMC.

A new GMP for GGNRA is under development. However, the 1980 GMP set forth a blueprint for use and key management objectives for the former military base that remain relevant. These objectives are related to public access, recreational opportunities, and preservation of natural and cultural resources. The GMP advocated the reuse of the pier sheds to display the cultural diversity of the San Francisco Bay Area’s communities, educate the public about the San Francisco Bay marine ecology, and house large special events and community organizations.

The objectives identifi ed in the Fort Mason Foundation’s (FMF) mission statement are: to create and preserve a cultural, educational, and recreational center, which refl ects the unique history, talents, and interests of the people of the Bay Area in partnership with the National Park Service. Based on a 25-year track record of success, the FMF, in partnership with the NPS, built an acclaimed cultural center, invested over $18 million in the preservation of the Historic Landmark District, and:

Served to educate the public about the historical signifi cance of Fort Mason as the Army’s major West Coast point of embarkation for American military personnel in the Pacifi c;

Preserved the warehouses and pier sheds that are excellent examples of military architecture in the Mission Revival style;

Converted the former military structures into performing and visual arts theaters, museums, lecture halls, classrooms, exhibition halls, and conference facilities;

Encouraged use of the facilities by nonprofi t and for-profi t organizations; and

Management Philosophy and Goals

16


Created and managed a world-class urban park serving the Bay Area community.

The NPS goals in entering into the lease were to ensure that:

The existing historic structures are restored and managed in a way that protects their historic character;

The National Historic Landmark District retains its integrity; The partnership with FMC is maintained; The visitor experience and recreational, educational, and

cultural programs envisioned in its General Management Plan are continued and expanded; and

Transportation improvements such as improved wayfi nding and signage and parking lot improvements could be facilitated.

Under the new lease agreement, FMC assumes responsibility for the rehabilitation and maintenance of all buildings, piers and the site, including the seismic upgrading of the historic buildings, except the pier substructures and Landmark Building E, Building 315. Building E houses the headquarters of the San Francisco Maritime National Park (created in 1988), the Park’s Association, and the J. Porter Shaw Library; through a general agreement with GGNRA, the Park is responsible for the maintenance of Building E. The lease allows the use of the buildings and piers for programs and activities, ensures that the Historic Landmark District is protected through the ongoing use and rehabilitation of the structures, and continues a successful partnership benefi tting the Bay Area community.

The Finding of No Signifi cant Impact, Fort Mason Center Long-term

Lease notes that the current overall management objective is to achieve a wide range of benefi cial uses of the environment, including historic preservation and visitor experience, without long-term degradation of resources and to “preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and variety of individual choices.”11

Management Philosophy and Goals

Fort Mason waterfront c. 1940s (Appendix B, Image 56).

17


IV. TREATMENT PHILOSOPHY AND APPROACH

Military base conversions all over the country present challenges of reuse. Approaching the question about what level of change is appropriate for Fort Mason Center, it is useful to look at what FMC has become and how it is used. Due to multiple positive factors, FMC has become, over the last thirty years, a hugely successful model for the rehabilitation and reuse of historic structures. A spectacular waterside location, historical use (which provided the physical form), smart stewardship, and a recent history housing non-profi ts and focusing on arts and education, has resulted in a site of amazing appeal to generations of San Franciscans of all ages and interests.

The programs offered in the historic piers and waterfront buildings focus on the visual and performing arts, education and recreation. With 17 separate venues comprising 130,000 square feet of space, FMC continues to provide much-needed raw, fl exible space available for a variety of uses and users. Interior spaces can be easily transformed for events of every type of activity and interest imaginable, including, wine tastings, gala parties, fi lm festivals, roller derby, weddings, and symposia. The range of events that serve San Franciscans and regional visitors directly is unparalleled, allowing FMC to stand apart from larger-scale convention facilities that cater to out-of-town guests. FMC hosts approximately two dozen nonprofi t organizations, including three museums, six theaters, the Long Now Foundation, and City College of San Francisco’s Art Campus and is the setting for more than 15,000 meetings, conferences, performances and special events each year. Fort Mason Center is well used.

With a rich patina, FMC stands in contrast to more polished venues like the de Young Museum, Ferry Building, or the California Academy of Sciences for example, all wonderful in their own right. Imbued with history, FMC is rare as a San Francisco destination that doesn’t have a corporate or branded feeling, a draw for many people.

At present, the NPS and FMC adequately interpret the site history. Greater efforts could be made to keep the site’s historical signifi cance relevant. The focus on military history should remain front and center as

Treatment Philosophy and Approach

Former industrial sites and neighborhoods in many cities, such as Red Hook in Brooklyn, are being reused while maintaining their historic industrial character.

18


an organizing principle, enhancing the differences between what the site was, what the site is now, and how it has evolved.

The Secretary of the Interior’s StandardsThe Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are neither technical nor prescriptive, but are intended to promote responsible preservation practices that help protect the Nation’s irreplaceable cultural resources. The Standards provide philosophical consistency to the work. The four treatment approaches are Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction, outlined below in hierarchical order and explained as follows:

Preservation places a high premium on the retention of all historic fabric through conservation, maintenance and repair. It refl ects a building’s continuum over time, through successive occupancies, and the respectful changes and alterations that are made.

Rehabilitation emphasizes the retention and repair of historic materials, but more latitude is provided for replacement because it is assumed the property is more deteriorated prior to work. Both Preservation and Rehabilitation standards focus attention on the preservation of those materials, features, fi nishes, spaces, and spatial relationships that, together, give a property its historic character.

Restoration focuses on the retention of materials from the most signifi cant time in a property’s history, while permitting the removal of materials from other periods.

Reconstruction establishes limited opportunities to re-create a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object in all new materials.


19


Preferred Treatment for Fort Mason CenterMany historic buildings can be adapted for new uses without seriously damaging their historic character as has been the case at Fort Mason Center where open, clear span pier shed interiors and storehouse interiors have been well suited to reuse. The historic character of building exteriors and the overall site retains a high degree of integrity.

The former San Francisco Port of Embarkation is a site of national historic signifi cance, a designated National Historic Landmark. Consequently, the degree of acceptable alterations is less than for sites of local signifi cance. However, if buildings and sites require more extensive repair and replacement, or if alterations or additions are necessary for a new use, then Rehabilitation is the most appropriate treatment. As noted in the CLR Part I, the historic preservation treatment approach and management goal for Fort Mason suggested by current planning is Rehabilitation, focusing on contemporary use of a cultural landscape and historic structures. Rehabilitation is defi ned as “the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.”12

All building rehabilitation at Lower Fort Mason is required to meet The

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.

In Rehabilitation, a cultural landscape’s character-defi ning features and materials are protected and maintained as they are in the treatment Preservation; however, a determination is made prior to work that a greater amount of existing historic fabric has become damaged or deteriorated over time and, as a result, more repair and replacement will be required. The Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines

for Rehabilitation allow the replacement of extensively deteriorated, damaged, or missing features using either traditional or substitute materials. Of the four treatments, only Rehabilitation includes an opportunity to make possible an effi cient contemporary use through alterations and additions.

While the HSR for the Port of Embarkation recommended Preservation for the site as a whole, specifying Stabilization, Maintenance and Preservation for existing structures, the goals of that report are not


20


inconsistent with the CLR Part II. As is true today, the HSR noted the high level of integrity at the former San Francisco Port of Embarkation site stating:

The original use and purpose of Lower Fort Mason is clearly apparent to both tenant and visitor. This is due primarily to two factors: 1) there have been no major exterior alterations to the original structures; and 2) most individual features are in place on the structures and the site.13

Due to the site’s National Historic Landmark designation and high level of integrity, there may be an occasion to consider another of the treatment approaches for a specifi c project. In general, the preferred treatment for Fort Mason Center is Rehabilitation.

Terminology Standard terminology set out in the NPS’ Guidelines for the Treatment

of Cultural Landscapes defi nes two types of landscapes: historic designed landscapes and historic vernacular landscapes. A historic designed landscape is defi ned as:

Historic designed landscape - a landscape that was consciously designed or laid out by a landscape architect, master gardener, architect, engineer, or horticulturist according to design principles, or an amateur gardener working in a recognized style or tradition. The landscape may be associated with a signifi cant person, trend, or event; or illustrate an important development in theory and practice of landscape architecture. Aesthetic values play a signifi cant role in designed landscapes. Examples include parks, campuses, and estates.

Historic vernacular landscape - a landscape that evolved through use by the people whose activities or occupancy shaped it. Through social or cultural attitudes of an individual, a family, or a community, the landscape refl ects the physical, biological, and cultural character of everyday lives. Function plays a signifi cant role in vernacular landscapes, a farm complex or rural historic district.

The site of the former San Francisco Port of Embarkation is a historic designed landscape.


21


Treatment Philosophy The Treatment Guidelines in the Section V are based on a philosophy organized around the following themes which forward the current mission of Fort Mason Center:

Recognize, retain, and enhance the industrial waterfront character of the site which is unique along San Francisco’s northern shore. Capitalize on the site’s distinct sense of place derived from the military and maritime history and conveyed through the forms, strong edges, and siting of structures, their relationship to the rail lines, industrial materials and solid workmanship, and a maritime and military feel of grittiness. The sense of place recalls the military past when order and effi ciency were the prevailing rules. It would be a mistake to make Lower Fort Mason something it never was historically. For example, introducing hanging fl ower baskets within historically industrial sites dilutes their history. Over-manicuring places that derive their character from military and industrial history can diminish that history.

Retain and incorporate the concept of “embarkation,” the site’s historic use. The historical act of embarkation at the site once involved the shipment of people and goods during wartime. Highlighting the former use as a troop transfer / personnel embarkation site should remain relevant.

Repair deteriorated items to both protect the historic fabric and enhance the visitor’s enjoyment of the waterfront and this military heritage site.

New elements, particularly small-scale features, should draw upon materials historically found on the site, either fi xed (building materials) or temporary (such as wooden crates or barrels, metal drums, wood palettes). If introducing new materials, they should be identifi able as new and / or reversible.

Develop a consistent design approach applicable to signage, site features, railings, bollards etc. Consolidate signage and


The industrial waterfront character of the site should be retained and enhanced (XxxPhoto, 2009).

New elements on the site should draw upon materials historically found on the site, including temporary items such as wooden crates. (Appendix B, Image 37).

22


reduce visual clutter to clarify use, wayfi nding and movement through site for both pedestrians and vehicles.

Integrate new sustainable design and technology into the site, recognizing the sympathetic overlap between historic preservation and sustainability.

Reveal the current presence of artists on site and interpret the site’s recent history and use focusing on the arts, not necessarily through new installations, but rather by exposing artistic endeavors and engaging the visiting public with the site’s happenings.

Functional Needs Assessment of Current UseThe following paragraphs address opportunities, defi ciencies, challenges, and overriding goals that exist at the site and have been expressed by Fort Mason Center, its partners, the National Park Service/Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and other stakeholders. Goals are to:

Enhance the visitor experience by creating a more welcoming site to draw more “casual” visitors in addition to those who are “invited”. Capitalizing on the intimate spaces that exist throughout the site is a way to contrast the large scale of the site as perceived upon entering and encountering the parking lot / former rail yard.

Encourage a diversity of activity and further expose the current and considerable activity of the site to engage visitors in order to combat the perception that “there is nothing for people to do.”

Improve wayfi nding. Pedestrian and automobile circulation routes and pathways need to be better defi ned and delineated. The two circulation types currently inhabit many of the same spaces which can be confusing or unsafe. Directing the fl ow of vehicle traffi c in a more controlled manner and introducing variation in paving patterns and materials can better orient


23


visitors. Limited view corridors within the site aggravate wayfi nding. Enhance the experience of visitors who arrive by bicycle or on foot.

Improve transportation connections and water access, water arrival and departure via taxi service. The re-introduction of the historic streetcar line will affect the site. Retaining and enhancing the historic beltway rail lines is important to the interpretation of the site. Improving the entry experience must consider the historic military control points.

Improve lighting, especially nighttime lighting, to alleviate safety concerns and increase visitor comfort.

Improve identifi cation and signage to differentiate between Upper Fort Mason and Fort Mason Center. Current signage, both affi xed and painted, is not consistent. The variation of existing fonts is inconsistent.

Improve treatments for the boundary areas, like the retaining wall, Northwest Embankment and western edge of the site.

Be involved in landscape treatment decisions carried out by the GGNRA at the Northwest Embankment, along the western perimeter, and on the North Cliff hillside considering natural tree lifespan and hillside erosion. Stabilize eroding sands/soil along the hillside slope using long-term sustainable approaches consistent with the historic character of the feature.

Link sustainability and historic preservation considerations as utility infrastructure improvements, other energy effi ciencies, and electrical generating power move forward. The installation of wind turbines and photovoltaics on pier shed roofs are contemplated and present the opportunity for a forward-thinking integration of historic preservation and sustainable on-site energy generation. Improved systems for recycling and composting are a priority to achieve zero waste.


Eroding soils at the North Cliff hillside should be stabilized (XxxPhoto, 2009).

On-site signage interprets the site history as a place of “embarkation” (XxxPhoto, 2009).

24


Manage visual aspects of the site including the amount of open space used for parking, the retaining wall, the treatment of the North Embankment and small scale features related to the site’s military and maritime history such as the mooring bollards and cast iron features.

Pedestrian circulation spontaneously happens along a spine that is parallel to and in between Landmark Building A (Building 308) and Landmark B (Building 310) in part of the site that is conducive to walking. The buildings along the western perimeter of the site are at grade, offer a visual connection to and from the interiors and seem to generate more activity. This area of the site has casually been referred to as “Main Street”; though this concept does not necessarily relate to the historic use of the site as a port of embarkation.

Weigh the appropriateness of new structures; using guidelines for placement, design, scale and materials is essential.

Consider life safety questions related to circulation and the co-existence of pedestrian and vehicles. Different railing systems at the water’s edge should focus on consistency.


25


V. TREATMENT GUIDELINES

SPATIAL ORGANIZATION AND LAND USE

Analysis and EvaluationPlanning efforts for the new supply depot at Lower Fort Mason began in 1908, with the goal of consolidating the military’s scattered warehouses, along with personnel “pipelines,” in one location.14 The effi cient design of the supply depot, dictated by shipping and transport operations, succeeded in getting the maximum use out of a relatively small piece of land reclaimed from the Bay. The design of the site was governed by utilitarian, rather than aesthetic, concerns. As the military prepared for World War I, the site became more heavily used. Several temporary warehouses were constructed near Landmark Building B (Building 310) and Landmark Building C (Building 312) and in the southern yard, increasing the overall density of the site. Part I of the CLR characterized the spatial organization as “an industrial landscape refl ecting the spatial needs of a bygone shipping and transportation operation. Large scale buildings are all oriented approximately north-south and surrounded by pavement or open water. The rectilinear open spaces are defi ned by vertical enclosures of massive buildings – the defi ning element of Lower Fort Mason. A large parking area is located south of the structures and bordered by a curving retaining wall.”15 (See Site Plans at Appendices C and D.)

The historic land use patterns can be summarized as follows: Land entry area, with associated security and ‘checking’

functions, such as the Entry Gate, Gatehouse, Guard Station, and now-demolished Scale House.

Storehouses in alignment across the middle of the site, including both permanent and temporary warehouse structures.

Staging, sorting and loading areas in pier sheds and along the pier and waterfront bulkhead aprons.

Maintenance and service areas at the eastern and western edges of the site, including the Marine Repair Shop in

Spatial Organization and Land Use

1907 map showing the proposed supply depot at Fort Mason; note the rectilinear, effi cient design of the site (Appendix B, Image 3).

26


Landmark Building A (Building 308), the Fire Station and Transformer Vault in Building 309, and east and south of Pier 3, the Battery Charging Station, now the Firehouse, and a range of temporary service buildings, the Oil Shed, the Garage and Machine Shop, the Washing Shed, the Chemical Laboratory and other carpentry shops.16

Open areas of site were paved for a variety of circulation and open-air staging purposes.

The rail system within the site developed as a railroad yard in support of the maritime activity on the piers and infl uenced the site’s land use patterns.

Several small utilitarian buildings and utility features were located throughout the paved areas of the site, such as the Transformer Vault (Building 305).

These dense, utilitarian uses stood in contrast to the adjacent vegetated embankment and the historic character of Upper Fort Mason. It is worth noting that Fort Mason has a long tradition of attracting visitors; in 1923 it was referred to as a “sightseeing point” and a place for pleasant walks.17

Though fenced as a separate precinct from the densely developed city, Fort Mason had long been an open base which could be closed and secured if necessary.18 In the post-military period, this open waterfront expanse became much quieter than during wartime. In 1964 the City of San Francisco fi rst proposed the idea of a city park and recreation area.19 In the interval between base closure in 1962 and establishment of the GGNRA in 1972, the facilities at Lower Fort Mason were underutilized, used primarily for storage.20 Lower Fort Mason also attracted vagrants, likely creating an abandoned feel and making the site undoubtedly less welcoming to casual recreation users, such as the walkers, runners, and cyclists, who now enjoy the site. At present, casual recreation uses are easily accommodated on the site and are attracted to the waterfront location, views, and experience.

In the site’s current use as a multi-use arts center, the land use patterns


Garages and workshops located along the east edge of the site were demolished

in the 1930s (Appendix B, Image 35).

Transformer Vault, Building 305 (XxxPhoto, 2009).

Historic image of the Transformer Vault (Appendix B, Image 26).

27



have been adapted. The amount of activity on the site varies according to various tenants’ programming – sometimes relatively quiet, but quite busy during performances or festivals.

While Fort Mason Center’s overall scale can seem daunting for pedestrians, the site is dotted with intimately-scaled, lightly-used spaces that provide an interesting contrast to the rest of the place, such as the spaces now used for service between Landmark Buildings B and C (Buildings 310 and 312) and between Landmark Buildings D and E (Buildings 314 and 315) and the waterside space north of the Firehouse. The space between Pier 1 and Building 309 is used as a service area but provides opportunity for a more public use or gathering.

(See Site Plans, Appendix C and D).

Current land use patterns: Entry Gate retains its historic use and serves as parking and

entry control and a spot to pause for site orientation.

Building 309 in front of Pier 1 remains in use as a service area.

Remaining historic buildings have been converted to other uses which have been generally compatible, requiring minimal changes to character-defi ning features.

Temporary buildings have been demolished, and space returned to original paved quality, now typically used as parking.

Rest of the site remains paved and used for a variety of circulation uses. Some changes to paved areas include:

o Main Street quality east of Building A is related to the later use of the site as a public place. This relatively narrow corridor provides an intimately-scaled passage suitable to the site’s present use. The multiple grade-level tenant entries

and signage along the east side of Building A give this area a Main Street quality (XxxPhoto, 2009).

The intimately-scaled space behind the Firehouse provides an interesting contrast to the overall scale of Fort Mason Center. Commissioned by Irmine Stelzner and Stewart Brand, this 1984 installation, a concrete and marble bench and table by architect Christopher Alexander, was sponsored by the Whole Earth Catalogue. (XxxPhoto, 2009).

28


o The circulation space connecting the piers follows the bulkhead and serves as a waterfront promenade from Building A to the Firehouse. This promenade offers direct access to the bay edge and its views, making it one of the most desirable outdoor spaces in Fort Mason.

o Service corridors, with dumpsters and electrical meters, are located between Landmark Buildings B and C (Buildings 310 and 312) and between Landmark Buildings D and E (Buildings 314 and 315), and are not consistent with the historic use conditions of active rail tracks or as the location of temporary buildings. These spaces may provide an opportunity for enhanced use as the narrow passage and overhead bridges create welcoming spaces.

o Gathering places have been created as at the picnic areas and pedestrian plaza at the south end of Building A. Picnic areas at the south end of Landmark Buildings B, C, and D are well-situated to take advantage of sun exposure and wind blocks. The strip north of the Firehouse is a contemplative area.

Treatment Recommendations

Recommended Preserve and maintain the historic spatial organization of the

site. New construction should be limited, as described in the Buildings and Structures section.

Preserve and maintain historic land use patterns, where feasible. Some of these patterns include:

o Arrival sequence at Entry Gate. See Circulation section for further discussion.

o Rail circulation routes and general openness of the paved portions of the site.


The picnic area at the south end of Building A is well-situated to take

advantage of sun exposure and wind blocks (XxxPhoto, 2009).

The space between Landmark Buildings B and C is currently used as a service

corridor, housing dumpsters and electrical equipment (XxxPhoto, 2009).

29



The locations or footprints of previously demolished buildings may provide visual boundaries or guidelines for differentiated uses such as gathering or circulation on paved portions of the site. For example, different paving materials, such as concrete, brick, granite, or cobbles, which would be subtly differentiated as new from the historic materials, but also be compatible with the site in color, texture, and pattern, could be employed to demarcate a pedestrian plaza between Landmark Buildings C and D (Buildings 312 and 314); consider aligning the boundaries of such a plaza with the footprint of the demolished temporary warehouse.

Consider the relocation of current maintenance and service uses at Building 309. An appropriate location is south of Pier 3 at the base of the retaining wall, on site of previously demolished service buildings. This is consistent with the historic use in that area. Adapt Building 309 and the immediate area to a more public function, appropriate given the present use of the surrounding buildings. Landmark Building A (Building 308), historically used for service and maintenance, has been adapted to a public exhibition hall, offi ces, and is the site of Green’s restaurant. Additional public uses are proposed for, and would be appropriate for, Pier 1.

The addition of small-scale utilitarian structures in the paved portions of the site is permissible, as there is historic precedent; however such structures should not signifi cantly change the relationship of the open, fl at, paved spaces around existing buildings or block signifi cant views.

The parking lot / former rail yard provides opportunities for more fl exible use including interpretation or new outdoor activities such as a farmers’ market, art festival, or eco-fair.

Keeping the historic rail track system exposed provides the opportunity to express the original land use.

At the Port of San Francisco’s Pier 1, contrasting paving color demarcates building entries. A similar technique could be used to demarcate the footprints of previously demolished buildings (XxxPhoto, 2009).

30


Retain current, non-historic casual recreation uses and pedestrian spaces. Although they do not follow historic land use patterns, they are easily accommodated on the site.

Increased density of use is appropriate for the site given historic and present uses.

Locate pedestrian gathering areas to take advantage of southern-exposures and natural windbreaks.

Not Recommended Altering signifi cant spatial organization patterns through

demolition or new construction.

Radically altering or proposing new incompatible uses for historic land use patterns on the site.


31


TOPOGRAPHY

Analysis and EvaluationInitially a coastal defense site, Upper Fort Mason is situated on a headland and was the site of the original coastal fortifi cations. The lower area, Fort Mason Center, is situated on the waterfront, on a fl at site below and to the west of Upper Fort Mason. Fort Mason Center sits over what was originally a small cove, beach and sand dunes. Sandy inlets on the east and west fl anked a point of land that jutted into San Francisco Bay, a rocky promontory known as to Spanish explorers as Punta Medanos or Point San Jose, and later Black Point. Until 1909, the area below the main fort would be characterized as a natural shoreline landscape, not yet modifi ed by the military though used for a target range.21

Topographic modifi cations, specifi cally 13 new acres of landfi ll, undertaken during the years 1909-1912 resulted in major changes that obliterated the original natural landscape. The construction campaign of 1909-1912 had the greatest impact to site’s topography, using infi ll to create a level platform for buildings, piers, and rail access that would later cross the site (1914). Infi ll extended the shoreline to the north and west. Construction of a north-south seawall in alignment with Laguna Street delineated a strong western edge of the site with Gas House Cove further to the west. Seawall construction for the fi nger piers created another hard and straight edge on the north. In 1910 the fi rst construction of the retaining wall following the curve of the bluff (the Northwest Embankment) above defi ned the eastern and southern edges of Lower Fort Mason.22

At present, three distinct man-made topographical zones exist within and in the immediate setting of Fort Mason Center. These are:

The relatively fl at, infi ll land between the seawall/bulkhead on which most of Lower Fort Mason is located. This land is primarily paved over.

The pier decks that are supported on open pilings over the bay waters. This includes the pier fi ngers north of the seawall/bulkhead.

Topography

C. 1905 view of the west shore of Black Point; the sandy cove in the foreground would later be fi lled in for the construction of Lower Fort Mason (Appendix B, Image 1).

Construction of the seawall, 1909 (Appendix B, Image 4).

Undated view of Black Point from the east (Appendix B, Image 2).

32


The engineered, earthen slope and concrete retaining wall at the Northwest Embankment, which negotiates the grade change between Upper and Lower Fort Mason.

Also in the immediate setting of Fort Mason Center, to the east of the Firehouse, is the North Cliff zone, which is the natural, steep slope of Black Point. It represents one of the few unaltered bay frontages within the City of San Francisco.23

Paving surfaces throughout Lower Fort Mason are graded to direct storm drainage into drain inlets. In some cases the inlets are located within the railroad tracks (there may be drainage vaults or pipes built into the track structure). The area between Landmark Buildings C and D (Buildings 312 and 314) may have been fi lled to cover the tracks and/or facilitate improved storm drainage which appears to be consistent with the original track construction and paving (see Ground Plane section for further discussion).

The relatively fl at topography of Lower Fort Mason remains intact, although recent alterations to the ground plane have introduced more surface variation (see Ground Plane section for further discussion). Both the engineered embankment and the natural North Cliff area are eroding. Eroded soil and vegetation have accumulated at base of the North Cliff, behind the Firehouse.


Recommended Preserve and maintain the existing topography, including the

relatively fl at portions of the site and the engineered and natural slopes.

Vegetation on the Northwest Embankment should be maintained to provide a stable ground cover that controls erosion of the sandy soil. Management of this area should be consistent with the management of other historic sites throughout the GGNRA.

Topography

Current view of the Northwest Embankment and retaining wall, from the

western parking lot (XxxPhoto, 2009).

The relatively fl at topography of the site remains intact (XxxPhoto, 2009).

Current view of the North Cliff zone, one of the few unaltered bay frontages within

the City of San Francisco (XxxPhoto, 2009).

33


Sustainable solutions include low water use plants (consider natives and drought tolerant species) that do not require irrigation after establishment.

Prepare a vegetation management plan to preserve and replant (where needed) the Monterey Cypress trees on the Northwest Embankment and other vegetation on the site. Best practices should be employed to ensure continued visual and functional role of the Cypress trees.

Not Recommended Re-grading the site.

Adding new topographical features.

Topography

A vegetation management plan should be prepared to preserve and replant the Monterey Cypress trees on the Northwest Embankment (XxxPhoto, 2009).

34


VIEWS AND VISTAS

Analysis and EvaluationFrom its water’s edge location and from certain heights, Fort Mason affords commanding views of the Golden Gate Bridge, Alcatraz and Angel Islands, the City’s northern waterfront toward the east, and the Marin Headlands in the distance. Views of San Francisco Bay and the bay opening at the Golden Gate were critical to the placement of coastal defenses at Fort Mason. The vantage point out and over the site from Upper Fort Mason was of strategic importance for creating a deadly crossfi re with the guns on Alcatraz.

The Part I of the Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Mason identifi es one viewshed over Lower Fort Mason, a panoramic view of the Golden Gate Bridge from the southeast corner of the Great Meadow.24 However, the CLR does not analyze specifi c views related to Lower Fort Mason. Though the CLR Part I and CLI fi nd that the unmanaged growth of vegetation has constrained views, the reference is to the more northern views from the North Fortifi cations Landscape Character Area and is less relevant to Lower Fort Mason. The statement that “visual access to the water is still obtainable … [but] views and vistas are in poor condition due to the growth of unmanaged vegetation” is less applicable to Lower Fort Mason.25

Prior to any construction, the Lower Fort Mason site, having no mature vegetation, offered uninterrupted views of the bay from the shore but the site was not particularly utilized by the military until 1909. Since the site’s purpose was utilitarian, siting of buildings to maximize views was not a consideration. Views of the Golden Gate and the bay were not designed or considered as may have been the case in other parts of Fort Mason. Construction of the functional piers, sheds and storehouses (mostly completed by 1915) resulted in dramatic changes to impressive views.

The Fort Mason Center site is distinguished by an additional number of character-defi ning views, both from the site and of the site, from other perspectives. Views of Fort Mason Center, within an urban context, are relate to the site’s historic development. The views from, of, and within

Views and Vistas

A view over Lower Fort Mason and Landmark Building A, looking towards the Golden Gate Bridge and the Marin

Headlands (XxxPhoto, 2009).

A view of Alcatraz Island, framed by Pier 3 and the Northwest Embankment

retaining wall (XxxPhoto, 2009).

35


Fort Mason Center contribute to the overall setting and signifi cance of the site and are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Views from Site

The views from Fort Mason, from the upper fort looking north and west, capture expansive western views of the Golden Gate Bridge, the bay opening, and the Pacifi c Ocean beyond. After construction of the three-story storehouses, the distant western views from the embankment and the gun batteries above remained, but the viewer’s gaze now skimmed over red-tiled rooftops to the Golden Gate and the Marin headlands beyond. This western vista over the site, from above, is one of the most telling, communicating its military character through its structures, its historic use as a fortifi cation, and its urban quality set at the edge of the City and the water.

Northern views of Marin, Alcatraz and Angel Island are possible from the waterfront. A framed view of Alcatraz occurs between the Firehouse and Pier 3. Various viewpoints between Piers 1 and 2 and between Piers 2 and 3 provide framed northern views, including of Angel Island and Marin. Because the piers extend out over the water, the views from the site along the perimeters and from the pier ends are unique in a couple of ways. The views of the south sides of Alcatraz and Angel Island from the ends of Piers 2 and 3 are the closest obtainable from land.

Standing out over the bay at the pier ends results in east-west views along the northern edge of the City and allows a “look-back” at the City from the water and an understanding of the urban context.

Water views from Pier 1 are similar to those from within Landmark Building A, Building 308, and are among the best of any other Fort Mason Center location. As the only two-story pier on the site, Pier 1’s potential reuse presents an excellent opportunity for the site. The appealing views, so closely associated with Fort Mason Center, draw people to the site.

Views of Site

The principal vantage points of Fort Mason Center are: 1) from above, from the upper fort looking north and west; 2) from the water looking

Views and Vistas

A view of the Golden Gate from Upper Fort Mason, looking over the red-tiled roofs of the buildings at Lower Fort Mason (XxxPhoto, 2009).

A view of the end of Pier 2, with the Golden Gate Bridge in the distance (XxxPhoto, 2009).

36


south; and 3) from other points in the City, especially looking east from Marina Boulevard and the Marina Green.

Views of the site have always been possible from the heights of the embankment as noted in the CLR Part I.

The Monterey Cypress planted at the top of the embankment … were intended to break the force of the westerly winds, while permitting views into Lower Fort Mason from Upper Fort Mason.26

Viewing the site from the water, allows an understanding of the perimeter, of the piers and structures that mostly “wall” the site, but reveal its military and maritime industrial character. This unique vantage point also provides an understanding of the relationship of the piers to Upper Fort Mason.

From the west, looking east, the familiar and defi nitive view is of the long, side elevation of Pier 1 and the western seawall. This view of Pier 1, along the well-defi ned western edge of Fort Mason Center, remains a strong visual component of the site and conveys the site’s military and maritime industrial character within the urban context. The bold signage on the western elevation of Pier 1 serves to identify the site from a distance.

From other points in the City, the hilly topography of San Francisco affords multiple views of the site as it juts out over the water.

Views within Site

The several framed views that exist within Lower Fort Mason are defi ned by relationships to the built environment, spaces between buildings that provide directed views.

Upon entering the site by car from the west, the immediate views toward the east are of the Northwest Embankment, retaining wall and trees. Construction of the storehouses resulted in narrowed northern views of the bay and Angel Island through buildings at the level of the water. Once inside the boundary of the site, views are shortened and fairly obstructed by the buildings’ mass with narrow glimpses of the bay

Views and Vistas

Views looking back at the site from the pier aprons (XxxPhotos, 2009).

A view of the western edge of the site, which is defi ned by long facades of Pier 1 and Landmark Building A (XxxPhoto,

2009).

37


beyond. Views of the piers and sheds across the site are obstructed by the large-scale and closely sited Landmark Buildings impairing wayfi nding.

One of the most notable view corridors within the site is of the main façade of Pier 2 from the parking lot or yard. As stated above, the site’s original purpose focused on utility and effi ciency. Planned views were not considered. The view of the Pier 2 façade was the result of the clear access necessary for the rail tracks that ran across the site and through the center of the building. This direct and centered vantage point, framed by fl anking Landmark Buildings B and C (Buildings 310 and 312), is enhanced by the symmetry of the site and impressive character of the buildings. The open expanse in the foreground between Buildings B and C provides an opportunity to improve this important view.


Recommended Continue to maximize and emphasize the viewsheds to the

bay, to other landmarks, and of the urban context.

Continue to monitor growth of vegetation at Upper Fort Mason, (though GGNRA manages it) to maintain visual access to the water as stated in CLR Part I.

Continue to maintain views and visual connection to Upper Fort Mason.

Maintain and encourage public access to the pier perimeters and pier ends to take advantage of the City’s northernmost water views.

Maintain the open expanse in the foreground of Pier 2. Maintain the unobstructed view of Pier 2 and respect the symmetry of the arrangement.

Take advantage of the water views from Pier 1.

Views and Vistas

One of the most notable view corridors within the site is that of Pier 2, framed by Landmark Buildings C and D (XxxPhoto, 2009).

38


Not Recommended New permanent construction in front of Pier 2 is not

recommended.

Views and Vistas

Maintain the unobstructed view of Pier 2 and respect the symmetry

of the overall arrangement.

Maintain open views to Bay.

No new construction recommended.

Preserve and maintain fl at, paved quality of site.

Minimize use of overhead utility lines to preserve unobstructed

overhead views.

Views and Vistas Treatment Recommendations

39


VEGETATION

Analysis and EvaluationPrior to the original construction, a limited amount of native vegetation, coastal bluff scrub, existed on the hillside and dunes where Fort Mason Center is now located. Much of FMC is located on fi lled land, which was reclaimed from the San Francisco Bay in the early twentieth century. Abutting the Center is an engineered slope, the Northwest Embankment, which was created on the western slope of a natural land formation – Black Point. Prior to the development of Upper Fort Mason, Black Point vegetation consisted of the Coastal Scrub Plant Community along its peak and Coastal Bluff Scrub at western slopes.27

During Fort Mason Center’s period of signifi cance, vegetation on the site was also limited. As a working waterfront, there was little space or need for vegetation. Vegetation was primarily limited to the perimeter of the site. The engineered slope of the Northwest Embankment was originally stabilized with cultivated turf grasses. Monterey cypress trees were planted on the embankment to act as a windbreak. Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa), although not native to the San Francisco peninsula, was found to be well suited for survival in San Francisco’s sandy soil and windy conditions. Cypress, along with pines and eucalyptus, was planted extensively in Golden Gate Park and the Presidio of San Francisco starting in the 1870s. Today, the cypress survives as an important windbreak tree in the Northwest embankment. Its unique horizontal form and habit provides a distinctive skyline backdrop and divider between Upper and Lower Fort Mason. The cypress has spread across the North Cliff area and there are a number of small cypress volunteer trees sprouting.

The ground plane of the Northwest Embankment consists of grasses and other herbaceous plants that are green during the rainy winter season and turn brown during the remainder of the year. The herbaceous ground cover performs the important function of preventing soil erosion on the sandy embankment.

A limited amount of ornamental planting took place on the west side of the entry gates, which served as the site’s public “face”. At various

Vegetation

View of the piers under construction, before the land for the site was reclaimed from the Bay; note the native coastal bluff scrub on the dunes in the foreground (Appendix B, Image 7).

Herbaceous ground cover at the Northwest Embankment prevents soil erosion on the sandy slope (RHAA Photo, 2009).

40


times, historic photographs show medium height shrubs, groundcovers, and climbing vines, probably ivy (Hedera spp.) The planting areas at the entry walls have been paved over.

Today, the site remains largely unvegetated. The vegetation at the Northwest Embankment and North Cliff remain largely as they were during the period of signifi cance; however, many of the Monterey cypress trees have been cut. The plantings at the Entry Gate have been removed. Just beyond the western boundaries of the site, four New Zealand Christmas trees (Metrosideros excelsus), planted in a turf grass strip, abut Lower Fort Mason’s western most boundary site wall, partially shading the picnic area at the south end of Landmark Building A, Building 308. These trees are compatible with the historic pattern of providing a landscaped public “face” at the entry.


Recommended Preserve the maritime industrial character of the site by

ensuring that no vegetation is planted in areas where it did not occur during the historic period.

Preserve and maintain historic windbreaks, including the Monterey cypress trees at the Northwest Embankment.

Implement a vegetation management plan for the Northwest Embankment and other planted areas of the site. Assess each tree for health, age, and potential hazard. Plan for succession by establishing a replacement trees planting program. Trees can be replaced as required without the need to maintain an even-aged stand. Of greater importance is to preserve the visual edge and windbreak functions of the trees.

Remove cypress volunteer saplings that sprout at the bottom of the slope (along top of wall) and other locations where they were not present during the historic period. As the trees mature they could damage the wall.

Vegetation

Historically, a limited amount of ornamental planting was used at the

site’s public face, along the Entry Gate wall (Appendix B, Image 42).

The trees and planting strip along the western perimeter wall are later additions

(XxxPhoto, 2009).

41


Preserve and maintain grasses and other herbaceous ground cover plants at Northwest Embankment to prevent further erosion of the engineered slope.

Planting areas at the entry gate can be reestablished if there are resources for care and maintenance of these areas.

Manage the remnant native landscape at the North Cliff area consistent with other similar areas throughout the GGNRA. This landscape was not “managed” during the historic period due to its inaccessibility and steep slopes. The non-native trees (primarily Monterey Cypress) are volunteers and can be removed to encourage and favor the native species present at the site.

Not Recommended Introduction of new vegetation in historically unvegetated

areas. New vegetation includes both ‘permanent plants,’ as well as hanging plants and potted trees and / or plants on paved portions of the site or along building aprons or pier edges.

Vegetation

The remnant landscape at the North Cliff area should be managed in a manner that is consistent with other similar areas throughout the GGNRA (XxxPhoto, 2009).

42


Vegetation

Remove volunteer saplings.Maintain drought-tolerant

groundcover to minimize soil erosion.

Maintain engineered, earthern slope and

concrete retaining wall.

Preserve and enhance historic windbreak. Implement a

vegetation management plan for Northwest Embankment.

Vegetation Treatment Recommendations

43


CIRCULATION

Analysis and EvaluationHistorically, access to the site was limited. The Entry Gate at the southwestern corner of the site was the primary land route to the site. All vehicles and rail cars passed through the large gates and pedestrians used the adjacent “man doors” in the gate posts. Three narrow staircases allowed for pedestrian access between Lower and Upper Fort Mason: along the southwest corner of the retaining wall to the Great Meadow; across the middle of the Northwest Embankment; and along the North Cliff, near the Firehouse and Building 193. Water access to the site occurred at the two ship slips along the northern shore, between the pier buildings. (See Site Plan, Appendix D for historic conditions).

The most prominent circulation element on the site was a series of railroad tracks, with spurs running between the storehouse buildings and to the piers, along a central spine through the interior of Pier 2 and along both exterior aprons of Pier 3. At the south end of the site, the tracks curved as they transitioned from the tunnel and street alignments to the perpendicular storehouses and piers; and then running in a series of parallel lines between the buildings and along the piers. The tunnel beneath Upper Fort Mason was constructed by promoters of the Panama Pacifi c International Exposition.28 In 1914, the California State Board of Harbor Commissioners extended the Belt-Line railroad serving the San Francisco waterfront through Fort Mason.29 The original western terminus of the tunnel remains at the southern perimeter of Lower Fort Mason.

With the exception of the landscaped Northwest Embankment, the entire site was paved and used for pedestrian and vehicular circulation, as well as cargo storage and service. No clearly identifi ed routes or boundary demarcations existed between the various uses, and all uses frequently crossed traffi c paths.

Access to the site remains limited, although the large rolling metal gates and “man door” gates have been removed, with only the gate posts and wall remaining. As a result of the site’s change in use from a working port to a multi-use arts center, several changes have been made to the

Circulation

The most prominent and historically signifi cant circulation element on the site is the railroad tracks, which originally ran through the Entry Gate out to the piers (Appendix B, Image 55).

The narrow concrete staircase across the middle of the Northwest Embankment is the only remaining usable pedestrian link between Lower and Upper Fort Mason (XxxPhoto, 2009).

44


water access and internal circulation routes. The ship slips remain, as do the related marine hardware; however, the slips are no longer actively used. In recent years, access between the water and the bulkhead and pier aprons has been limited by life-safety improvements such as guardrails. Railroad uses are no longer active on the site; however, the tracks and tunnel remain as reminder of the industrial and mass transit rail uses on and adjacent to the site.

In an effort to improve visitor safety and enjoyment of Fort Mason Center, alterations have been made to better defi ne vehicular circulation paths, parking areas, pedestrian circulation routes, and picnic and seating areas. These alterations include the installation of signage, traffi c islands, curbs, traffi c striping, and bollards. The traffi c islands often sit on top of the railroad tracks, obscuring them and signifi cantly compromising the integrity of the site’s original rail circulation routes. Despite these alterations, vehicular and pedestrian circulation routes through the site remain confusing, making wayfi nding complicated.

A December 2008 study carried out by planning students at UC Berkeley makes a number of excellent observations and recommendations for circulation improvements. The study fi nds that too much space is devoted to vehicle circulation and an ineffi cient parking layout is problematic. Overall this results in an overemphasis on the importance of vehicles and downplays the pedestrian experience.

The site circulation improvements proposed in UC Berkeley student study are consistent with the treatment philosophy in this document. The proposed pedestrian routes do not alter historic circulation features yet improve effi ciency and order on the site in the spirit of the original dictates associated with a military installation. The circulation improvements achieve FMC goals for enhancing the visitor experience. See Section VI for further discussion and Appendix F for the complete report.

Circulation

The upper historic photo (Appendix B, Image 52) and the lower current photo of

the northern waterfront (XxxPhoto, 2009) illustrate the traffi c striping that has been

added to the site in an attempt to improve vehicular and pedestrian circulation.

45



Recommended Consider certain recommendations outlined in the UC Berkeley

planning students’ report. Those which [consultant] fi nds should be considered for implementation are:

o Create a waterfront zone along the northern seawall between Piers 1 and 3 that is more favorable to pedestrians than vehicles but where both can co-exist.

o Convert vehicular circulation from a two-way direction to a one-way direction around the perimeter of the site.

o Establish and reinforce a hierarchy of pedestrian circulation.

Preserve and maintain the limited number of access points to the site. Where feasible, avoid creating new access points to the site. Hypothetically, a new entry point at the site’s east side in the form of a boardwalk would alter the site’s historic access and circulation, however, such construction may be considered reversible.

Should new access points to the site be required, they shall be limited in number and size, and shall be located so as not to destroy character-defi ning features of the historic district. New access points shall not detract from the southwest Entry Gate’s signifi cance as the primary land route into the site.

Remove the non-historic elements, specifi cally the new parking control gates, within proximity of the Entry Gate; new gates alter the arrival experience.

Consider the reintroduction of railway or water access to the site. Where feasible, reuse historic access points, circulation routes, rail alignments, appropriate rolling stock, rail cars or a steam engine, stairs, slips, mooring positions, and / or hoist positions to accommodate new rail or water access.

Circulation

These non-historic parking control gates inside the original Entry Gate signifi cantly alter the arrival sequence and should be relocated (XxxPhoto, 2009).

If railway access is reintroduced to the site, historic rail alignments should be reused where feasible (XxxPhoto, 2009).

If water access is reintroduced to the site, historic mooring positions along the piers should be reused (XxxPhoto, 2009).

46


Consider reconstruction of the rolling metal gates at the southwest entry and “man” doors, for better interpretation of the site’s controlled access.

Preserve and maintain all existing railroad tracks and associated equipment, such as switches.

Emphasize the signifi cance of the railroad tracks as one of the primary organizational elements in the historic district. Consider circulation improvements that highlight the railroad alignment. This may include the reconfi guration of vehicular drives or pedestrian pathways to follow rail alignments or the reintroduction of new rail service along the original alignments. Remove contemporary paving, traffi c islands, and curbing that obscure the railroad tracks.

Consider reintroduction of all rail track lines within the yard or on the pier aprons (whether they have been removed or covered over) to re-establish the historic rail circulation system on the site. Reconstruction of demolished rail track lines and spurs allows for better interpretation.

Preserve and maintain the existing concrete stair and associated industrial pipe rail handrails at the Northwest Embankment. Modestly enlarging this stair, when and if necessary, can be achieved by retaining the historic alignment and without signifi cantly altering its character. As this staircase was originally constructed in wood (1922), this material would be appropriate if reconstruction is ever required.

Repair or replace damaged or deteriorated stairs at the southwest retaining wall and North Cliff. Any new code-mandated handrails shall refl ect the industrial quality of the site. For example, new unpainted, galvanized steel pipe handrails would be appropriate.

Comply with disabled access requirements by maintaining an accessible route of travel within the site from arrival points; public streets and sidewalks; public transportation stops;

Circulation

Consider reconstructing the original rolling metal gates at the southwest entry


The historic stairs at the southwest retaining wall should be retained and

repaired (XxxPhoto, 2009).

47


Preserve and maintain existing

railroad tracks that are an important organizing and

interpretive element of the site.

Remove traffi c islands that obscure railroad tracks.

Circulation Treatment Recommendations

accessible parking spaces and passenger loading zones; buildings; facilities; and spaces.

Not Recommended Introducing signifi cant and / or multiple new access points to

the site.

Removing historic gate posts or site wall.

Removing railroad tracks and / or associated equipment.

Obscuring railroad tracks with new paving materials.

Circulation

48


Circulation

Re-establish curbs and planting areas at central entry island.

Improve pedestrian circulation.

Lower Fort Mason entrance gate, constructed 1926.(NPS, GGNRA Archives, TASC Negative Collection, Box 5, Undated).

Move parking control gates

outsidehistoric entry.

Consider reconstruction of rolling metal gates

and “man” doors.

Circulation Treatment Recommendations

49


GROUND PLANE

Analysis and EvaluationThe landfi ll required for construction of the depot resulted in 13 new acres and created a fl at ground plane.30 The NHL nomination notes that the rail tracks were laid in 1914 and only the roads in the port area were asphalted. Historic photographs confi rm that the fl at ground plane was originally unpaved.31 In the 1930s the entire area was asphalted. During the period of signifi cance, paving materials varied and included macadam (layers of compacted crushed stone, usually bound with tar or liquid asphalt), asphalt, concrete, and cobblestones. Historic photographs from different periods show cobblestone or asphalt paving between the rail tracks and a combination of asphalt and concrete paving to the south of the storehouses. Most of the tracks remain in place and appear in good condition. The tracks consist of special rails manufactured by Bethlehem Steel to sit within street paving. The rail is rolled with an integral recessed pocket for the wheel fl anges. The top of the rail is approximately fl ush with the surrounding paving. The fl ange pockets have been fi lled with a rubber material to minimize pedestrian and bicycle hazards. The space between the rails is paved with concrete, which serves to visually accentuate the railroad’s former role.

Maritime equipment, such as mooring bollards, was mounted to a fi ve-foot-wide concrete apron running along the northern waterfront and piers. The Firehouse had a sloping concrete apron at the west elevation, which was essentially an extension of the interior fl oor slab. The site paving was only interrupted by the steel railroad tracks. Curbing was generally non-existent, with the exception of two areas. Sidewalks with concrete curbs provided pedestrian access to the west side of the “man doors” in the southwestern gate posts; and, the edge of the concrete apron at the bulkhead edge was partially exposed where the adjacent asphalt sloped downwards towards drainage outlets. Wood or steel bollards, rather than curbs, were used to protect certain site elements or prohibit access to an area.

The ground plane at Lower Fort Mason retains its paved quality, but its “fl atness” has been compromised by the addition of concrete curbs, islands, and equipment pads. The concrete apron at the waterfront

Ground Plane

The earliest photos of Lower Fort Mason show an unpaved site (Appendix B, Image 8).

During the period of signifi cance, paving materials included cobblestones and asphalt (Appendix B, Image 43).

Concrete was later used to pave the space between the rails (Appendix B, Image 73).

50


bulkhead appears to date to the period of signifi cance, and it remains clearly differentiated from the adjacent asphalt paving. The original concrete apron at the Firehouse also remains, but it has been painted red in recent years. The majority of the fl at surfaces have been repaved with asphalt, although a small area of concrete paving is extant at the sides and rear of the Firehouse. The areas in front the pier bulkheads and the Firehouse have recently been resurfaced with a new asphaltic coating. The bed between the rail tracks is presently paved with concrete, which is historically appropriate and also helps to emphasize the rail tracks through contrast with the adjacent paving materials. The space between the steel rails and paving has been fi lled with a sealant to minimize tripping hazards. New traffi c, parking, and walkway striping, as well as other regulatory graphics, have been layered on top of the paved surfaces in an attempt to organize vehicle and pedestrian spaces. While this is generally successful, the amount of striped walkways is distracting and should be minimized to highlight primary accessible paths of travel. The integrity of the ground plane has been signifi cantly impacted by the introduction of new equipment curbs and concrete traffi c islands with concrete curbs, which are used to control vehicle access and circulation through the site.


Recommended Preserve and maintain the fl at, paved quality of the site.

Retain the historic concrete paving at the waterfront apron and at building entries. Deteriorated concrete should be repaired rather than replaced. In areas of severe deterioration, the concrete should be replaced in-kind. New concrete should be of similar appearance and fi nish to original but should be date-stamped to ensure that historic and contemporary changes will be distinguishable in the future.

Maintain the historic concrete apron at the water’s edge as a clearly distinguishable element from the adjacent paved surfaces. This may be accomplished by differentiating the adjacent paving through color or material changes.

Ground Plane

The original sloping concrete apron at the west elevation of the Firehouse remains


The original concrete paving at the waterfront apron should be retained

(XxxPhoto, 2009).

51


Consider the use of assorted (and subtly differentiated) hard paving materials, bollards, or paint to distinguish pedestrian and vehicular uses and circulation routes. Hard paving materials shall draw upon the palette of materials historically found on the site (macadam, asphalt, concrete, and cobblestone). Other hard paving materials shall be permissible, so long as they are compatible with the industrial waterfront character of the site.

Preserve the existing railroad tracks. Emphasize the signifi cance of the railroad tracks through the use of different hard paving materials in the rail bed between the tracks. Hard paving materials shall draw upon the palette of materials historically used at the rail bed.

Minimize existing traffi c and regulatory paint at paving, and limit the amount of new painting.

Consider the limited use of elevated areas as a solution for distinguishing vehicular circulation routes from pedestrian areas or activity zones such as picnic areas. Elevated areas shall be located in historically appropriate areas, such as at the ends of the storehouse buildings where materials such as wooden pallets, barrels, sacs, and other shipping containers were often stacked, rather than in the middle of primary historic circulation routes such as the railroad alignment and other historically fl at places within the yard. Elevated areas shall be limited in size and clearly read as a new element layered on top of the historic hardscape. This could be achieved by designing the vertical edges of elevated areas to have an open quality, allowing the original ground plane to read through. Elevated areas shall be constructed of materials that are clearly distinguishable from the hard paving surfaces but are compatible with the industrial maritime quality of the site (i.e. wood or steel).

Consider solutions that draw upon the concept of “stacking” for variation in height of exterior seating, storage or to distinguish the use of space. Materials that may be appropriate are wood

Ground Plane

The various striped walkways are distracting and confusing and should be minimized (XxxPhoto, 2009).

Any new elevated areas on the site shall be located in historically appropriate areas, such as at the ends of the storehouse buildings, where materials such as barrels were often stacked(Appendix B, Images 34 and 21).

52


or corrugated steel associated with cargo containers.

Remove existing concrete curbs and traffi c islands. Although not historic, the concrete sidewalks and curbs at the Gate House and Guard Station may remain as they provide an unobtrusive solution for tying into the adjacent City sidewalks and providing disabled access to the raised fi rst fl oors of both buildings.

Where feasible, install new concrete equipment curbs to be fl ush with the adjacent paved surfaces (example: mailbox). The use of concrete pavement for mounting equipment is historically appropriate, as evidenced by the waterfront bulkhead apron.

Comply with disabled access requirements by maintaining an accessible route of travel within the site from arrival points; public streets and sidewalks; public transportation stops; accessible parking spaces and passenger loading zones; buildings; facilities; and spaces.

Not Recommended Painting historic concrete.

Colored concrete is not appropriate as a paving option. Using high-contrast colored paving is not recommended.

Installing new raised curbs of hard materials such as concrete, stone, or asphalt.

Obscuring railroad tracks with new paving materials.

Ground Plane

Although not historic, the concrete sidewalks and curbs at the Gate

House may remain as they provide an unobtrusive solution for providing access

to the building’s raised fi rst fl oor and tying into City sidewalks (XxxPhoto, 2009).

Accessible routes of travel shall be provided within the site (XxxPhoto, 2009).

53


Ground Plane

Elevate some pedestrian areas, such as picnic table areas, to

separate pedestrian and vehicular spaces. Elevated areas shall read as a new element layered on top of

the historic hardscape.

Painting the fi re exit stairs in a color similar to the exterior

walls would reduce the visibility of a later alteration.

Ground Plane Treatment Recommendations

54


WATER’S EDGE / SEAWALL

Analysis and EvaluationOriginally, the water’s edge at this site was a natural shoreline of beach and sand dunes formed by tidal activity. Now the water’s edge is characterized by its manmade quality and linear form, shaped by the need to accommodate water-borne vehicles and their interaction with land transportation carrying both passengers and cargo. With a transparency both above and below the bulkhead and pier decks, the overall feeling is of being suspended or cantilevered over the water. The natural shoreline is only visible at the northeast corner of the site, north of the Firehouse.

Historically, during the period of signifi cance, the water’s edge consisted of a concrete seawall and three cantilevered, pile-supported decks extending out into the bay. The concrete seawall was largely unseen within the boundaries of the site; however, the western seawall was a strong visual component of the site, as viewed from Gas House Cove and the bay beyond. The long, rectangular fi nger piers were situated perpendicular to the constructed northern shoreline. The length and width of the open water slips between the piers was dictated by the dimensions of the ships served by the port.

The overall character of the western and northern waterfronts was markedly different. After the construction of Building A in 1934, the western shore was largely defi ned by structures rather than open spaces. Although fenestration along the western façades of Building A, Building 309, and Pier 1 provided a high degree of visual permeability between the structures’ interiors and Gas House Cove, the western shore was not accessible from other parts of the site or from the water. In contrast, the northern shore was highly accessible and transparent, due to its perimeter aprons, lack of above-deck guard rails, and the openness between the below-deck piers. During the site’s period of signifi cance, the bulkhead and pier aprons were largely open and uncluttered by fi xed features, allowing for the effi cient loading and unloading of ships. A consistent, utilitarian design was used for all of the aprons. Low concrete or timber curbs (stringpieces) and timber chocks defi ned the apron edges, providing a degree of safety for military personnel working on the site. The apron edges were characterized

Water’s Edge / Seawall

The western shore, prior to the construction of Building A in 1934


The water’s edge has a manmade quality and linear form (Appendix B, Image 40).

During the site’s period of signifi cance, the bulkhead and pier aprons were

largely open and uncluttered (Appendix B, Image 36).

55


by the strong, orderly rhythm of regularly-spaced wooden fender piles, cast iron mooring bollards, and the uniform fenestration pattern of the adjacent pier shed walls. This rhythm was broken by the occasional light pole, fi re hydrant, davit, hoist, or cantilevered steel stair. When a ship was in port, the open and tidy quality of the water’s edge was temporarily altered by the storage of cargo along the pier and bulkhead aprons. Typically, cargo was neatly stacked and arranged, true to military form as is evidenced by historic photographs.

The waterfront generally retains its historic character, but it has been somewhat compromised by the deterioration of the timber pilings and curbs and the installation of guardrails, signage and other site furnishings along the bulkhead and pier aprons. The loose, deteriorated, or missing timber piles and curbs, along with corroded and displaced hardware, diminishes the orderly appearance and regular rhythms that once characterized the bulkhead and pier aprons. Pier 2 was seismically retrofi tted and repaired between 2002 and 2004. To provide a greater degree of resistance to maritime degradation, the timber fender piles were replaced with new fi berglass reinforced driven fender piles with black plastic sheathing and dummy piles (not driven) which are steel reinforced and have a black plastic sheathing. While the new piles are compatible with the original timber piles in terms of dimensions and spacing, the change in material and color has signifi cantly altered the character of the waterfront at the piers. In this example, decisions driven by life-cycle concerns should consider impact to historic character.

Several chain link fences have been installed at the south ends of the pier aprons to control pedestrian and vehicular access to the piers. Because of the high occupancy and public assembly uses of the pier sheds, pier aprons serve as emergency egress routes, often for nighttime events.

To comply with life safety requirements related to the site’s present use, guardrails have been installed along the northern perimeter of the waterfront. The railings vary in design and condition, from temporary galvanized steel barricades (which have been welded together to form a more “permanent” installation) to a permanent galvanized steel pipe rail attached to the concrete apron, but are generally lightweight and offer a fair to good degree of visual transparency.


Deteriorated timber pilings diminish the orderly appearance and regular rhythms that once characterized the water’s edge(XxxPhotos 2009).

The replacement of the timber pilings at Pier 2 (Appendix B, Image 76) with pilings sheathed in black plastic (XxxPhoto, 2009) has signifi cantly altered the character of the waterfront.

56


Many of the smaller waterfront furnishings essential to an operating port, such as ring buoys at the pier shed walls and chains and ropes at the mooring bollards, have largely disappeared. Some chains and cables remain at the mooring bollards along Pier 3, which contribute to the maritime industrial feeling of the site.

Since the site’s conversion to a multi-use arts center, a number of new furnishings have been installed along the bulkhead and pier aprons including signage, benches, lighting, trash containers, and fi re suppression system post indicator valves. The new furnishings are generally mounted to the concrete aprons, following historic patterns of mounting equipment in these edge strips. However, the combined effect of the new railings and the various new site furnishings has made the water’s edge more cluttered and less uniform in appearance than it was during the period of signifi cance.


Recommended Preserve and maintain the unfi nished concrete seawall and the

high degree of visibility at the western waterfront.

Preserve and maintain the northern waterfront bulkhead, three fi nger piers and associated sheds, and the open-water slips between the piers and to the east of Pier 3.

Maintain visual transparency both above and below the pier decks at the northern waterfront.

Treat the entire northern waterfront, including fender piles, paving, railings and site furnishings, in a consistent manner. Lighting at the bulkhead and pier aprons may vary, based upon historic precedent.

Maintain the character-defi ning features of the piers, such as the timber fender piles, to the extent feasible. Consider the importance of such historic features against sustainability and durability concerns when repairing or retrofi tting the piers.


The concrete seawall and northern waterfront bulkhead shall be preserved

and maintained (XxxPhotos, 2009).

The water’s edge is now more cluttered and less uniform in appearance

during the site’s period of signifi cance (XxxPhoto, 2009).

57


Replacing wood fender piles with timber should be considered and carried out as is done by the Port of San Francisco.

Future pier projects and pile replacements should not match the new piles at Pier 2. Consider exploring the addition of wood dummy piles at Piers 1 and 3.

Durable materials are desirable but additional study for more visually compatible treatments is recommended.

Where feasible, remove chain link fences to provide unencumbered access to the entire northern waterfront.

Minimize the use and appearance of railings along the water’s edge to take advantage of views. Where railings are necessary for life safety, they shall conform to one consistent utilitarian design that refl ects the site’s maritime industrial character and maximizes transparency. Appropriate designs for railings and edge protection include, but are not limited to: the unpainted, galvanized steel pipe rails currently installed at Pier 2; steel chains strung between mooring bollards, and low timber bull rails.

Site furnishings shall be constructed of durable and easily maintainable materials, as required by the marine environment and public use of the site. Design and materials should be compatible with historic utilitarian use.

Locate any new site furnishings in the zone of the concrete bulkhead and pier aprons, where historic furnishings such as mooring bollards are typically located.

Remove unused, non-historic site furnishings and equipment at the water’s edge to minimize the appearance of clutter.

Encourage the reintroduction of water access, either commercial (ships or ferries) or recreational (small watercraft, including sailboats, kayaks, and sail boards), to the site. New watercraft shall be docked in historic locations, either within the two slips or at the east side of Pier 3. Any new structures, such as ticket


Where feasible, remove chainlink fences to provide unencumbered access to the entire northern waterfront (XxxPhoto, 2009) .

Character-defi ning features, such as timber curbs, shall be maintained and preserved (XxxPhoto, 2009) .

58


booths, gangways, boarding fl oats, and / or docks, shall be designed to be compatible, yet easily distinguishable as new, with the historic structures. All new structures shall be sited in an orthogonal pattern, matching historic patterns and alignments. New construction shall be of a limited size. Where feasible, new construction / water access shall be located within the slips, rather than at the east side of Pier 3, to limit visibility from outside the site; and shall reuse existing water access points, such as the historic stair locations at the south ends of the slips.

Not Recommended Obscuring, removing, or radically altering the western seawall.

Unacceptable alterations include the application of opaque, tinted coatings that obscure the concrete.

Removing or altering the character-defi ning features of the northern waterfront bulkhead, three fi nger piers and associated pier sheds, the open-water slips between the piers and to the east of Pier 3 and all associated features such as warning bells, mooring bollards, cleats, davits, and hoists, etc.

Breakwaters, discussed in feasibility studies for new ferry service on the site, are inappropriate. Historically, would not have been necessary for a large ship port; and introducing them would signifi cantly alter the visual character of the waterfront.

Introducing new ship berths or other means of accessing the water from the western shore.

Installing new aprons in non-historic locations, such as at the side of Pier 1, Building A, or Build 309.

Constructing new features above or below the pier decks that signifi cantly reduce the visually transparent quality of the waterfront

Installing decorative or opaque guard rails or walls at the water’s edge.


Character-defi ning features of the northern waterfront bulkhead, such

as this stair, shall not be removed (XxxPhoto, 2009).

59


Treating the northern waterfront in an inconsistent manner, such as using different edge treatments for each of the three piers.

Repairing fender piles at Piers 1 and 3 with composite piles to match Pier 2.

See the Small Scale Features: Lighting, Signage, and Site Furniture sections for more detailed recommendations regarding signage, benches, lighting, and trash containers.


Preserve and maintain historic maritime hardware where feasible.

Remove non-historic elements at water’s edge to minimize clutter.

Preserve and maintain historic mooring bollards.

Encourage re-introduction of recreational water access.

Maintain timber curbs at apron edges where conditions allow.

Maintain concrete aprons at bulkheads.

Water’s Edge / Seawall Treatment Recommendations

60


BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES

Analysis and EvaluationThe landfi ll required to support the fi rst planned buildings of the new Army Supply Depot and Transport Terminal, three new piers, one pier shed and four concrete storehouses, totaled 13 acres. For the design of the depot, the architectural fi rm of Rankin, Kellogg and Crane of Philadelphia combined elements of the Beaux-Arts, with elements of the Spanish Mission Revival for the design of the storehouses. The design refl ected the Army’s new direction toward implementing a regionally appropriate design idiom for new buildings.32 These buildings featured the Army’s fi rst use of the Mission Revival style and were designed to be visually connected through architectural details and materials, stucco exteriors and red tile roofs. Upon construction, the concrete buildings were initially unpainted but were painted a light color during the period of signifi cance. All buildings had rectilinear footprints and were sited along the same north-south axis. The collection of buildings, piers and rail lines was renamed the San Francisco General Depot in 1925 and reorganized in 1932, becoming the San Francisco Port of Embarkation.33

Due to World War I activity at the supply depot increased. In addition to the four concrete storehouses, three wooden warehouses were completed by 1917.34 Maintenance and service areas were located at the eastern and western edges of the site and were housed in the Marine Repair Shop in Landmark Building A (Building 308), the Battery Charging Station, now the Firehouse and multiple utilitarian structures. The area south of Pier 3 became host to many of these utilitarian buildings: the Oil Shed, the Garage and Machine Shop, the Washing Shed, the Chemical Laboratory and other structures such as the carpentry shop. Though their exact locations are not well documented, historic photographs indicate the utilitarian structures appear fi lled in a rather substantial portion of the yard south of Pier 3 and adjacent to the retaining wall, on an angled line following the wall. (See Site Plans at Appendices C and D.)

Historically, the buildings that existed on the site during the period of signifi cance, included:

Pier sheds (with designed facades) and related pier structures.

Buildings and Structures

Wooden warehouses were constructed depending on need (Appendix B, Image

15).

Buildings exhibit elements of the Spanish Mission Revival style (XxxPhoto, 2009).

61


Storehouses – long, rectangular plans, multi-story, elevated fi rst fl oors with loading docks, now referred to as Landmark Buildings B-E (Buildings 310, 312, 314 and 315, respectively).

Smaller scale buildings in the vicinity of the Entry Gate, including the Scale House (Building 304) now demolished, and the Provost Marshall's Offi ce.35 These were smaller scale buildings constructed of wood and fi nished with stucco to mimic the concrete buildings.

Buildings 311, 313, 60 and Warehouse E, large, wood-framed warehouses, located near Landmark Buildings B and C, Buildings 310 and 312. Similar to the original, formally designed storehouses, Buildings 311, 313, 60 and Warehouse E had rectilinear footprints and were sited on the same axis.

The Firehouse, on the site of the Battery Charging Station.

The Marine Repair Shop, now Landmark Building A, Building 308.

Temporary service buildings, the Oil Shed, the Garage and Machine Shop, the Washing Shed, the Chemical Laboratory and other carpentry shop buildings located in the vicinity and south of Pier 3, which were demolished in the 1930s. The temporary service buildings were irregular in massing and were not sited in alignment with the other structures. More utilitarian and not formally designed, they were built of different construction materials: wood framed with corrugated metal or vertical wood board and batten siding and gabled or shed membrane roofs.

Wall Construction. The retaining wall was built along an angle in alignment with the original shoreline. The curved wall ranges in height from four to twenty-four feet and stabilized a severely engineered slope that separated the two primary landscape zones of Upper and Lower Fort Mason.36 Associated with the Entry Gate is the site’s western wall along FMC between


The Scale House was renovated the year the Entry Gate was built for stylistic consistency (Appendix B, Image 18).

Smaller scale buildings constructed later imitated the original style of the early storehouses (Appendix B, Image 70).

62


Landmark Building A (Building 308) and the Provost Marshall’s Offi ce.

Except for the temporary utilitarian warehouses, most buildings remain on the site, with no major exterior alterations, and are in fair to good condition. Many concrete buildings exhibit spalling, particularly the pier sheds. Although the interiors have been rehabilitated for new uses, the utilitarian character of the buildings remain. The expansive interior spaces have offered great fl exibility for new uses. New disabled access ramps, as well as life safety railings, have been added to the loading docks of the Landmark Buildings B-E (Buildings 310, 312, 314 and 315, respectively) which have been entirely repaired in recent years. This has been done in a manner that is compatible with the historic features – concrete ramps, steel piperails (which were historically extant on the site), with lightweight cables to meet more stringent contemporary code requirements. The interiors of Landmark Buildings A-E (Buildings 308, 310, 312, 314 and 315, respectively) have been subdivided to create new tenant spaces. In the pier sheds, the original expansive interiors, enclosed by concrete walls and exposed steel truss roofs, remain, for the most part, free of obstructions.

Treatment Recommendations for Existing BuildingsAs noted in the CLR Part I, ARG’s San Francisco Port of

Embarkation Historic Structure Report provides detailed conservation recommendations for the historic buildings and structures, many of which remain relevant. The HSR should continue to be used in conjunction with this document.

Recommended Preserve and maintain all historic buildings identifi ed in the List

of Classifi ed Structures (LCS):o Retain exterior character-defi ning features of historic

buildings, including, but not limited to, the overall utilitarian quality; overall plan and mass; walls and roof forms; fenestration patterns; roll-up metal doors; windows; window grilles; steel awnings; roof penthouses; roof monitors; and red tile roofi ng.


Pier 1 (XxxPhoto, 2009).

Steel awnings are character-defi ning features (XxxPhoto, 2009).

63


o Retain interior character-defi ning features of historic buildings, including, but not limited to, the overall utilitarian quality; staircases, elevator lobbies, and openings of Landmark Buildings B, C, D, and E (Buildings 310, 312, 314 and 315, respectively); and any remaining historic materials.

Comply with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for

Rehabilitation when repairing and / or rehabilitating historic structures and buildings.

Implement a maintenance program (regularly scheduled inspection), with an emphasis of protecting historic materials. For example wood and steel windows and doors shall be painted to protect against deterioration and corrosion.

Repair deteriorated historic features rather than replacing them. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature should match the old in design, color, texture, and where possible, materials.

Remove and replace incompatible alterations, such as: o The incompatible gray-colored composition roll roofi ng

at Pier 3 should be replaced to match the adjacent pier shed roofs.

o The plastic panels in the steel canopies at Landmark Buildings B-E (Buildings 310, 312, 314 and 315, respectively) shall be removed and replaced with corrugated metal sheets to match the original.

o The partial-height infi ll wall construction and non-original transom windows at the Landmark Buildings B-E (Buildings 310, 312, 314 and 315, respectively) warehouse doors shall be removed and replaced with replicas of original glazed and wood paneled doors, or a man-door, if required.


Steel canopies with inset panels (XxxPhoto, 2009).

64


Reinstall salvaged historic features, such as the iron entrance gates (currently in NPS possession according the HSR).

Replace missing historic features, where suffi cient documentary and / or physical evidence exist, such as the many historic photographs of the site available at the Golden Gate National Recreation Area Park Archives and Record Center at the Presidio. When suffi cient evidence does not exist, replacement features should be designed to be compatible with the building’s historic character, yet readily discernable as new, to avoid confusion with original features.

Select new compatible uses for the pier shed buildings that allow for retention of their overall spacious quality. Uses that require compartmentalization or obstruct views of the interiors shall be limited.

Implementing life safety and disabled access improvements in a way that minimizes impact to historic features. Utilize the alternative solution provided in the International Existing

Building Code or the California Historical Building Code as a means of preserving historic fabric.

Place functions and services required for new uses in non-character-defi ning interior spaces rather than installing at the building exterior or in a new addition. When building equipment must be located at the exterior, minimize building shell penetrations and locate equipment so it is as inconspicuous as possible.

Where alterations have already occurred there may be more room for fl exibility, though all projects would meet The

Standards. As an example, Building 309 has been altered by the addition of three east-facing bays on the south end and a partial wood-framed second story addition at the north end which was later removed.

Treat alterations in a manner that reduces their visibility.


Building 309, originally the Fire Station and Transformer Vault, completed 1935


65


A specifi c example is the red paint color of the fi re exit stairs, which are later alterations to the Landmark Buildings B-E (Buildings 310, 312, 314 and 315, respectively); these should be painted the same hue as the exterior wall color to diminish their appearance.

Not Recommended Removing distinct materials or altering features, spaces, and

spatial relationships that characterize historic buildings and structures.

Additions should not be considered to the exterior of piers or free-standing buildings such as Landmark Buildings B-E (Buildings 310, 312, 314 and 315, respectively).

Additions to the clay tile roofs of Landmark Buildings B-E (Buildings 310, 312, 314 and 315, respectively) should not be considered due to Upper Fort Mason viewsheds. Pier shed roofs may provide a location for solar power generating technology.

Obscuring historic features and materials through new construction. For example, to the extent feasible, the exposed concrete walls and steel trusses shall not be obscured by dropped ceilings or furred out walls.

New additions on primary facades should not be considered.

Radically altering the interior spatial confi guration of the pier sheds through the construction of multiple partitions or large new mezzanine levels.

Altering the fl oor plans of the Landmark Buildings B-E (Buildings 310, 312, 314 and 315, respectively) by removing the central elevator / stair shaft cores.

Duplicating the exact form, material, style, and detailing of the historic building with a new addition.


Pier 3 (XxxPhoto, 2009).

Additions to the exterior of the piers should not be considered. (XxxPhoto, 2009).

66


Treatment Recommendations for New Construction

Recommended If new, permanent structures are being considered, locations

of buildings removed during the site’s period of signifi cance may be appropriate for development. Reconstruction of most previously demolished buildings would not be appropriate, as many were large scale and intended to be temporary. The introduction of new, large non-contributing structures in the core of the historic district, is not desirable and would jeopardize the integrity of the site and block views of the historic contributing buildings. The HSR recommended limiting size and scale of new construction in relationship to historic buildings. Reconstruction on the scale of some of the smaller buildings on the periphery of the district, such as the Scale House or the Garage and Machine Shops previously located to the east could be appropriate.

As noted in the Section V: Spatial Organization and Land Use, maintenance and service areas historically occurred throughout the site but were concentrated at the eastern and western edges of the site, south of Piers 1 and 3. Relocating existing maintenance and service uses to the east side of the yard, south of Pier 3 and at the base of the retaining wall, consolidates maintenance uses in one area. Separating uses concentrates maintenance in one area and frees the rest of the site for solely public serving uses.

Consider the use of historic shipping and freight materials as an alternative means of providing space for some of the smaller programmatic needs (such as kayak storage, high density storage, temporary material recycling or holding, or transit or wind shelters). Other more contemporary shipping and freight materials, such as cargo containers, would not have been on site during the period of signifi cance but could be treated as compatible new interventions and should be clearly differentiated as new.


Garages and machine shops on the east side of site were of secondary importance

to the principal buildings (Appendix B, Image 28).

67


Continue to utilize temporary structures (such as tents) to provide additional space for special events.

If new buildings are contemplated:

Site new buildings in accordance with the prevailing north-south axial alignment, unless locating buildings at the base of the retaining wall. In that case, buildings shall be aligned to follow the angle or curve of the wall.

Design new buildings to refl ect the historic buildings’ rectangular footprints and simple massing.

Locate new buildings at grade, unless program specifi cally requires a raised fl oor (to preserve the uniqueness of the storehouse building loading docks at Landmark Buildings B-E).

Not Recommended Imitating a historic style or period of architecture in new

construction.

Introducing of new construction, such as large sculptures, play structures, or fountains, that are incompatible with the maritime industrial quality of the site.


Partially glazed doors are a character-defi ning feature (XxxPhoto, 2009).

Warehouse or storehouse building loading docks are architecturally signifi cant (XxxPhoto, 2009).

68


SMALL SCALE FEATURES: UTILITIES

Analysis and EvaluationDuring the site’s period of signifi cance, exposed utility equipment was commonly seen around the sites open areas. In contrast, the overhead plane was free of utility poles, wires, and transformers. Overhead wires had been used for the distribution of the fi rst electrical and telecommunications services at Lower Fort Mason; but in the 1930s, many of the overhead lines were moved underground in subsurface conduits and vaults accessible by manholes.37 This was done for practical, rather than aesthetic, reasons – the large vehicles and cargo shipments moving through the site were less likely to damage below-grade power and telecommunication lines.

Following the catastrophe of 1906 and in keeping with a citywide fi re protection program, fi re hydrants fi rst appeared at Fort Mason immediately following the catastrophe of 1906.38 Remaining historic hydrants on the site are stamped with ‘1909’ on the caps and ‘1934’ on the base and are identifi ed ‘AWS’ – part of the city’s Auxiliary Water Supply Service, a separate and distinct water supply system for fi re protection use only. The construction date of the Firehouse, 1935, is consistent with the hydrant date stamps and the CCC building campaign of the era when many general improvements happened.

Water, gas, electrical, and telecommunications lines presently run underground, and along the seawall, as they did during the period of signifi cance, thus preserving the unobstructed overhead plane. Since the site’s conversion to a multi-use arts center, the unobstructed overhead plane has become an aesthetic asset, providing site visitors with clear views across the site and beyond to the Golden Gate and Marin County. A large, non-historic electrical transformer, dating to 1960 or earlier, surrounded by a chain link fence is located south of Landmark Building A (Building 308) near the Entry Gate and site of the demolished Scale House.39 It is not clear if the transformer serves Upper or Lower Fort Mason, or if it remains functionally necessary to the current electrical systems on the site. Contemporary, above-ground utility service cabinets and meters are mounted to the ground plane, usually near exterior building walls or on loading docks. The grade-level

Utilities

Manholes provide access to subsurface utilities (XxxPhoto, 2009).

The large, non-historic electrical transformer near the Entry Gate creates

an unwelcoming fi rst impression for visitors to the site (XxxPhoto, 2009).

69


service cabinets are typically ringed with a series of protective metal bollards. Electrical meters are mounted to exterior building walls, often at a “rear” elevation that faces a service corridor or zone. Although the fi re water supply mains to the various buildings are located underground, the distribution mains for individual mains often run exposed along the walls. At Landmark Buildings A-E, (Buildings 308, 310, 312, 314 and 315, respectively) the distribution mains have been located in fairly inconspicuous locations, below the steel awnings. Post indicator valve pedestals for the fi re water system are exposed along the waterfront bulkhead apron. Post-mounted, steel fi re alarm pull stations, painted red, are mounted at various points across the site.

Although many of these above-grade utility features are recent additions, the exposed equipment is generally compatible with the industrial maritime character of the site. One exception is the above-mentioned electric transformer adjacent to the south end of Landmark Building A (Building 308). Due to its large size and prominent siting, the transformer has a negative impact on the historic character of the site and creates an unwelcoming fi rst impression for visitors.

Drain inlets and manhole covers around the site are visible evidence of the site’s storm drain and sewer system (storm water and sanitary sewer are likely combined in one system as is common practice in San Francisco). Paved surfaces are pitched to carry stormwater toward the drain inlets that are located at low points. In some areas, stormwater inlets are located in the railroad tracks which may have storm drain vaults or pipes underneath the tracks.


Recommended Preserve the historic character of the unobstructed overhead

plane at Fort Mason Center by keeping existing and new systems and distribution lines underground whenever possible. The historic signifi cance of these systems is based upon their “unseen” quality, rather than their physical components. System components should be repaired, rerouted, or replaced as necessary to meet energy effi ciency goals.

Utilities

Above-ground utility service cabinets are typically located in parking lots, near buildings, and protected by bollards (XxxPhoto, 2009).

Inlets provide for storm water drainage from the hardscaped site (XxxPhoto, 2009).

70


Preserve and maintain historic above-ground utility features, such as fi re hydrants and manhole covers bearing military insignia, designations, and decorations.

Consider removing, replacing or screening the non-historical electrical transformer south of Landmark Building A (Building 308). If it is unnecessary, demolition is preferred. If it is active, consider locating underground or relocating it to a less prominent area. If removal is not an option, consider screening the transformer.

Locate replacement or new utility features and systems underground or indoors, where possible. When necessary, utility systems and features may be located outside, as the presence of exposed equipment is compatible with the industrial maritime character of the site. Equipment should be placed as orderly as possible, as would have been done under the military’s use of the site; located so as not to obscure character-defi ning features; and painted an unobtrusive color.

Use bollards to protect or separate exterior utility equipment from adjacent pedestrian and vehicular uses. Should the large electrical transformer remain in place, a site wall may be utilized to reduce its impact on the Entry Gate area and improve the visitor experience. Such a site wall shall be designed to be compatible with the historic character of the entry areas, yet be clearly distinguishable as a new addition to the site. It may also serve as an appropriate mounting location for site orientation and interpretive signage.

Utilities

Historic above-ground utility features, such as fi re hydrants shall be retained

(XxxPhoto, 2009).

If new utility features are placed outdoors, they shall be placed as orderly

as possible and painted an unobtrusive color (XxxPhoto, 2009).

71


Not Recommended Installing grade-level or overhead utility supply lines.

Failing to undertake preventative maintenance for historic utility features, resulting in their damage or loss.

Emphasizing non-historic utility features by prominent placement or use of bright, contrasting colors.

Using fences or opaque walls to protect exterior utility equipment, other than the large electrical transformer.

Energy generating wind turbines under consideration for the site are discussed in Section VI Treatment Application for Future Projects.

Utilities

72


SMALL SCALE FEATURES: LIGHTING

Analysis and EvaluationDuring the period of signifi cance, both building-mounted and free-standing fi xtures were used to provide exterior site lighting. The entry gate lighting and the light poles throughout the site had a decorative quality, while other building-mounted light fi xtures appear to have had a more industrial, utilitarian quality. Historic photographs show a variety of fi xture types, including:

Free-standing light poles along the waterfront and pier aprons. At least two types of poles were used, including: 1) a straight pole with a decorative base and small up-facing globe at the top; and 2) a straight pole with a decorative base, gooseneck, metal shade refl ector, and down-facing globe.

Decorative wall-mounted sconces with glass globes at the west side of the Entry Gate.

Small, industrial sconces fl anking the entries of the pier sheds and Building 309 and at the service corridor elevations between Landmark Buildings B and C (Buildings 310 and 312) and between Landmark Buildings D and E (Buildings 314 and 315). The exact design is diffi cult to discern; however they appear to be jelly jar sconces with steel wire guards.

Large, wall-mounted fl ood lights at the temporary, wood-framed warehouses (now demolished).

Additional lighting was likely provided at other locations, such as at the storehouse building canopies; however, no documentary evidence has been located regarding fi xture types or location.

There are presently a variety of light fi xtures on the site, although few of them date to the period of signifi cance. Several decorative light poles, manufactured by the Union Metallic Lamp Company and dating to 1935, are located at the base of the Northwest Embankment.40 These have plastic replacement globes which are non-historic and larger than those found on the original fi xtures.

Lighting

Historic light fi xtures on the site included decorative wall-mounted sconces with

glass globes at the west side of the Entry Gate (Appendix B, Image 43).

The decorative light poles at the Northwest Embankment date to the period of signifi cance; however, the

globes are later replacements (XxxPhoto, 2009).

73


The same type of pole occurred at the waterfront apron. Other fi xtures that may date to the period of signifi cance include the industrial “jelly jar” fi xtures with steel wire guards at Landmark Building E (Building 315) and the small light fi xtures with metal shades at the other storehouse building canopies. Contemporary light poles and wall-mounted fi xtures of varying styles have been installed across the site. While the simple, utilitarian design of these fi xtures is consistent with the maritime industrial character of the site, the lack of design consistency among fi xture types is not. Certain areas of the site, such as the pier aprons, are not well-illuminated.


Recommended Implement a comprehensive lighting plan for the entire site.

The lighting plan shall strive to provide light fi xtures of a uniform or cohesive design vocabulary and to provide even light levels across the site.

Preserve and maintain remaining historic fi xtures. Replace non-historic globes at historic light poles with globes that are more compatible in terms of scale and style.

Select new light fi xtures that replicate historic fi xtures where they existed historically; at non-historic locations provide fi xtures compatible in terms of scale, materials, color, and style. Replicated fi xtures should be date-stamped for differentiation from original fi xtures.

The placement of new light fi xtures shall be based on historical locations and mounting confi gurations. For example, a series of light poles were located along the waterfront bulkhead apron, but not along the pier aprons. At buildings, wall sconces were installed at uniform height and pattern between window and door openings. Historic lighting locations may need to be supplemented to provide adequate lighting levels for the present use of the site. New lighting at the piers should be mounted to the shed walls.

Lighting

Contemporary light poles have been installed throughout the parking lot (XxxPhoto, 2009).

These small industrial-type fi xtures, placed at a uniform height and spaced evenly across the facades, are appropriate for the site (XxxPhoto, 2009).

74


Specify energy effi cient lamps for light fi xtures with a color and presence similar to the historic incandescent lamps.

Balance the need for reproducing unshaded historic fi xtures with NPS’ protocols regarding environmental concerns and energy conservation, specifi cally night time sky protection. Exact replication may not be possible for fi xtures with large uplight component.

Conceal associated conduit and junction boxes to the extent feasible. When surface mounted conduit or junction boxes are necessary, minimize their appearance by painting them to match adjacent fi nishes.

Not Recommended Removing extant historic light fi xtures.

Installing decorative light fi xtures where they did not appear historically, such as at building walls or under steel canopies.

Lighting

Exposed lighting conduit and junction boxes shall be concealed to the extent

feasible (XxxPhoto, 2009).

Building-mounted light sconces, such as these at the Port of San Francisco’s

Pier 1, are an appropriate solution for providing supplemental lighting at the pier

aprons (XxxPhoto, 2009).

75


SMALL SCALE FEATURES: SITE FURNISHINGS AND EQUIPMENT

Analysis and EvaluationDuring the period of signifi cance, site furnishings at the active port were necessarily limited to those items that were functionally necessary. Site furnishings and equipment relate directly to the past and present use of the site. Historically, the site equipment included marine related equipment, such as warning bells, mooring bollards, cleats, davits, and hoists; and land circulation equipment, such as traffi c bollards and a wooden platform scale near the now demolished Scale House. Yet other site equipment was related to security needs, such as chain link fences along the top of the retaining walls. Few other types of site furnishings are visible in historic photographs. When Pier 2 was retrofi tted in 2004, most remaining historic site equipment was removed from the pier apron with the exception of the mooring bollards.

Presently, many of the historic marine furnishings remain in place, although the davits and hoists are in poor condition, exhibiting severe corrosion. Since the site’s conversion to a multi-use arts center, a variety of new site furnishings have been installed, primarily for the comfort and use of Fort Mason Center tenants and visitors. Current non-contributing site furnishings include:

• Parking Management Gates and Ticket Machines

Parking management controls have recently been added to the site. Two automated entry gates and three automated exit gates, along with ticket and credit card machines, signage, and a parking attendant’s booth have been constructed to the east side of the Entry Gate and Wall. The equipment is placed on concrete islands that often obscures the historic railroad tracks and obstructs view from west, the historic approach.

• Marine and Traffi c Bollards

Historic cast iron mooring bollards remain at the northern waterfront bulkhead and pier aprons. Although traffi c control bollards were present on the site during the period of signifi cance, they have proliferated in location, number, and

Site Furnishings and Equipment

Historic cast iron mooring bollard at a pier apron (XxxPhoto, 2009).

Historic marine hardware, such as davits and hoists, remains (XxxPhoto, 2009).

76


variety. Large concrete bollards, painted and unpainted thin steel bollards, round wood bollards, and temporary plastic bollards are all used on the site, with combinations of bollard types often used in a single location.

• Benches and Picnic Tables

Movable steel and wood picnic tables and fi xed steel and wood benches, both complying with NPS “Parkwide Site Furnishings Standards” for Historic Posts are located at various points across the site. Although movable, picnic tables are typically concentrated in three locations: the pedestrian “plaza” at the south end of Landmark Building A, Building 308; a strip of land along the south end of the Landmark Buildings B - D (Buildings 310, 312, and 314, respectively); and near the Firehouse. Benches are primarily located along the concrete apron at the waterfront bulkhead, following historic patterns for mounting equipment in these locations.

• Bicycle Racks

Bicycle racks of varying styles exist on the site, including unpainted galvanized steel bike rails and red-painted bent tube bike racks. Bike racks are typically positioned near building entries, ramps, or stairs.

• Trash Containers

Black, vertical strap round steel trash containers, complying with NPS “Parkwide Site Furnishings Standards” for Historic Posts, are most commonly used on the site. The trash cans’ simple utilitarian design is appropriate for the site, and their dark color minimizes their visibility on the asphalt-paved areas. The older, hexagonal concrete trash cans have been phased out, but some still remain at the piers and behind the Firehouse. Large, angular green metal recycling containers are also present on the site. Their design is not compatible with the current steel trash containers. Larger dumpsters are located in the service area south of Pier 1, in the service corridors between Landmark Buildings B and C (Buildings 310 and 312) and Landmark Buildings D and E (Buildings 314


Typical bicycle rack (XxxPhoto, 2009).

Benches mounted along the concrete apron at the waterfront bulkhead

(XxxPhoto, 2009).

A variety of bollards are used on the site, including these unpainted concrete traffi c

bollards (XxxPhoto, 2009).

77


and 315), and along the base of the retaining wall, near the Firehouse. In the near future, improved systems for recycling and composting will require exterior triple bin trash receptacles for sorting recyclables and compost to meet the standards expected of the Fort Mason Center.

• Publication News Racks and Mailboxes

A number of small publication news racks, distributing Fort Mason Center monthly activity calendar, are spread across the site, often adjacent to building entries. Three U.S. Postal Service mailboxes are grouped together at the east elevation of Landmark Building A, Building 308.

• Fences and Railings

A chain link fence remains at the top of the western retaining wall. Chain link fences have also been installed at the south side of the pier aprons and at the Pier 1 maintenance yard.

A simple galvanized steel pipe rail provides protection at the site’s bulkhead and pier edges but may not meet code requirements. In most cases, the railing is set back from the edge behind the large wood bulkhead/pier edge cap. Most of the wood cap is in poor condition.

• Portable Toilets

A portable toilet has been placed on a concrete traffi c island at the southwest outside corner of the retaining wall. Although it may have been intended as a temporary installation, it has been in place for some time.

The overall effect of these various site furnishings, of unrelated and varying designs and haphazard placement, did not exist during the military’s ownership of the site. Over time, accumulated furnishings have contributed to an increased sense of clutter on the site. The sense of disorganized clutter is not consistent with the military use of the site.


Typical publication rack (XxxPhoto, 2009).

Typical trash and recycling containers (XxxPhoto, 2009).

78



Recommended Preserve and maintain historic site furnishings, such as the

mooring bollards.

If possible, locate and reinstall historic furnishings and equipment on Pier 2.

Coordinate with the City of San Francisco Department of Parks and Recreation to move new parking control gates west onto City-owned land, out of the immediate proximity of the historic Entry Gate to preserve the historic entry experience and to restore views of site from western land approach.

Implement a comprehensive site furnishings study and plan, with a goal of removing unnecessary site furnishings, consolidating furnishings types and locations, and implementing cohesive and consistent design standards for all furnishings.

Contemporary site furnishings shall be placed in a manner that is compatible with the historic site. To the extent feasible, limit the locations of new site furnishings to historic placements, such as the concrete apron at the northern waterfront. When placing site furnishings in non-historic locations, follow historic patterns of orderly, evenly-space arrangement of features.

New site furnishings should comply with the GGNRA “Parkwide Site Furnishings Standards,” or refl ect the understated character of furnishings described in those standards. Deviation from the standards may be possible, to allow for reuse and incorporation of materials and elements historically found along the water’s edge, such as timber bull rails, crates, barrels, sacs, etc.

Limit the number of bollards used and attempt to use similar fi nish for wood, metal and concrete bollards.


Warning bell on Pier 2 is an Outdoor Exploratorium exhibit that mimics historic

marine hardware (XxxPhoto, 2009).

On site picnic table complies with GGNRA “Parkwide Site Furnishing

Standards” (XxxPhoto, 2009).

79


Where feasible, remove chain link fences to provide unencumbered access to the entire northern waterfront. The historic chain link fence at the top of the western retaining wall shall remain in place.

Use a consistent design for railings throughout the site. Railings shall be of a utilitarian design that refl ects the site’s maritime industrial character and maximizes transparency. Where feasible, reconstruct steel pipe railings with heavy ball type connections, as shown on historic drawings. Other contemporary but appropriate designs for railings and edge protection include, but are not limited to: the painted steel and cable railings at the Landmark Buildings B-E (Buildings 310, 312, 314 and 315, respectively) loading docks; unpainted, galvanized steel pipe rails currently installed at Pier 2; steel chains strung between waterfront mooring bollards; and low timber bull rails.

The installation of portable toilets shall be limited to construction periods or special events, and they shall be removed at the conclusion of such events. If additional, permanent toilet facilities are required, locate them in existing buildings to the extent feasible. Otherwise, construct new toilet permanent toilet facilities on sites where buildings that existed during the period of signifi cance have been removed.

Not Recommended Signifi cantly altering or removing historic site furnishings and

equipment.

Installing new site furnishings of a decorative nature which are incompatible with the historic marine industrial quality of the site.


Unpainted galvanized steel railings or painted steel and cable railings are appropriate to the site’s marine industrial character (XxxPhotos, 2009).

80


SMALL SCALE FEATURES: SIGNAGE

Analysis and EvaluationHistorically, and throughout the period of military use, the site was spare in terms of signage. Types of signage currently found on site include informational, regulatory, interpretive, and tenant signage and assist in wayfi nding. Recognition of wayfi nding challenges at FMC and efforts to solve them have been a consideration for some time, though the problem persists. Inadequate wayfi nding signage diminishes the visitor experience. The lack of adequate signage, clearly defi ned pedestrian paths, other wayfi nding cues, and blocked views of the water makes visiting Fort Mason a disorienting experience for fi rst time users. Confusion between the Upper and Lower Fort Mason persists.

Efforts have been made to alleviate the problem. Still, design consistency could be improved. A Wayfi nding and Signage Program for FMC prepared by Biesek Design in 2002 focuses on wayfi nding and signage, parking, and public access to the waterfront. It contains circulation and safety recommendations. The study found the existing entrance area and parking lot of FMC should be improved through better signage/wayfi nding, roadway and parking lot marking and channelization, and lighting. These improvements should be designed to effi ciently serve transit vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons with disabilities. The study looked at improved signage along entrance roads and a potential banner row along segments of Laguna Street and Marina Boulevard. In addition, the program considered options for internal signage, including signs differentiating the four parking lots to help visitors remember where they parked.

Another long held concern of FMC is the need to improve identity. A successful recommendation of the report that has been implemented was to include a large painted sign on the side of Pier 1 identifying the Fort Mason Center from points west and from the bay.

The current signage program, both for affi xed and painted signs, is not as successful as it could be. A variation of fonts remains. Building entrances are not always marked in a clear manner.

Signage

The number and variety of signs on the site is not consistent with its historic

character and can be confusing for FMC visitors (XxxPhoto, 2009).

81


Signage complying with the NPS/GGNRA Guidelines is located across the site. New signage should comply with the NPS/GGNRA “Signage and Graphics Guidelines,” or refl ect the character described in those standards. A program of NPS-wide sign guidelines referred to as the Hunt Design for Signage is in the process of being adopted. Deviation from these guidelines will require NPS review.

Historic Historic signs on site include building and room numbers installed by the military.

Informational

Building entrances are not always marked in a clear manner. The painted Fort Mason Center sign on the long west elevation of Pier 1 is highly visible. The font type and size are appropriate for this specifi c location and function.

Regulatory

Directional and regulatory signage includes stop signs, traffi c safety signs, no parking signs which have proliferated during the site’s use as a multi-use arts center. Directional and regulatory signage of this type includes contemporary fi xtures and would be considered non-contributing. In 1990, NPS undertook an inventory of signage at the Fort Mason Center. Compared to the fi ndings of the survey, there appear to be more directional and regulatory signs at Fort Mason than in 1990.

Interpretive

Interpretation signage is the responsibility of the National Park Service. Note that interpretive signage is discussed in the Small Scale Features: Art and Interpretive Installations section.

Tenant Signage

Tenant signage installed during the 1970s and 1980s during the conversion to a multi-use arts center, hangs below canopies and is appropriately scaled. The scale of tenant signage is small and nonintrusive. The tenant signage is consistent in terms of size, material (wood), and below-canopy location. This type of signage is non-contributing.

Signage

Tenant signage is small, unobstrusive, and consistently placed along building facades (XxxPhoto, 2009).

A variety of fonts are used for identifi cation signage painted on buildings; using a consistent font would be more historically appropriate (XxxPhotos, 2009).

82



Recommended• Retain historic building and room numbers signs installed by

the military.

• New signage should be distinguishable from the military’s historic signage.

• Sign material should be consistent with signage materials found on site metal glass, industrial in nature.

• Design consistency, visually and in terms of materials, style and type, is a priority.

• Utilize the proposed NPS nationwide signage guidelines, the Hunt Design for Signage, once they are in place.

• Specifi c improvements to FMC, including painting signs on the outside of buildings, must comply with the site’s status as a National Historic Landmark District.

• Restrooms signage should be a component of a signage and wayfi nding program.

• Installation of temporary banners is appropriate and has historic precedent in the military period.

Not Recommended• Permanent banners should not be installed. The HSR notes

that previous Section 106 compliance decisions have ruled out the installation of permanent banners.

• Installing new signage of a decorative nature which is incompatible with the historic marine industrial quality of the site.

Signage

Over time painted identifi cation signage, in a variety of fonts, has been added

and removed from the storehouse building walls (Appendix B, Image 72 and

Xxxphoto, 2009).

83


SMALL SCALE FEATURES: ART AND INTERPRETIVE INSTALLATIONS

Analysis and EvaluationArtworks or interpretive installations are not associated with the period of signifi cance. Since military use of the site ended in 1962, a number of interpretive pieces have been introduced to the site. The National Park Service has installed multiple interpretive panels across the site, which are discussed in greater detail in the Small Scale Features: Signage section.

A fi gurative sculpture by artist Benjamin Bufano was installed near the retaining wall at the southern end of the yard at an unknown date. It was relocated to Upper Fort Mason when the Lower Fort Mason parking lot was repaved in 1991.

In 1975, a fragment of an 1891 packet ship, the Galilee, was brought from Sausalito to Lower Fort Mason.41 The Galilee was a 180-foot brigantine built at the Matthew Turner Shipyard in Benicia in 1891. Considered to be the most beautiful of all 228 ships built by the innovative Turner, the Galilee is associated with the Carnegie Oceanic Magnetic Survey party from 1905-1911. Later converted to a three-masted schooner and used in the fi shing industry, the Galilee was beached at the foot of Second Street in Sausalito from 1933-1975 where it deteriorated. In 1975, the stern was brought to Fort Mason.42 The stern of the ship is presently located at the base of the Northwest Embankment retaining wall, near the Firehouse. The effort to preserve the stern of the Galilee at Fort Mason was no doubt well intentioned; however, the artifact is now in a fragile condition. The ship’s presence is confusing, as it is not well-interpreted and predates the construction of Lower Fort Mason. The Benicia Historical Museum retains the ship’s bow.

The Exploratorium Museum of Science, Art and Human Perception is in the process of installing twenty exterior exhibits at Fort Mason Center, which will be part of a larger on-going exhibit at Fort Mason, entitled The Outdoor Exploratorium. These exhibits will explore the natural phenomena of the immediate environment, including water, wind, sound, and light.43 Although there is no historic precedent for on-site exhibits,

Art and Interpretive Installations

A fragment of an 1891 packet ship, the Galilee, is located along the base of the Northwest Embankment retaining wall (XxxPhoto, 2009).

The Outdoor Exploratorium exhibits at Fort Mason Center, such as this one mounted to the railing at Pier 2, explore the natural phenomena of the immediate environment (XxxPhoto, 2009).

84


they meet the current mission and management goals / philosophy for the current use of Fort Mason Center; many of them draw attention to the site’s natural and historic resources. The materials used for the exhibits, such as steel, cables, and glass, are compatible with the marine industrial character of the site. The mounting details, size, massing, and siting of the exhibits do not interfere with historic materials, features, or spatial relationships on the site.

Currently moored at Pier 45, the Liberty Ship Jeremiah O’Brien was docked at Fort Mason’s Pier 3 in the past. Dating from the World War II period, this historic ship would be an appropriate addition to the landscape of Fort Mason, serving as a visual reminder of the site’s important maritime history and function.

Art and interpretive displays are needed to interpret the site but can clutter and detract from the historic character of the site.


Recommended Remove art and interpretive installations that are unrelated to

the historical signifi cance or the management philosophy and goals for the site.

In keeping with Fort Mason Center and GGNRA preferences, encourage the San Francisco Maritime Historic Park to fi nd a more suitable location for the stern of the Galilee.

Maintain current exhibits that interpret the site’s historical signifi cance or meet current management goals, such as the NPS and Outdoor Exploratorium exhibits. The physical components of these exhibits are not considered historically signifi cant, and may be redesigned or reconfi gured as necessary.


NPS exhibits interpret the history of the site (XxxPhotos, 2009).

85


Consider with care the design and installation of new exhibits that interpret the history of the site. Such exhibits shall be directly related to the signifi cance of the Port of Embarkation, incorporating objects that were previously located on the site or other contemporary sites of similar use. New exhibits should not crowd the site.

To avoid clutter other methods of site interpretation should be investigated and incorporated where ever possible. They could include podcasts, website information, handouts and interpretive presentations.

Historic ships that may have been associated with Fort Mason such the Liberty Ship Jeremiah O’Brien can contribute greatly to the historic character and understanding of the site’s history.

For interpretation purposes, consider the installation of a

historic rail car or historic steam engine that once operated on the site. Investigate potential relocation of such artifact from other less appropriate sites in San Francisco.

Consider other types of exhibits that comply with management goals for the site or are representative of the current use of the site as a multi-use arts center.

Exhibits shall be constructed using durable materials that are compatible with the marine industrial character of the site and shall be designed so as not to destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. All exhibits should be designed and installed to be easily removable.

Consider preparing an interpretive plan for the site, to improve the overall quality of the interpretation.


The Outdoor Exploratorium exhibits at Fort Mason Center are constructed of durable materials that are compatible with the marine industrial character of the site (XxxPhoto, 2009).

86


Not Recommended Installing temporary or permanent art or interpretive exhibits

that destroy historic materials, features, or spatial relationships.

Installing permanent art or interpretive exhibits that are unrelated to the site’s historical signifi cance, management goals, or current use.

Failing to provide adequate interpretive information to understand an installation.


Garages and work shops were built along the base of the retainingwall at the eastern edge of the yard.“Machine Shop.” National Archives, RG 77, Offi ce of the Chief ofEngineers, Construction Completion Reports E 393, Box 139, April 19, 1922.

The construction of new small-scale utilitarian structures may be considered for carefully selected sites of previously

demolished buildings.

Remove interpretive installations unrelated to the site’s historical

signifi cance.

Consider relocation of maintenance and service uses to the base of the eastern retaining wall.

Small Scale Features: Art and Interpretive Installations Treatment Recommendations

87


VI. TREATMENT APPLICATION

Description of Proposed ProjectsIn 2004, the Fort Mason Foundation entered into new long-term (60 year) lease arrangement with the National Park Service for the use of the Fort Mason Center. The lease identifi es a number of projects to be implemented when funding becomes available. These projects include: Restoration and rehabilitation of the Pier 2 substructure

(completed)

Restoration and rehabilitation of the Pier 2 shed

Seismic retrofi t and structural repair of the substructures of Piers 1 and 3

Rehabilitation of Pier 1 shed

Seismic retrofi t of Buildings A through D, the Gatehouse, and the Guardhouse

Implementation of new facilities standards for interior and exterior improvements

Utility infrastructure upgrading

Implementation of parking management (completed)

Ongoing upgrading of venues and resident spaces

The lease also allows for a number of routine maintenance and interior tenant improvement projects. In addition to the projects identifi ed in the lease, a various other projects are proposed within the boundaries of Fort Mason Center, or in its immediate vicinity. All proposed projects will be evaluated through established review processes at the appropriate time. These projects are discussed in the following section and include: Extension of the San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI)

historic streetcar line to the historic West Portal, located between Fort Mason Center and the Great Meadow in Upper Fort Mason.

Treatment Applications

The rehabilitation of the Pier 1 shed is one of the projects identifi ed in the long-term lease arrangement (XxxPhoto, 2009).

The parking management project has already been implemented (XxxPhoto, 2009).

88


Ferry, water taxi service, and / or kayak and small personal watercraft launch areas in Slips 1 and 2.

Construction of a new boardwalk, skirting the North Cliff, to connect the Municipal Pier and Pier 4 to the east with the Fort Mason Center.

Sustainability Initiatives.

Repairs to exterior surfaces (walls, windows, doors) of Building E, a stimulus project.

Seismic retrofi t of Building E.

The Fort Mason Center has been the subject of various studies and proposals. Most recently, a December 2008 project carried out by planning students at the UC Berkeley College of Environmental Design titled The California Center for a Sustainable Future at Fort

Mason’s Pier One, provides a detailed study for the reuse of Pier 1. This planning study makes a number of excellent observations and recommendations for circulation improvements and visitor amenities on the site. The study fi nds that too much space is devoted to vehicle circulation and an ineffi cient parking layout is problematic. Overall this results in an overemphasis on the importance of vehicles and downplays the pedestrian experience. The recommendations which [consultant] fi nds should be considered for implementation are:

Create a waterfront zone along the northern seawall between Piers 1 and 3 that is more favorable to pedestrians than vehicles, but where both can co-exist.

Convert vehicular circulation from a two-way direction to a one-way direction around the perimeter of the site.

Establish and reinforce a hierarchy of pedestrian circulation based on four key pathways to distinguish walking corridors from vehicular traffi c.

Treatment Applications

Landmark Building E is scheduled for a seismic retrofi t (XxxPhoto, 2009).

Previous planning studies for FMC have recommended the creation of a waterfront

zone that is more pedestrian friendly (XxxPhoto, 2009).

89


Activate three key spaces for public gathering: the main entry area at the south end of Landmark Building A, Building 308; the space between the southern end of Pier 1 and the northern end of Landmark Building A, Building 308; and, the space in front of Pier 2’s Herbst Pavilion façade. Modifi cation of this space has a twofold purpose: to calm traffi c and to defi ne a pedestrian “plaza.”

Create a subtle traffi c calming diversion in front of Pier 2.

The site circulation improvements proposed in UC Berkeley student study are consistent with the philosophy and goals set forth in this document. The proposed pedestrian routes do not alter historic circulation features yet improve effi ciency and order on the site in the spirit of the original dictates associated with a military installation. The circulation improvements achieve FMC goals for enhancing the visitor experience.

Treatment Application for Future Projects

Proposed Extension of Historic Streetcar Line This proposal reactivates the historic use of the western portal and the rail tunnel below Fort Mason. As the terminus of a popular rail line, this proposed project will result in increased visibility for the Fort Mason Center, exposure to the casual visitor, better transportation service, and improved wayfi nding to the site. Currently, two alternatives are under consideration:

A. In this alternative, the train turnaround would be provided within the southern yard of the Fort Mason Center, the east of the Entry Gate. An opening would be cut in the retaining wall to permit the train to enter the campus at the southern yard. New rail tracks and boarding platforms would be constructed in the southern yard.

B. In the second alternative, the train turnaround would be entirely accommodated in the Great Meadow outside of the Fort Mason Center boundaries. The existing south side of the tunnel retaining wall would be removed.

Treatment Application

The proposed extension of the historic streetcar line would run through the historic tunnel to the west of the site (XxxPhoto, 2009).

Previous planning studies for FMC have recommended the creation of a public gathering space in front of Pier 2 (XxxPhoto, 2009).

90


Both alternatives offer benefi ts. Both have aspects that are consistent and inconsistent with treatment philosophy for the FMC landscape discussed in this document.

Option A Consistencies with Treatment Philosophy

Reintroduces historic rail use through the tunnel and within the boundaries of FMC.

Intensifi es public access, increasing pedestrian activity in Lower Fort Mason and arrival via public transportation.

Improves the visitor experience.

Option A Inconsistencies with Treatment Philosophy

Introduces another “access” point to Lower Fort Mason, diminishing one of its signifi cant features as a historic military site – controlled access. If, in the future, the line is extended further to the west, reconfi guring the historic rail tracks so that trains arrive at the site along historic circulation routes and through the Entry Gate would be preferable.

Alters a contributing landscape feature – the retaining wall. The wall would be altered at a point lower than its highest point, which is preferable than at another more focal location.

May aggravate existing pedestrian and vehicle confusion and orientation near historic entry point.

As currently designed, the proposed rail tracks do not follow historic patterns, and in some cases interrupt the historic rail track system. If this option is pursued, it is strongly recommended that the alignment of the proposed rail tracks be redesigned, so historic rail circulation routes are left intact and emphasized as having primary signifi cance. Reusing the historic rail alignments should be considered if the track gauges are the same. If not, new track layouts should be designed to minimize the loss of historic rail tracks.


Under Option A, a new opening in the historic retaining wall may be proposed to allow the rail line extension to turn around

in the southern yard of FMC (XxxPhoto, 2009).

91


New construction such as platforms, waiting areas, and operators’ restrooms should be designed following guidelines in this report. Consider accommodating operator’s restroom in an existing building rather than constructing dedicated new building.

Option B Consistencies with Treatment Philosophy

Reintroduces historic rail use through the tunnel.

Major alterations occur within the Great Meadow, an area much altered in the past.

Little impact to above-ground historic resources.

Option B Inconsistencies with Treatment Philosophy

Does not reintroduce historic rail use within the boundaries of FMC.

Does not result in the same increased foot traffi c to FMC.

Proposed Water Services and Recreation OpportunitiesA proposal to establish ferry and water taxi service and small personal watercraft launch areas in Slips 1 and 2 reestablishes a direct connection with and access to the water. This proposal offers the opportunity for the reuse of existing buildings if support structures are required. If new support structures are required, they should be designed with appropriate new materials of an industrial quality or as structures which sit lightly on the site with a transparent quality. The use of wood as a building material would also be appropriate as historically, many temporary structures at Lower Fort Mason were made of wood. Refer to Water’s Edge and Buildings and Structures sections for more detailed guidelines about new construction siting and design.


Under Option B, the train turn around would be entirely accommodated in the Great Meadow outside of the Fort Mason Center boundaries (XxxPhoto, 2009).

If small personal watercraft launch areas are provided at FMC, any new support structures should be designed of materials having an industrial, durable quality such as this Pier 40 structure (XxxPhoto, 2009).

92


Proposed Boardwalk to Connect East and West Fort Mason at Water LevelA proposal to construct a new boardwalk that wraps the North Cliff at the water level and connects the Municipal Pier and Pier 4 to the east with the Fort Mason Center has been considered. The connection should be designed to be lightweight, perhaps of wood construction, and should read as a contemporary intervention. The project could result in the removal of sections of non-historic guardrail which is a later modifi cation and not a contributing landscape feature.

Consistencies with Treatment Philosophy

Activates the area around the Firehouse, which is considered by some to be a dead zone.

Improves public access, especially for pedestrians.

Recalls a historic feature, the fl ume, which followed the perimeter of the North Cliff at the water level. The precedent exists for a boardwalk-like construction around the point.

Limited impact to cultural resources.

Potentially little impact to natural resources.

Inconsistencies with Treatment Philosophy

Introduces a new entry point to the former military base that historically had one controlled point of entry, diminishing the historic, sealed quality of a secure site.

Diminishes the natural quality of the North Cliff.

Sustainability InitiativesSustainability initiatives at the Fort Mason Center will happen over time and should be carried out in the most sensitive way, balancing historic preservation and sustainable goals. Sustainability initiatives include the following components:


The fl ume, which once followed the perimeter of the North Cliff, sets a

loose precedent for a board-walk like construction around the point


93


Wind TurbinesCurrently under consideration is a proposal to locate wind turbines at the Fort Mason Center. A report titled “Fort Mason Center On-Site Renewable Energy Generation Study,” dated 23 January 2009 by Integrated Design Associates Inc. examines different turbine tower heights and propeller type options (helical versus straight propellers) for the site. The proposed locations for a series of seven turbines include the north ends of the piers and the southern perimeter of the yard, along the retaining wall. Taller towers provide for increased energy generation. Noise levels, bird mortality, and visual impacts are factors. In accordance with the focus of this document, the following points are focused on historic resources.

Consistencies with Treatment Philosophy

Meets or exceeds the goals of NPS sustainability initiatives for the site.

Consistent with SHPO initiative on greening historic buildings.

Materials and use are consistent with industrial nature of site.

Wind turbines proposed for the north ends of the piers are appropriate in scale and are visually sympathetic to other elements historically found at the a working waterfront, such as tall ship masts, fl agpoles, etc.

Locating wind turbines in the south yard is consistent with the historic precedent and siting of above-ground utilities before they were put underground in the 1930s.

Should the wind turbines be implemented fi nishes should be as non-refl ective as possible. The helical type or smaller spanning propellers are preferred for scale.

Inconsistencies with Treatment Philosophy

Wind turbines may confl ict with viewshed management from Upper Fort Mason as outlined in the CLR Part I.


The installation of wind turbines, placed at the north ends of the piers, is currently under consideration (XxxPhoto, 2009).

94


Wind turbines may confl ict with unobstructed overhead plane, a historic condition. As explained in Section V, the overhead plane was free of utility poles, wires, and transformers when lines were moved underground in subsurface conduits in the 1930s.

Wind turbines may aggravate an existing perceived problem of large-scale features on the site that are not humanly scaled and contribute to an unwelcoming environment.

Wind turbines may alter the site’s audio and visual experience.

PhotovoltaicsThe Integrated Design Associates Inc. report also examined installation of a solar photovoltaic (PV) system using modules or laminates, a thin fi lm application, on the roofs of the pier sheds. Photovoltaics are proposed for the eastern slope of the Pier 1 roof, both slopes of the Pier 2 roof, and the western slope of the Pier 3 roof to manage viewshed concerns. Installing panels on the tile roofs of Landmark Buildings A – E (Buildings 308, 310, 312, 314 and 315, respectively) has been ruled out because of impacts to historic resources and because the area of the pier roofs is more than suffi cient for the energy needs of the site. Color options are being studied.

Consistencies with Treatment Philosophy:

Placement of photovoltaic panels limits visibility from outside the site.

Thin fi lm application would better follow the existing roof profi les.

A custom-colored red panel in keeping with the roof color would be preferred. If not possible, select a color that results in the least amount of contrast with the red roll roofi ng.

Inconsistencies with Treatment Philosophy:

Photovoltaic panels will be visible from within the site, from Upper Fort Mason and from other sites throughout the City and from the water.


One of the sites contemplated for the installation of a photovoltaic system is

the western slope of the Pier 3 roof sites( Xxxphoto, 2009).

95


VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS, ARTICLES, REPORTS, AND GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS

Aguilar, Antonio. Interpreting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, Number 16: New Infi ll for Historic Loading Door Openings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, September 2000.

[Deleted]. “San Francisco Port of Embarkation, Historic Structures Report.” February 1991.

Birnbaum, Charles A. and Christine C. Peters. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services. 1996.

Birnbaum, Charles A. Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes, Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, 1994.

Brennan, Alex, Eric Coppin, Aditya Potluri, Nadia Shihab, and Jenny Wyant. “The California Center for a Sustainable Future at Fort Mason’s Pier One.” Completed for Course CP 238, University of California at Berkeley, College of Environmental Design, Fall 2008.

Christopher, R. Patrick and Erwin N. Thompson. Historic Structure Report, Western Grounds, Old Parade Ground and McArthur Avenue, Fort Mason, Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Denver, Colorado: Denver Service Center, Branch of Historic Preservation, National Park Service, 1980.

Cultural Landscapes Inventory (CLI) Professional Procedures Guide. Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 2001.

EIP Associates and Wilber Smith Associates. “Fort Mason Center Long-term Lease Environmental Assessment.” Prepared for Fort Mason Foundation and National Park Service, August 2003.

Hensley, JoEllen. Interpreting The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, Number 15: Treatment of Interiors in Industrial Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. September 2000.

Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation. “Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Mason Golden Gate National Recreational Area. Volume One: Site History, Existing Conditions and Analysis.” September 2004.

National Park Service. “Cultural Landscapes Inventory: Fort Mason Historic District, Golden Gate National Recreation Area.” 2004.

National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area. “Finding of No Signifi cant Impact, Fort Mason Center Long-term Lease.” March 2004.

National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Division of Planning and Technical Services and Golden Gate National Parks Association, Park Projects Offi ce. “Parkwide Site Furnishings Standards.” November 2002.

Bibliogrpahy

96


Page, Robert R., Cathy A. Gilbert, and Susan A. Dolan. A Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, Process, and Techniques. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1998.

“San Francisco Port of Embarkation National Historic Landmark Nomination.” 1985.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center. “Golden Gate Point Reyes General Management Plan Environmental Analysis.” 1980.

Weeks, Kay D., and Anne E. Grimmer. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services, 1995.

REPOSITORIESGolden Gate National Recreation Area, Park Archives and Record Center.

J. Porter Shaw Library, San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, Building E, Fort Mason Center.

Bibliography

97


VIII. ENDNOTES

1 Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, “Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Mason Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Volume One: Site History, Existing Conditions and Analysis” (September 2004) 77.

2 Olmsted Center 78.3 “San Francisco Port of Embarkation National Historic Landmark Nomination” (1985) 2.4 Olmsted Center 159.5 National Park Service, “Cultural Landscapes Inventory: Fort Mason Historic District, Golden Gate National Recreation

Area” (2004) Part 1, 20. 6 National Park Service, “Cultural Landscapes Inventory” Part 1, 4.7 National Park Service, “Cultural Landscapes Inventory” Part 1, 18. Quote taken from”San Francisco Port of

Embarkation National Historic Landmark Nomination.”8 Olmsted Center 5.9 Olmsted Center 82.10 Olmsted Center 82.11 National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, “Finding of No Signifi cant Impact, Fort Mason Center

Long-term Lease” (March 2004) 5.12 Charles A. Birnbaum and Christine C. Peters, “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic

Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes” (Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services. 1996).

13 [Deleted], “San Francisco Port of Embarkation, Historic Structures Report” (February 1991) 33.14 [Deleted] 1.15 Olmsted Center 182-183.16 [Deleted] 12.17 Olmsted Center 102.18 Olmsted Center 213.19 Olmsted Center 139.20 Olmsted Center 139.21 R. Patrick Christopher and Erwin N. Thompson, Historic Structure Report, Western Grounds, Old Parade

ground and McArthur Avenue, Fort Mason, Golden Gate National Recreation Area (Denver, Colorado: Denver Service Center, Branch of Historic Preservation, National Park Service, 1980) 24.

22 [Deleted] information summarized from 9-12.23 Olmsted Center 183.24 Olmsted Center 201, Viewshed Diagram, Figure 3.1.15.25 National Park Service, “Cultural Landscapes Inventory” Part 3b, 40.26 Olmsted Center 307, Figure 5.7.4.27 Olmsted Center 27.28 Olmsted Center 79.29 Christopher 32.

Endnotes

98


30 Christopher 26.31 [Deleted] 18-19.32 Olmsted Center 78.33 Olmsted Center 105.34 [Deleted] 12.35 Building 304 was in place until at least 1960, as evidenced on a “General Topographic Map” prepared for the Fort

Mason Master Plan Basic Information Maps by the U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco, 6 January 1960.36 Olmsted Center 81.37 Olmsted Center 336.38 Olmsted Center 83.39 The transformer appears on maps as early as 1960, as evidenced on a “General Topographic Map” prepared for the

Fort Mason Master Plan Basic Information Maps by the U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco, 6 January 1960.40 National Park Service, “Cultural Landscapes Inventory” Part 3b, 32.41 Olmsted Center 340.42 Information on the Galilee summarized from the website of the Benicia Historical Museum, http://www.

beniciahistoricalmuseum.org accessed 17 February 2009. In 1987, a portion of the bow was taken to the Benicia City Corporate Yard. It was later relocated to the Benicia Historical Museum in 1994. The Benicia Historical Museum initiated Project Galilee to restore the ship by bringing together the two parts of the Galilee.� The “Friends of the Galilee” support the project by fundraising.

43 Press Release for “The Outdoor Exploratorium – March 2009,” accessed at http://press.exploratorium.edu/the-outdoor-exploratorium/ on 11 February 2009.

Endnotes