DRAFT
HISTORICAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT FOR THE BART PHASE II CANOPY AND ESCALATOR MODERNIZATION PROJECT, MARKET STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
P REPARED FOR:
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District P.O. Box 12688 (Mail Stop LKS ‐ 22) Oakland, CA 94604‐2688 Contact: Janie Layton (510) 874‐7423
P REPARED BY:
ICF 630 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, California 95814 Contact: Susan Lassell (916) 737‐3000
August 2017
ICF International. 2017. Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, San Francisco, California. DRAFT. August. (ICF 00203.17.) Sacramento, California. Prepared for BART, Oakland, California. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Contents
Contents
List of Tables ...... ii List of Exhibits ...... ii List of Figures ...... ii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... iii
Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1‐1 Purpose and Need ...... 1‐1 Project Description ...... 1‐1 Chapter 2 Regulatory Context ...... 2‐1 California Environmental Quality Act ...... 2‐1 CEQA Historical Resources and the City of San Francisco ...... 2‐2 Chapter 3 Methods ...... 3‐1 Chapter 4 Results of Identification ...... 4‐1 CEQA Resource Identification at BART Station Entrances...... 4‐12 Embarcadero Station Entrances ...... 4‐12 Montgomery Station Entrances ...... 4‐13 Powell Station Entrances ...... 4‐14 Civic Center Station Entrances ...... 4‐15 Resource Identification Conclusions ...... 4‐16 Chapter 5 References ...... 5‐1
Appendix A Character Defining Features of Market Street Landscape and United Nations Plaza
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, i ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Contents
List of Tables
Table Page 1 Station Entrance/Exit Canopy Count ...... 1‐2 2 Summary of Results ...... 4‐2 3 Historical Resources in the Embarcadero Station Project Area ...... 4‐12 4 Historical Resources in the Montgomery Station Project Area ...... 4‐13 5 Historical Resources in the Powell Station Project Area ...... 4‐14 6 Historical Resources in the Civic Center Station Project Area ...... 4‐15
List of Figures
Figure Follows Page
1 Historical Resources Within the Project Area...... 4‐1
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, ii ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AWSS San Francisco Fire Department Auxiliary Water Supply System BART Bay Area Rapid Transit CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CLE Cultural Landscape Evaluation, Better Market Street Project, Market Street, San Francisco, CA CRHR California Register of Historical Resources DPR Department of Parks and Recreation DPW City of San Francisco Department of Public Works Muni San Francisco Municipal Railway NRHP National Register of Historic Places PIM City of San Francisco Planning Department Property Information Map Planning Department City of San Francisco Planning Department PRC Public Resources Code proposed project BART Phase II Canopy and Escalator Modernization Plan
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, iii ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
Chapter 1 Introduction
Purpose and Need The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Phase II Canopy and Escalator Modernization Plan project (proposed project) would install vertical canopy structures at 21 BART entrances along Market Street in San Francisco. ICF is providing assistance to BART with identifying the appropriate level of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation based, in part, on the potential for the proposed project to impact CEQA historical resources. BART has requested that ICF prepare a Historical Resources Inventory report that identifies known CEQA historical resources and the potential for not‐yet‐documented CEQA historical resources to be located in the project area. Based on the conclusions of this Historical Resources Inventory report, BART will determine the appropriate CEQA document for meeting BART’s CEQA requirements.
Project Description The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District, in cooperation with the City and County of San Francisco, proposes to expand its escalator replacement/station canopy project to four Downtown San Francisco BART stations along Market Street—specifically, 21 entrances/exits at the Embarcadero, Montgomery Street Powell Street, and Civic Center/United Nations Plaza stations. A list by station of the escalators/stairways included in the proposed project is provided in Table 1. The proposed improvements would include removal and replacement/refurbishment of existing escalators, and installation of canopies over the entrances/exits. These improvements would be constructed in accordance with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers A17.1, Section 6.1.8, which states that all new or replaced escalator units must be covered in order to protect existing escalators from weather‐related damage.
Each canopy would include three glass walls, which would be installed in approximately the same footprint as the existing masonry parapet walls, and would allow clear sight lines on all sides while the stations are open. Removable artwork may be periodically displayed on the interior of the canopy roofs. This artwork for the most part would be visible only from inside the canopy structure. The canopies, at an approximate height of 14 feet, would overhang the front of the entry to the escalators and stairs by a length of approximately 10.7 feet, and would provide further protection from the weather for the equipment and to patrons as they enter and exit the station. The structures would also provide wayfinding capabilities and transit information for BART and San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) patrons. Each protective canopy would also be equipped with a motorized station security grille that will lock at the top of the entrance at night when the stations are closed. This security feature would improve safety conditions for BART employees tasked with opening the stations in the mornings.
Construction of the canopies would be phased so that station access would be maintained at all times throughout construction. While multiple entrances may be closed simultaneously at the various stations along Market Street, only one or two station entrances/exits would be closed at any one station at any time.
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 1‐1 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
Table 1. Station Entrance/Exit Canopy Count
Station Escalator Replacement/ Canopy Refurbishment (Escalator Number) Embarcadero S1 Yes S2 Yes S4 Yes S5 Yes S6 Yes S7 Yes Montgomery Street S1 Yes S3 Yes S4 Yes S5 Yes S7 N/A, escalator indoor S8 Yes S9 N/A, escalator indoor Powell Street S1 Yes S6 Yes S8 Yes N/A Yes, over stairs only Civic Center/United Nations S3/S5a Yes Plaza S6 Yes Stairs + New Escalator Yes N/A Yes, over stairs only N/A Yes, over stairs only Total 20b 21 Notes: a Escalators S3 and S5 are adjacent and will be covered under one canopy b S3/S5 are counted as separate escalator replacements
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 1‐2 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
Chapter 2 Regulatory Context
California Environmental Quality Act CEQA requires the lead agency to consider the effects of a project on historical resources (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b]).
Historical resources are those that meet the requirements listed below.
Resources listed in or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a][1]).
Resources included in a local register as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k), “unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates” that the resource “is not historically or culturally significant” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a][2]).
Resources that are identified as significant in surveys that meet the standards provided in PRC Section 5024.1[g] (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a][3]).
Resources that the lead agency determines are significant, based on substantial evidence (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a][3]).
The process for identifying historical resources is typically accomplished by applying the criteria for listing in the CRHR (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 4852), which states that a historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria.
Criterion 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage, or the United States (14 CCR 4852[b][1]).
Criterion 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past (14 CCR 4852[b][2]).
Criterion 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values (14 CCR 4852[b][3]).
Criterion 4. Yields, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (14 CCR 4852[b][4]).
To be considered a historical resource for the purpose of CEQA, the resource must also have integrity, which is the authenticity of a resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.
Resources, therefore, must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. It must also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is eligible for listing in the CRHR (14 CCR 4852[c]). Integrity considerations are defined as follows.
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 2‐1 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Regulatory Context
Location. Where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.
Design. The combination of elements that create the historic form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. This includes organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials. This is applicable to larger properties for the historic way in which the buildings, sites, and structures are related.
Setting. The physical environment of a historic property. It refers to the historic character of the property. It includes the historical relationship of the property to surrounding features and open space. These include topographic features, vegetation, simple manmade paths or fencing, and the relationships between buildings, structures, or open space.
Materials. The physical elements that were combined during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form the historic property.
Workmanship. The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during a given period in history. It may be expressed in vernacular methods of construction and plain finishes or in highly sophisticated configuration and ornamental detailing.
Feeling. The property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property’s historic character.
Association. The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property’s historic character.
Resources that meet the significance criteria and integrity considerations must be considered and treated further. Note that the fact that a resource is not listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources, or not identified in an historical resource survey does not preclude a lead agency under CEQA from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1 (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a][4]). CEQA Historical Resources and the City of San Francisco The San Francisco Planning Department’s (Planning Department’s) Preservation Bulletin No. 161 provides definition of and guidance for identifying CEQA historical resources in the City and County of San Francisco pursuant to the terms and definitions in Section 21084.1 of the CEQA Statute and Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Bulletin No. 16 states: “’Historical Resources’ include properties listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in an adopted local historic register. The term ‘local historic register’ or ‘local register of historical resources’ means a list of resources that are officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to resolution or ordinance. ‘Historical Resources’ also includes resources identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting certain criteria.
1 The review procedure text restated here is borrowed exclusively from Bulletin No. 16, accessible at http://www.sf‐planning.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=5340. Accessed May 1, 2017.
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 2‐2 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Regulatory Context
Additionally, properties, which are not listed but are otherwise determined to be historically significant, based on substantial evidence, would also be considered ‘historical resources.’ The Planning Department will consider any information submitted by members of the public, or analysis by Planning Department experts, when determining whether an otherwise unlisted property may be an historical resource.” The Planning Department identifies CEQA historical resources using the following sub‐categories. Category A.1 – Resources listed on or formally determined to be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources.
These properties are considered historical resources for purposes of CEQA. Only the removal of the property’s status as listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR by the California Historic Resources Commission will preclude evaluation of the property as an historical resource under CEQA. Category A.2 – Resources listed on adopted local registers, and properties that have been determined to appear or may become eligible, for the California Register of Historical Resources.
This sub‐category is primarily composed of properties that are listed in a local register of historical resources, as defined by PRC Section 5020.1(k), or identified as significant (status codes 1‐5) in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g).
Only a preponderance of the evidence demonstrating that the resource is not historically or culturally significant will preclude evaluation of the property as an historical resource. In the case of Category A.2 resources included in an adopted survey or local register, generally the “preponderance of the evidence” must consist of evidence that the appropriate decision‐maker has determined that the resource should no longer be included in the adopted survey or register. Where there is substantiated and uncontroverted evidence of an error in professional judgment, of a clear mistake, or that the property has been destroyed, this may also be considered a “preponderance of the evidence” that the property is not an historical resource.2
Categories B and C. Category B in Bulletin No. 16 addresses properties that require further consultation for review if they do not meet the criteria of Categories A.1 and A.2. These properties fall into nine distinct categories outlined on pages 5 and 6 of Bulletin No. 16. Category C in Bulletin No. 16 classifies properties determined not to be historical resources, or properties for which the City of San Francisco has no information showing the property is an historic resource.
2 For those A.2 resources which are not on an adopted local register or survey, the “preponderance of the evidence” must consist of evidence that the property (1) no longer possesses those qualities which might have made it eligible for the CRHR, or (2) additional information shows that the property could never meet the CRHR’s criteria, or (3) an error in professional judgment shows that the property could not meet the CRHR Criteria.
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 2‐3 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
Chapter 3 Methods
ICF initiated a three‐part approach over the course of the analysis, including a review of previous studies, verification of the designation status of previously recorded resources within the project area, and a project site visit. Information gathered through these methods facilitated the identification of known CEQA historical resources in the project area and the means to gauge the likelihood for not yet documented CEQA historical resources to occur in the project area.
Under separate contract for the City of San Francisco Department of Public Works (DPW), ICF has been conducting an historical resources inventory of Market Street from Justin Herman Plaza to City Hall. The identification of previous studies and known historical resources for the proposed project is based upon the background research for the Better Market Street project, which includes research of previously recorded resources and completed reports on file at the Northwestern Information Center and at the Planning Department.
The following text is adapted from the draft Historical Resources Evaluation report submitted to the Planning Department in May 2015 (ICF International 2015). It describes the sources consulted for previous studies and known resources.
Northwest Information Center: Bibliographic references, previous survey reports, historic maps, and archaeological site records pertinent to the study area were compiled through a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System to identify prior studies and known cultural resources within 0.125 mile of the CEQA study area.
This records search (File No. 14‐0541) was conducted at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, on October 24, 2014. The area of potential effects and an area within 0.125 mile of the area of potential effects composed the records search study area. The search involved a review of the following information.
Site records for previously recorded sites.
All previous studies conducted within the study area.
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
The California Inventory of Historic Resources.
The Office of Historic Preservation Historic Properties Directory.
Planning Department: Available materials for the project area contained at the Planning Department were provided to ICF on August 25, 2014. These included materials pertaining to the Civic Center National Historic Landmark District, historic Market Street images, historic maps, and original plans and drawings for the Civic Center and United Nations Plaza. Additional requests for materials were made by ICF during September 2014 pertaining to the Mid‐Market Survey, Market Street Masonry Landmark District and associated Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms, and the Muni‐Metro Study.
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 3‐1 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Methods
DPW: A record search was requested by ICF to DPW on October 14, 2014, of the available as‐built plans, and subsequent drawings pertaining to the Market Street Reconstruction Project of 1967– 1982. ICF received materials from DPW on November 10, 2014, containing approximately 10,000 items including all of the plans and drawings pertaining to the Market Street Reconstruction Project.
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 3‐2 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
Chapter 4 Results of Identification
ICF identified 22 buildings within the immediate vicinity of the 21 BART station entrance project sites on Market Street (see Figure 1, Historical Resources within the Project Area). Of these buildings, 16 are CEQA historical resources, 10 are contributors to designated historic or conservation districts,3 and 5 are individually classified as Planning Department Category A properties.
Two buildings are classified by the Planning Department as Category B properties: 22 Drumm Street/5 The Embarcadero at Embarcadero Station, and 2‐8 Montgomery Street at Montgomery Station. Category B buildings are historic‐era architectural resources that have not been formally recorded and evaluated for historical significance and as such require further consultation and agency review to determine whether they meet the City of San Francisco’s definition of CEQA historical resource. The two Category B buildings identified as part of this inventory were not formally evaluated for listing in the NRHP or CRHR due to the exceedingly low probability that the proposed project would result in a substantial adverse change to their significance, if they were found to be historically significant. These buildings have been located on Market Street for over 50 years, during which time the streetscape has been reconfigured several times. The introduction of new streetscape features (station canopies) adjacent to these buildings would be yet another physical change in setting amidst the previously modified and dynamic urban landscape of Market Street, a landscape with pedestrian and transit features that have changed and evolved over the past century in response to contemporary trends and needs. Historic‐age buildings such as the two subject Category B buildings have borne witness to these changes with almost no harm done to their historical and architectural character.
The four remaining buildings are classified as Planning Department Category C properties, which indicates that no historic resources are present on that parcel. Finally, at the time of preparing this report, there is a vacant parcel (3702820) at the Civic Center Station proposed canopy location S‐6, at the southwest corner of 8th and Market Streets.
These details are further defined below under CEQA Resource Identification at BART Station Entrances.
3 There are four historic districts that qualify as CEQA historical resources that either encompass one or more of the BART entrances, or are in close proximity to the proposed project: the New Montgomery‐Mission‐Second Street Conservation District, the Kearny‐Market‐Mason‐Sutter Conservation District, the Civic Center Historic District, and the Market Street Theater and Loft Historic District. None of the proposed project sites fall within the Market Street Theater and Loft Historic District, though it is within close proximity to one of the Civic Center Station entrances located at 7th and Market Streets.
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 4‐1 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
California Street
Pine Street APN: 0234017 Davis Street
Front Street APN: 0264004 APN: 0265003 Battery Street
Drumm Street
6 4 1 Market Street 5 3 2
Legend APN: 3711019 APN: 3712025 CEQA Historical Resource Category B Resource APN: 3710020 Category C Resource # BART Station Entrance Historic District Boundary Beale Street Spear Street Main Street
0 100 200 FEET
Image: Google Inc. 2017. Google Earth Pro, Version 7.1. Mountain View, CA. Accessed: May 16, 2017. Mission Street Graphics …00203.17 (7/5/17) AB Graphics Figure 1A Historical Resources Within the Project Area Embarcadero Station APN: 0289003
Post Street Sutter Street
Kearny Street Montgomery Street APN: 0291007 7 APN: 0291001
11 9 Market Street 8 12 10
Legend APN: 3708175 CEQA Historical Resource APN: 3707052 Category B Resource Category C Resource
2nd Street APN: 3708059 Stevenson Street # BART Station Entrance New Montgomery- Historic District Boundary Mission-Second Street Conservation District
0 100 200 FEET New Montgomery Street Jessie Street Image: Google Inc. 2017. Google Earth Pro, Version 7.1. Mountain View, CA. Accessed: May 16, 2017. Graphics …00203.17 (7/5/17) AB Graphics Figure 1B Historical Resources Within the Project Area Montgomery Street Station Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District APN: 0328001
O’Farrell Street Ellis Street Cyril Magnin Street
Mason Street Powell Street
Stockton Street
13 Market Street 16 15 14
APN: 3704001 APN: 3705042
APN: 3705037
Legend
CEQA Historical Resource APN: 3705Z001 Category B Resource Category C Resource # BART Station Entrance Historic District Boundary 5th Street 4th Street
0 100 200 Mission Street FEET
Image: Google Inc. 2017. Google Earth Pro, Version 7.1. Mountain View, CA. Accessed: May 16, 2017. Graphics …00203.17 (7/5/17) AB Graphics Figure 1C Historical Resources Within the Project Area Powell Street Station APN: 0351035
McAllister Street
Leavenworth Street Hyde Street
APN: 0351022 APN: 0351050
APN: 0351051
Legend
19 7th Street CEQA Historical Resource Civic Center Category B Resource Historic District 20 17 Category C Resource Market Street # BART Station Entrance Historic District Boundary 21 18
Market Street Theater and Loft 0 100 200 Historic District 8th Street Vacant Lot FEET APN: 3702044
Image: Google Inc. 2017. Google Earth Pro, Version 7.1. Mountain View, CA. Accessed: May 16, 2017. Graphics …00203.17 (7/5/17) AB Graphics Figure 1D Historical Resources Within the Project Area Civic Center Station San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Results of Identification
Table 2. Summary of Results
Station Canopies CEQA Resources Associated Historic/Conservation District Embarcadero 6 3 ‐‐ New Montgomery‐Mission‐Second Street Montgomery 6 3 Conservation District Kearny‐Market‐Mason‐Sutter Conservation District Powell 4 5
Civic Center 5 4 Civic Center Historic District
Cultural Landscapes Given the presence of three cultural landscapes within the project area—the Market Street streetscape, Civic Center, and United Nations Plaza (which is individually eligible and also a contributor to both Market Street and Civic Center cultural landscapes)—station improvements associated with the BART Station Entrances project must be evaluated programmatically. While a project with features that extend across a landscape might be interpreted to represent no impact within the context of analysis relative to an individual building, object, or structure, the same project may be interpreted differently when the full extent of that project’s features are evaluated together programmatically at the landscape level. Cultural landscape analysis includes evaluation of character‐defining features organized within the following 10 landscape characteristic categories (Page et al. 1998).
Natural Systems and Features. Natural aspects that often influence the development and resultant form of a landscape.
Spatial Organization. Arrangement of elements creating the ground, vertical, and overhead planes that define and create spaces.
Cluster Arrangements. Locations of buildings and structures in the landscape.
Circulation. Spaces, features, and materials that constitute systems of movement.
Topography. Three‐dimensional configuration of the landscape surface characterized by features and orientation.
Vegetation. Indigenous or introduced trees, shrubs, vines, ground covers, and herbaceous materials.
Buildings and Structures. Three‐dimensional constructs such as houses, barns, garages, stables, bridges, and memorials.
Views and Vistas. Features that create or allow a range of vision, which can be natural or designed and controlled.
Constructed Water Features. Built features and elements that utilize water for aesthetic or utilitarian functions.
Small‐Scale Features. Elements that provide detail and diversity combined with function and aesthetics.
Cultural landscape analysis remains a nascent area of study in the historic preservation industry. Thus, the following subsections address the cultural landscapes within the project area with consideration for the unique nature of this resource type consistent with the Secretary of the
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 4‐2 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Results of Identification
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (Birnbaum n.d.), and guidance found in documents including National Register Bulletin 18: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes (Keller et al. 1987), A guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, Process, and Techniques (Page et al. 1998), and National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory Professional Procedures Guide (Page et al. 2009).
Market Street Cultural Landscape The proposed project would install vertical canopy structures at 21 BART entrances along Market Street in San Francisco. Market Street is a dynamic urban landscape whose pedestrian and transit features have changed and evolved over the past century. This evolution, which unfolded along the length of the street, has consistently responded to contemporary trends and needs.
The Cultural Landscape Evaluation, Better Market Street Project, Market Street, San Francisco, CA (CLE) (ICF 2016), which was prepared by ICF on behalf of San Francisco Public Works as part of the proposed Better Market Street project, evaluated Market Street as a landscape/site property type rather than as a series of individual buildings, a district of buildings, or as an individual linear structure. This approach was selected based on the nature of Market Street as a composite of physical and experiential qualities. As such, in addition to criteria and methods typical for evaluation of buildings, structures, and objects, cultural landscape evaluation guidelines were applied in the development of the CLE (ICF 2016: 2‐2 to 2‐3).
Planning Department technical preservation planning staff will use the CLE to prepare the City of San Francisco’s official determination of whether CEQA historical resources are present in the proposed study area of the Better Market Street project. While that determination is still pending with release anticipated for July 2017, the technical findings of the CLE are applied within this document.
The CLE describes Market Street as an NRHP‐ and CRHR‐eligible historic landscape that includes pedestrian, transit, and roadway features that are within the public right‐of‐way on Market Street between Octavia Street and the Embarcadero. The landscape also includes the pedestrian plazas (Justin Herman, Robert Frost, Mechanics Monument, Crocker, Mark Twain, Market Street, Hallidie, and United Nations); the sidewalk areas on the north and south sides of Market Street to the edge of the buildings, but not extending onto intersecting side streets; and the vertical space above the street.
The CLE findings include identification of Market Street’s historical significances, character‐defining features associated with those significances, integrity of the landscape’s character‐defining features, and eligibility based on the presence of significance and integrity. Market Street was found to possess significance and retain sufficient integrity to convey that significance in three separate historic significance themes. Thus, Market Street was found to be eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under the following criteria (ICF 2016: 6‐9, 6‐17, 6‐29 to 6‐30).
NRHP Criterion A and CRHR Criterion 1 for its role as San Francisco’s main circulation artery and facilitator of urban development, with a period of significance from 1847 to 1929.
NRHP Criterion A and CRHR Criterion 1 for its role as a venue for civic engagement in San Francisco from the 1870s to 1979. Found to satisfy Criterion Consideration G.
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 4‐3 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Results of Identification
NRHP Criterion C and CRHR Criterion 3 as the work of master architects Mario Ciampi and John Warnecke and master landscape architect Lawrence Halprin with a period of significance of 1979. Found to satisfy Criterion Consideration G.
Cultural landscapes like Market Street, which are complex resources, may have individual character‐ defining features that express Market Street’s significance in more than one of its three areas of significance. These character‐defining features can have different degrees of importance in terms of expressing significance within each one of those significance areas (ICF 2016: 6‐1).
Table A‐1, Character Defining Features of the Market Street Cultural Landscape: Market Street as a Main Circulation Artery, Table A‐2, Character Defining Features of the Market Street Cultural Landscape: Market Street as Venue for Civic Engagement, and Table A‐3, Character Defining Features of the Market Street Cultural Landscape: Market Street Redevelopment Plan Landscape, are included in Appendix A of this document. These tables are adapted from the CLE (ICF 2016: 6‐3 to 6‐6; 6‐11 to 6‐13; 6‐19 to 6‐25) and outline character‐defining features associated with expressing each of the three Market Street areas of significance. The tables indicate the landscape characteristic category associated with each character‐defining feature and identify whether the character‐defining feature is extant, partially extant, or lost. These tables also identify which of the project’s contributing features/canopy locations are geographically relevant to each character‐defining feature. In cases where character‐defining features are positioned exclusively in a location or locations that are near specific canopy locations the BART entrance number is noted. However, many of Market Street’s character‐defining features are recurring streetscape elements or features articulated at the landscape‐level; thus, the majority of character‐defining features are identified as being relevant to all canopy locations throughout the streetscape. Finally, the tables also provide an analysis of integrity for each of the character‐defining features.
The following summary for each of Market Street’s three significance themes provide a list of associated character‐defining features.
Market Street as San Francisco’s Main Circulation Artery
Character‐defining features that express Market Street’s significance under NRHP Criterion A and CRHR Criterion 1 for its role as San Francisco’s main circulation artery and facilitator of urban and economic development from 1847 to 1929 are those that enabled Market Street to provide “the physical foundation and transportation infrastructure mechanism that facilitated the city’s development,” prompt “private investment along the corridor,” function as an “organizing space [needed] to facilitate rapid reconstruction after the 1906 earthquake,” and serve as a venue where “progressive‐era public urban infrastructure was most aggressively introduced and new private investment in development of landmark‐quality buildings was made” (ICF 2016:6‐2 quoted). The following list of character‐defining features, organized by landscape characteristic category, represents those that are extant or partially extant in the Market Street landscape (Table A‐1 in Appendix A provides additional detail and includes character‐defining features from the period of significance that are no longer extant) (ICF 2016: 6‐3 to 6‐6).
Spatial Organization Alignment as axis Grid alignment Linear plan
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 4‐4 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Results of Identification
Cluster Arrangement Presence of multi‐modal transportation systems
Circulation Sidewalks Roadway Rails Electric catenary wire system Cable car turnarounds
Topography Grade
Buildings and Structures Landmark buildings
Views and Vistas Line of sight from east to west Line of sight from west to east View of Market Street from Twin Peaks
Constructed Water Features Lotta’s Fountain
Small‐Scale Features Path of Gold Light Standards San Francisco Fire Department Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS) fire hydrants Samuel’s Clock Mechanic’s Monument California Statehood Monument Emergency Call Boxes
For a resource to express its significance, it must retain integrity. Integrity is described in terms of seven categories: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Through their presence, character‐defining features contribute to expressing one or more of these aspects of integrity. All seven of these aspects do not need to be retained for a resource to express its significance. Of the seven aspects of integrity, “it is most essential for integrity of location, setting, design, and association to be retained, as they best convey the place, physical context, forms, and processes associated with Market Street’s performance as San Francisco’s main circulation artery and facilitator of urban development during the period of 1847 to 1929” (ICF 2016: 6‐9). Market Street’s pedestrian and transit features have changed over time in response to evolving needs associated with the route’s role as the city’s primary circulation artery. Alteration to character‐ defining features that contribute to integrity of materials or integrity of workmanship, which can also result in loss of integrity of feeling, may be acceptable if integrity of location, design, setting, and association are retained. As such, new elements that support Market Street’s role as the city’s
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 4‐5 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Results of Identification
primary circulation artery can be considered compatible with continued expression of this aspect of Market Street’s historic significance (ICF 2016: 6‐9).
Market Street as Venue for Civic Engagement in San Francisco
Character‐defining features that express Market Street’s significance under NRHP Criterion A and CRHR Criterion 1 for its role as a venue for civic engagement in San Francisco from the 1870s to 1979 are those associated with “the public demonstrations that elevated issues of LGBTQ rights to national attention beginning in the 1960s” and the “public civic events and demonstrations that elevated civic discourse about other important themes in civil rights.” In addition, character‐defining features also include those that express Market Street’s use as a “ceremonial and processional route through the city [from Justin Herman Plaza, through United Nations Plaza to City Hall] for protest marches, community celebrations, and civic parades” (ICF 2016: 6‐9 to 6‐10 quoted). The following list of character‐defining features, organized by landscape characteristic category, represents those that are extant or partially extant in the Market Street landscape (Table A‐2 in Appendix A not only provides additional detail, but also includes character‐defining features from the period of significance that are no longer extant) (ICF 2016: 6‐11 to 6‐13).
Spatial Organization Verticality of the streetscape Alignment as axis Linear plan Grid alignment
Cluster Arrangement Plaza arrangement along Market Street North‐south intersections
Circulation Sidewalks Roadway
Topography Grade
Views and Vistas Broad view of streetscape Vista of City Hall from United Nations Plaza Justin Herman Plaza open space
Constructed Water Features Lotta’s Fountain
Small‐Scale Features Path of Gold Light Standards AWSS fire hydrants Samuel’s Clock
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 4‐6 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Results of Identification
Mechanics Monument California Statehood Monument
For a resource to express its significance, it must retain integrity as expressed by seven categories: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. While character‐defining features contribute to expressing one or more of these aspects of integrity, all seven of these aspects do not need to be retained for a resource to express its significance. In terms of Market Street’s significance for its role as a processional route, which facilitates participation in and spectation of political rallies, civic ceremonies, and public speeches, “it is most essential for integrity of location, setting, design, and association to be retained, as they best convey the place, physical context, forms, and processes associated with Market Street’s performance as a venue for civic engagement during the period of the 1870s to 1979” (ICF 2016: 6‐17). Alteration of materials, workmanship, and feeling will undermine integrity, but, within the context of this significance theme, alteration to character‐ defining features that result in these integrity losses may be acceptable when character‐defining features that contribute to integrity of location, design, setting, and association are present (ICF 2016: 6‐17).
Market Street Redevelopment Plan Designed Landscape
Character‐defining features that express Market Street’s significance under NRHP Criterion C and CRHR Criterion 3 as the work of master architects Mario Ciampi and John Warnecke and master landscape architect Lawrence Halprin with a period of significance of 1979 are those that illustrate the Market Street Redevelopment Plan’s “application of an early interdisciplinary approach to urban design, which helped elevate the influence of landscape architectures as a discipline that provides perspective on modern urban planning.” Character‐defining features associated with this significance express the Market Street Redevelopment Plan as “an early example of a designed urban landscape that prioritized the pedestrian experience and responded sympathetically to the existing historic context” at a time when redevelopment programs across the county were prioritizing the needs of the automobile and demolishing historic neighborhoods (ICF 2016: 6‐18 quoted). The following list of character‐defining features, organized by landscape characteristic category, represents those that are extant or partially extant in the Market Street landscape (Table A‐3 in Appendix A not only provides additional detail, but also includes character‐defining features from the period of significance that are no longer extant) (ICF 2016: 6‐19 to 6‐25).
Natural Systems and Features Sunlight channeled through northern diagonal street grid into rectangular plazas
Spatial Organization Alignment of 120‐foot‐wide street diagonally from east to west Pedestrian‐oriented separation of foot, vehicle, and rail traffic Large plazas o Justin Herman Plaza o Hallidie Plaza o United Nations Plaza Small Plazas o Robert Frost Plaza
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 4‐7 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Results of Identification
o Mechanic’s Monument Plaza o Crocker Plaza o Mark Twain Plaza o Market Street Plaza Cluster Arrangement Placement of plazas along length of Market Street Repeating pattern of BART/Muni subway entrances along length of Market Street Repeating pattern of street signage (square and circular) Repeating pattern of traffic lights and traffic signage Arrangement of street trees in double and single rows down sidewalks
Circulation Red brick paving in herringbone pattern that distinguishes pedestrian from vehicular space Tree allees (double and single rows) Vertical circulation features (elevator, escalator, and stairs) of BART/Muni stations (Civic Center, Embarcadero, Montgomery, and Powell) and Muni‐only station (Van Ness)
Vegetation Street trees
Buildings and Structures BART/Muni station street entrances: Embarcadero Station; Montgomery Station; Powell Station; Civic Center Station Van Ness Muni station street entrances
Views and Vistas Retained view of City Hall from Market Street Retained broad view of Market Street width
Constructed Water Features Lotta’s Fountain
Small‐Scale Features Granite bollards with chain links Bronze BART/Muni street elevators Bronze four‐sided street clocks Street signage Semaphore‐style traffic signage and traffic lights Bronze tree grates Small‐scale features retained from earlier periods o Path of Gold Light Standards
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 4‐8 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Results of Identification
o AWSS fire hydrants o Samuel’s Clock o California Statehood Monument o Emergency call boxes Through the presence of character‐defining features, a resource can be said to retain integrity. Integrity is described in terms of seven categories: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. While all seven of these aspects do not need to be retained for a resource to express its significance, one or more character‐features can combine to express multiple integrity categories. In terms of Market Street’s significance as the work of master architects Mario Ciampi and John Warnecke and master landscape architect Lawrence Halprin, “it is most essential for integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship and association to be retained, as they best convey the place, form, physical components, quality of labor, and processes associated with Market Street as a collaboration of the Market Street Joint Venture Architects on the Market Street Redevelopment Plan as an early application of an interdisciplinary approach, which helped elevate the influence of landscape architecture as a discipline that provides perspective on modern urban planning” (ICF 2016: 6‐29 to 6‐30). Character‐defining features associated with the landscape categories of spatial organization, cluster arrangement, and circulation are most essential to expressing Market Street’s integrity as a Modernist‐era designed landscape associated with the work of master architects Mario Ciampi and John Warnecke and master landscape architect Lawrence Halprin. These character‐defining features are most important to the expression of the designers’ interdisciplinary approach, which elevated the pedestrian experience through integration of public spaces “in the form of plazas, development of a unified streetscape aesthetic, incorporation of existing built environment features, expansion of sidewalk areas, and removal of street‐level rail transit” (ICF 2016: 6‐18). This also includes design of street‐level subway entrances of “low profile, U‐shaped portals of minimalist design,” which “reduce the visual impact of transit presence on the street‐level pedestrian experience” and make transit secondary to pedestrian open space (ICF 2016: 4‐50), as well as selection of street trees that not only complement the planned sidewalk width and height of the Path of Gold Light Standards, but also prevent obstruction of pedestrian views of storefronts from the street (ICF 2016: 4‐48). Given the aggregate impact of lost features from the period of significance, along with the addition of post‐Market Street Redevelopment Plan features, which have already reduced the landscape’s integrity somewhat, alteration of materials, workmanship, and feeling is acceptable provided integrity of location, design, setting, and association are not impaired. As such, retention of character‐defining features that articulate the design goals of establishing a unified streetscape aesthetic through repeated patterns across the landscape and prioritizing the pedestrian experience is particularly important.
United Nations Plaza Two of the BART station entrances are located within the boundaries of United Nations Plaza, one in the southeast corner (east of the fountain) and the other, larger entrance in the southwest corner. The plaza was evaluated and found to be NRHP and CRHR eligible, both as a contributing feature of the Market Street cultural landscape and as an individually eligible historic landscape (ICF 2016). In addition to criteria and methods typical for evaluation of buildings, structures, and objects, cultural landscape evaluation guidelines were applied. The plaza was evaluated for individual eligibility as a landscape/site property type. As such, in addition to criteria and methods typical for evaluation of
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 4‐9 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Results of Identification
buildings, structures, and objects, cultural landscape evaluation guidelines were applied (ICF 2016: Appendix A).
United Nations Plaza was found to be eligible under NRHP Criterion A and CRHR Criterion 1 for its role as the venue used for nationally significant events important to the elevation of LGBTQ issues to nationwide attention, including the Gay Freedom Day Parades and the first civil disobedience protest against the AIDS epidemic anywhere in the world. United Nations Plaza is also eligible under NRHP Criterion C and CRHR Criterion 3 for its association with master landscape architect Lawrence Halprin, as it represents an example of his work that elevated the influence of landscape architecture as a discipline important to urban development, particularly in terms of considering the human experience and the existing built environment within the redevelopment process. The period of significance for United Nations Plaza is 1976 to 1985 and the defined boundary of the plaza consists of the 2.6‐acre open area located between 7th and 8th Streets, extending westward from Market Street to Hyde and Fulton Streets (ICF 2016: Appendix A).
Table A‐4, Contributing Features of the United Nations Plaza, included in Appendix A, is adapted from Table 1, Feature Analysis Table: United Nations Plaza, found in the DPR 523B Form for United Nations Plaza, which is included within Appendix A of Cultural Landscape Evaluation, Better Market Street Project, Market Street, San Francisco, CA (ICF 2016: Appendix A). The table outlines character‐ defining features associated with expressing each of United Nations Plaza’s areas of significance.
The following list of character‐defining features, organized by landscape characteristic category, represents those that are extant or partially extant in the United Nations Plaza landscape that express Market Street’s significance under NRHP Criterion A and CRHR Criterion 1 and under NRHP Criterion C and CRHR Criterion 3 (Table A‐4 in Appendix A not only provides additional detail, but also includes character‐defining features from the period of significance that are no longer extant) (ICF 2016: 6‐19 to 6‐25).
Spatial Organization Location along Market Street between 7th and 8th Streets Triangular plan with two linear promenades projecting north and west Placement of fountain in eastern section
Circulation Multi‐modal transportation access point Vertical circulation for Civic Center BART/Muni station including stair and escalator Two pedestrian circulation axes Red brick paving in herringbone pattern
Vegetation Trees Planting Beds
Views and Vistas View of City Hall
Constructed Water Features United Nations Plaza Fountain
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 4‐10 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Results of Identification
“Ocean pools” and earth tides” water cycle of United Nations Plaza Fountain
Small‐Scale Features Light poles at fountain Flag poles with radia base design Granite paving with brass inlay Stone monument Bollards
For a resource to express its significance, it must retain integrity, where integrity is defined in terms described in terms of seven categories: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A resource’s integrity is defined by the presence of character‐defining features, which can support the expression of one or more of these aspects of integrity. All seven of these aspects do not need to be expressed for a resource to convey its significance. When considering eligibility under NRHP Criterion C and CRHR Criterion 3, “it is most essential for integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, and association to be retained, as they best convey the place, form, physical components, quality of labor, and processes associated with United Nations Plaza’s significance as an example of how Lawrence Halprin’s work helped elevate the influence of landscape architecture as a discipline that provides essential perspective on modern urban planning, and illustrated the viability of prioritizing sensitivity to human experience and the existing built environment as part of the redevelopment process” (ICF 2016: Appendix A). While the integrity of some of United Nations Plaza’s character‐defining features have been diminished or are no longer present, alteration to character‐defining features that contribute to integrity of materials or integrity of workmanship, which can also result in loss of integrity of feeling, may be acceptable if integrity of location, design, setting, and association are retained. As such, new elements that do not undermine United Nations Plaza as an example of landscape design leveraged for urban planning priorities or as an example of prioritizing the human experience within the built environment can be considered compatible with Halprin’s plaza design.
San Francisco Civic Center Historic District Cultural Landscape Three of the BART station entrances are located within the boundaries of the San Francisco Civic Center Historic District Cultural Landscape, two within the boundaries of United Nations Plaza, and a third on the east corner of Market and Hyde Streets. The Civic Center Historic District, as described in the “San Francisco Civic Center Historic District Cultural Landscape Inventory” (MIG 2015), includes a roughly 58‐acre and 15‐block area of San Francisco that has multiple historic designations. These designations include the following.
San Francisco Landmark District, December 1994 (1994 San Francisco Landmark District).
National Register of Historic Places, October 10, 1978 (1978 National Register), for state and national levels of significance.
National Historic Landmark on February 27, 1987 (1987 National Historic Landmark).
The historic district is located in the City and County of San Francisco, California, just north of Market Street between Franklin Street and 7th Street. It extends north to McAllister Street and Golden Gate Avenue. (MIG 2015: 5). The boundary of the historic district reflects the limit outlined in the 1994 San Francisco Landmark District, which is more expansive than the boundary outlined
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 4‐11 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Results of Identification
in the 1978 National Register and 1987 National Historic Landmark. The Civic Center Historic District is significant for its association with events and architectural styles connected to the Panama‐Pacific International Exposition, the Beaux Arts Civic Center Plan, the formation of the United Nations, and the United States peace treaty with Japan. The period of significance for the Civic Center Historic District is 1896 to 1951. The end date was established by the 1987 National Historic Landmark (MIG 2015: 6).
The Cultural Landscape Inventory acknowledges that evaluation of the work of known master landscape architect Lawrence Halprin and his work associated with BART, Market Street, and the United Nations Plaza was beyond the scope of the 2014 report and required further study. The cultural landscape inventory noted, “if work associated with that project is found to be significant then the period of significance would be extended to the 1970s.” For the purposes of this report, character‐defining features associated with that period of significance are addressed in the preceding discussion of United Nations Plaza. Thus, this section of the inventory only addresses character‐defining features within the San Francisco Civic Center Historic District boundary that date to the 1896 to 1951 period of significance, and are located within or adjacent to the BART entrance locations (MIG 2015: 79–81). As such, the only character‐defining features associated with the San Francisco Civic Center Historic District relevant for consideration in this Cultural Resources Constraints Report are the following.
1 United Nations Plaza (1927)
79 McAllister (1906)
83 McAllister (1907)
50 United Nations Plaza (1936)
1182 Market Street (1925)
CEQA Resource Identification at BART Station Entrances Embarcadero Station Entrances There are six buildings within the Embarcadero Station project area, three of which are CEQA historical resources (Table 3). Two buildings are designated as Category B buildings, and one building is designated as a Category C building by the City of San Francisco.
The three CEQA resources are Category A buildings, previously deemed historical resources for purposes of CEQA by the City of San Francisco.
Table 3. Historical Resources in the Embarcadero Station Project Area
Canopy Resource Address Parcel Year Means by which a Historical Structure Built Resource per CEQA Canopy 1 Hyatt 22 Drumm/ 0234017 1972 Category B property: City of San Regency 5 The Francisco requires further consultation Embarcadero and review to determine CEQA historical resource eligibility.
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 4‐12 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Results of Identification
Canopy Resource Address Parcel Year Means by which a Historical Structure Built Resource per CEQA Canopy 2 Federal 101 Market 3712025 1982 Category A property: CEQA historical Reserve resource. 2S2 status code: individual Bank property determined eligible for NRHP by a consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the CRHR. Part of the 2012 Transit Center Historic Resource Survey Update. Canopy 3 Matson 215 Market 3711019 1925 Category A property: CEQA historical Building Street resource. Listed in the NRHP. Local preservation designation: article 11 Cat: I – Significant Building, No Alterations. Canopy 4 NA 1 California 0264004 1969 Category A historical resource. CEQA historical resource. Canopy 5 NA 333 Market 3710020 1981 Property Information Map indicates A – Historic Resource Present (Embarcadero Garage) Canopy 6 NA 1 Pine Street 0265003 1987 C – No Historic Resource Present/Not Age Eligible CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act; CRHR = California Register of Historical Resources; NA = Not Applicable; NRHP = National Register of Historic Places Montgomery Station Entrances There are six buildings within the Montgomery Station project area, three of which are CEQA historical resources (Table 4). One building is designated as a Category B building, and two buildings are designated as Category C buildings by the City of San Francisco.
Two of the CEQA resources are Category A buildings, previously deemed historical resources for purposes of CEQA by the City of San Francisco. The third CEQA resource, the Palace Hotel, is a contributor to the New Montgomery‐Mission‐Second Street Conservation District, and is a designated City Landmark.
Table 4. Historical Resources in the Montgomery Station Project Area
Canopy Resource Address Parcel Year Means by which a Historical Structure Built Resource per CEQA Canopy 7 Bank of 1 Sansome 0289003 1908 Category A historical resource. CEQA California historical resource. Canopy 8 Chevron 575 Market 3708175 1975 Category C property: No Historic Building Resource Present/Not Age Eligible Canopy 9 Flatiron 540–548 0291001 1913 City Landmark #155. Category A – Building Market historical resource. CEQA historical resource. Local preservation designation: article 11 Cat: I – Significant Building, No Alterations. Identified for association with LGBTQ history (p. 207). Canopy 10 NA 595 Market 3708059 1978 Category C property: No Historic Resource Present/Not Age Eligible
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 4‐13 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Results of Identification
Canopy Resource Address Parcel Year Means by which a Historical Structure Built Resource per CEQA Canopy 11 NA 2–8 0291007 1967 Category B property: City requires Montgomery further consultation and review to determine CEQA historical resource eligibility. Canopy 12 Palace 633–665 3707052 1909 City Landmark #18. Contributor to the Hotel Market New Montgomery‐Mission‐Second Street Conservation District. Category A historical resource. NRHP eligible. CEQA historical resource. CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act; LGBTQ = Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning; NA = Not Applicable; NRHP = National Register of Historic Places Powell Station Entrances There are five buildings within the Powell Station project area, all of which are CEQA historical resources and contributors to the Kearny‐Market‐Mason‐Sutter Conservation District (Table 5).
Table 5. Historical Resources in the Powell Station Project Area
Canopy/Escalator Resource Parcel Year Means by which a Historical Address Built Resource per CEQA Canopy 13 Phelan 760– 0328001 1908 Category A historical resource. Building 784 Contributor to the Kearny‐ Market Market‐Mason‐Sutter Conservation District. Local preservation designation: article 11 Cat: I – Significant Building, No Alterations. NRHP eligible. CEQA historical resource. Canopy 14 801 3705Z001 PIM no Both buildings are Category A and and date for historical resources. Contributors 825– 3705037 801; to the Kearny‐Market‐Mason‐ 833 1908 Sutter Conservation District. Market for CEQA historical resources. 825– 833 Canopy 15 856 3705042 1908 Category A historical resource. Market Contributor to the Kearny‐ Market‐Mason‐Sutter Conservation District. CEQA historical resource. Canopy 16 Hale Bros 901– 3704001 1912 Listed in the NRHP. Category A Dept. 919 historical resource. Contributor Store Market to the Kearny‐Market‐Mason‐ Building Sutter Conservation District. Local preservation designation: article 11 Cat: I – Significant Building, No Alterations. CEQA historical resource.
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 4‐14 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Results of Identification
Canopy/Escalator Resource Parcel Year Means by which a Historical Address Built Resource per CEQA CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act; NRHP = National Register of Historic Places
Civic Center Station Entrances There are five buildings within the Civic Center Station project area, four of which are CEQA historical resources and contributors to the Civic Center Historic District. One building is designated as a Category C building by the City of San Francisco (Table 6).
Table 6. Historical Resources in the Civic Center Station Project Area
Canopy/Escalator Resource Parcel Year Means by which a Historical Address Built Resource per CEQA Canopy 17 United 10 0351050 Civic Center Cultural Landscape Nations United 1982 (http://sf‐planning.org/civic‐center‐ Plaza Nations cultural‐landscape‐inventory); Civic Plaza Center Historic District; Civic Center Landmark District. CEQA historical resource. Canopy 18 NA 1145 3702044 1990 C ‐ No Historic Resource Present/Not Market Age Eligible. Canopy 19/20 Federal 50 0351035 Listed in the NRHP/CRHR. Civic Building United 1900 Center Cultural Landscape (http://sf‐ Nations planning.org/civic‐center‐cultural‐ Plaza landscape‐inventory); Civic Center Street Historic District; Civic Center Landmark District. CEQA historical resource. Canopy 19/20 NA 1170 0351051 1983 Category A – Historic Resource Market Present; Civic Center Historic District; Civic Center Landmark District. CEQA historical resource. Canopy 21 Orpheum 1182‐ 0351022 City Landmark #94. Category A – Theater 1192 historical resource. Listed in NRHP as contributor to Civic Center Historic District. Local preservation designation: article 11 Cat: I – Significant Building, No Alterations. CEQA historical resource Canopy 22 NA VACANT 3702390 NA NA CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act; CRHR = California Register of Historical Resources; NA = Not Applicable; NRHP = National Register of Historic Places
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 4‐15 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Results of Identification
Resource Identification Conclusions Cultural Landscapes
Market Street Cultural Landscape The Market Street Cultural Landscape is considered eligible for the NRHP and CRHR under three separate significance themes. These include 1) Market Street’s role as San Francisco’s main circulation artery and facilitator of urban development, with a period of significance from 1847 to 1929 (NRHP Criterion A and CRHR Criterion 1); 2) Market Street’s role as a venue for civic engagement in San Francisco from the 1870s to 1979 (NRHP Criterion A and CRHR Criterion 1); and 3) Market Street’s role as an example of the work of master architects Mario Ciampi and John Warnecke and master landscape architect Lawrence Halprin with a period of significance of 1979 (NRHP Criterion C and CRHR Criterion 3). For each of the three significance themes, character‐ defining features are present. As such, the Market Street Cultural Landscape can be said to convey its historic significances and retain integrity. For the first two significance themes, it is most essential for character‐defining features that support integrity of location, setting, design, and association to be retained, given those aspects best express a resource’s place, physical context, forms, and processes. Alterations to the landscape that undermine integrity of materials and workmanship may be acceptable if such alterations are compatible with the existing landscape and do not hinder the resource’s ability to convey its significance. For the third significance theme, it is most essential for character‐defining features that support integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, and association to be retained, given those aspects best express a resource’s place, forms, physical components, quality of labor, and processes. Alterations to the landscape that undermine integrity of materials and workmanship may be acceptable as long as the landscape retains its overall ability to represent the Market Street Redevelopment Plan design. A framework for analyzing potential impacts on the resources includes consideration of permanent relocation or removal of character‐ defining features, alteration to character‐defining features that undermines the pedestrian experience, alteration to a repeating pattern that is currently present as a unifying element across the landscape, alteration that undermines articulation of a minimal design, obscuring of open views and vistas, or alteration to plaza settings.
United Nations Plaza United Nations Plaza was found to be eligible under NRHP Criterion A and CRHR Criterion 1 for its role as the venue used for nationally significant events important to the elevation of LGBTQ issues to nationwide attention, including the Gay Freedom Day Parades and the first civil disobedience protest against the AIDS epidemic anywhere in the world. United Nations Plaza is also eligible under NRHP Criterion C and CRHR Criterion 3 for its association with master landscape architect Lawrence Halprin, as it represents an example of his work that elevated the influence of landscape architecture as a discipline important to urban development, particularly in terms of considering the human experience and the existing built environment within the redevelopment process. The period of significance for United Nations Plaza is 1976 to 1985. For these significance themes, character‐ defining features are present. As such, the United Nations Plaza landscape can be said to convey its historic significances and retain integrity. For United Nations Plaza integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, and association are most important, as they convey place, form, physical components, quality of labor, and processes associated with the plaza’s significance. However, alterations to the landscape that undermine integrity of materials and workmanship may be
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 4‐16 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Results of Identification
acceptable if such alterations are compatible with the existing landscape and do not hinder the resource’s ability to convey its significance. A framework for analyzing potential impacts on the resource includes consideration of permanent relocation or removal of character‐defining features, alteration to character‐defining features in such ways that undermine the pedestrian experience, alteration that undermines articulation of a minimal design, obscuring of open views and vistas, or alteration to plaza setting.
San Francisco Civic Center Historic District San Francisco Civic Center Historic District Cultural Landscape is significant for its association with events and architectural styles connected to the Panama‐Pacific International Exposition, the Beaux Arts Civic Center Plan, the formation of the United Nations, and the United States peace treaty with Japan. The period of significance for the Civic Center Historic District is 1896 to 1951. The Cultural Landscape Inventory acknowledges that evaluation of the work of known master landscape architect Lawrence Halprin and his work associated with BART, Market Street, and the United Nations Plaza was beyond the scope of the 2014 report and required further study. For the purposes of this report, conclusions for that period of significance are addressed in the preceding discussion of United Nations Plaza. A framework for analyzing potential impacts to building façades are not addressed as they are removed from the proposed improvements by at least 12 feet and because the proposed improvements would be consistent with the dynamic urban landscape that characterizes the setting of the Civic Center Historic District over time and would have limited potential to impact character‐defining features associated with the Civic Center Historic District.
Individual Architectural Resources Three historic districts and 16 buildings located in close proximity to the 21 proposed canopy sites qualify as CEQA historical resources. Although the entrance canopies would introduce a new streetscape element on Market Street within historic districts that qualify as CEQA historical resources, the proposed project does not require physical changes to any of the buildings located in the project site vicinity. None of the historic districts that would include canopy installation identified the streetscape as a character‐defining feature of the district.
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 4‐17 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
Chapter 5 References
Birnbaum, Charles A. n.d. National Park Service Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. Available: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four‐treatments/landscapeguidelines/ index.htm. Accessed: August 12, 2016.
ICF International 2015 Draft Historical Resource Evaluation Better Market Street Project, Market Street, San Francisco, CA. May 2015. Prepared for the San Francisco Department of Public Works.
ICF 2016 Cultural Landscape Evaluation, Better Market Street Project, Market Street, San Francisco, CA. November. Prepared by ICF, San Francisco, CA.
Keller, Timothy J., Keller, Genevieve, and Land and Community Associates. Charlottesville, VA. 1987 National Register Bulletin 18: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes. National Park Service. Available: https://www.nps.gov/nr/ publications/bulletins/pdfs/nrb18.pdf. Accessed: April 18, 2016.
MIG 2015 San Francisco Civic Center Historic District Cultural Landscape Inventory: Site History, Existing Conditions & Evaluation. June. Prepared by MIG, in association with A&H Architecture & Planning, LLC, Berkeley, CA.
Page, Robert R., Gilbert, Cathy A., and Dolan, Susan A. 1998 A Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, Process and Techniques. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship Partnerships, Park Historic Structures and Cultural Landscapes Program. Washington, District of Columbia. Available: https://www.nps.gov/cultural_landscapes/Documents/ Guide_to_Cultural_Landscapes.pdf. Accessed: February 3, 2016.
Page, Robert R., Killion, Jeffrey, and Hilyard, Gretchen 2009 National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory Professional Procedures Guide. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship Partnerships, Park Historic Structures and Cultural Landscapes Program. Washington, District of Columbia. Available: https://www.nps.gov/oclp/CLI%20PPG_January2009_ small.pdf. Accessed: February 3, 2016.
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II August 2017 Canopy and Escalator Modernization Project, Market Street, 5‐1 ICF 00203.17 San Francisco, California
Appendix A Character Defining Features of Market Street Landscape and United Nations Plaza Appendix A Character Defining Features of Market Street Landscape and United Nations San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Plaza
Table A‐1. Character Defining Features of the Market Street Cultural Landscape: Market Street as a Main Circulation Artery
Contributing Landscape Market Street Character‐ Status Character‐Defining Feature Integrity Analysis Feature/Canopy Characteristic Defining Feature Location Category Throughout Spatial Alignment as axis Extant Market Street remains an axis connecting the eastern waterfront with the streetscape Organization southwest interior, oriented diagonally, visually connecting Twin Peaks with the Ferry Building. Retained alignment contributes to integrity of location, design, feeling, and association. Throughout Spatial Grid alignment Extant Market Street retains its alignment as a meeting place between two streetscape Organization discordant grids laid over the city’s typography, oriented perpendicularly to the street grid in the south. Retained alignment contributes to integrity of location, design, feeling, and association. Throughout Spatial Linear plan Extant Market Street’s linear plan from the eastern terminus of Market Street streetscape Organization west to Castro Street remains intact as a transportation artery, contributing to integrity of location, design, feeling, and association. Throughout Cluster Presence of multi‐modal Extant While some specific transportation systems and specific associated streetscape Arrangement transportation systems features are not retained from the earliest eras of the period of significance, Market Street retains the presence of multi‐modal transportation systems clustered along Market Street. These systems of movement express Market Street’s role as San Francisco’s main circulation artery. Retained arrangement contributes to integrity of design, setting, feeling, and association for the streetscape. Throughout Circulation Sidewalks Partial Market Street sidewalks retain integrity of location. Use of sidewalks as a streetscape system for pedestrian circulation support’s Market Street’s retention of integrity of association. However, the sidewalks have been altered since the period of significance and do not retain integrity of design (width), materials, workmanship, or feeling. No potential for impact by insertion of BART canopies. Throughout Circulation Roadway Partial Market Street retains the presence of roadways for use as a vehicle streetscape circulation system, which contributes to integrity of association. However, the roadway has been altered since the period of significance and does not retain integrity of design, materials, workmanship, or feeling.
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II Canopy and Escalator July 2017 A‐1 Modernization Project, Market Street, San Francisco, California ICF 00203.17
Appendix A Character Defining Features of San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Market Street Landscape and United Nations Plaza
Contributing Landscape Market Street Character‐ Status Character‐Defining Feature Integrity Analysis Feature/Canopy Characteristic Defining Feature Location Category Throughout Circulation Rails Partial Market Street retains the presence of rails for streetcar and cable car streetscape circulation, which contribute to integrity of association. However, the rails have been altered since the period of significance and do not retain integrity of design, materials, workmanship, or feeling. Throughout Circulation Electric catenary wire Partial Market Street retains the presence of electric catenary for streetcar streetscape system circulation, which contribute to integrity of association. However, the electric catenary have been altered since the period of significance and does not retain integrity of design, materials, workmanship, or feeling. BART entrance 1 Circulation Cable car turnarounds Extant Market Street retains the presence of cable car turnarounds, which contribute to integrity of design, material, workmanship, feeling, and association. Throughout Topography Grade Extant Market Street’s grade elevation increases from east to west as during its streetscape period of significance, and contributes to integrity of design, material, workmanship, feeling, and association. Throughout Buildings and Landmark buildings Extant Retention of buildings and structures constructed along Market Street for streetscape Structures strategic advantage (practical utility of access to Market Street’s main circulation artery, as well as for the purpose of displaying wealth and success) contributes to integrity of setting, design, material, workmanship, feeling, and association. Throughout Views and Line of sight from east to Extant Line of sight from east to west is retained, including view of Twin Peaks streetscape Vistas west and Sunset, and contributes to integrity of setting, design, feeling, and association. Throughout Views and Line of sight west to east Extant Line of sight from west to east is retained, including view of Market streetscape Vistas Street’s length terminating at the Ferry Building, and contributes to integrity of setting, design, feeling, and association. Not applicable/ Views and View of Market Street from Extant View of Market Street from points near the ridge and down the eastern Not adjacent to a Vistas Twin Peaks slope of Twin Peaks are retained and contribute to Market Street’s BART entrance integrity of setting, design, feeling, and association. Not applicable/Not Constructed Lotta’s Fountain Extant Retained from pre‐Market Street Redevelopment Plan Market Street adjacent to a BART Water development and contributes to integrity of design, materials, feeling, entrance Features and association for the streetscape.
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II Canopy and Escalator July 2017 A‐2 Modernization Project, Market Street, San Francisco, California ICF 00203.17
Appendix A Character Defining Features of San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Market Street Landscape and United Nations Plaza
Contributing Landscape Market Street Character‐ Status Character‐Defining Feature Integrity Analysis Feature/Canopy Characteristic Defining Feature Location Category Throughout Small‐Scale Path of Gold Light Partial Path of Gold Light Standards are replicas and do not retain integrity of streetscape Features Standards materials and workmanship, but do retain integrity of location, design, feeling, and association. Thus, existing Path of Gold Light Standards from Justin Herman Plaza to Valencia Street contribute to Market Street’s integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Throughout Small‐Scale AWSS fire hydrants Extant AWSS, features retained from pre‐Market Street Redevelopment Plan streetscape Features Market Street development are in good condition. While they were present throughout the city during the period of significance and are not exclusively components of Market Street, they are features that contribute to the streetscape’s integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Not applicable/Not Small‐Scale Samuel’s Clock Extant Retained from pre‐Market Street Redevelopment Plan Market Street adjacent to a BART Features development and contributes to integrity of design, materials, feeling, entrance and association for the streetscape. Not applicable/ Small‐Scale Mechanics Monument Extant Retained from pre‐Market Street Redevelopment Plan Market Street Not adjacent to a Features development and contributes to integrity of design, materials, BART entrance workmanship, feeling, and association for the streetscape. BART entrance 11 Small‐Scale California Statehood Extant Retained from pre‐Market Street Redevelopment Plan Market Street Features Monument development and contributes to integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association for the streetscape. Throughout Small‐Scale Emergency call boxes Extant Retained from pre‐Market Street Redevelopment Plan Market Street streetscape Features development and contributes to integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association for the streetscape. Source: Table edited from ICF. “Table 6‐1. Feature Analysis Table: market Street as a Main Circulation Artery” Cultural Landscape Evaluation, Better Market Street Project, Market Street, San Francisco, CA. (2016), 6‐3–6‐6.
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II Canopy and Escalator July 2017 A‐3 Modernization Project, Market Street, San Francisco, California ICF 00203.17
Appendix A Character Defining Features of San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Market Street Landscape and United Nations Plaza
Table A‐2. Character Defining Features of the Market Street Cultural Landscape: Market Street as a Venue for Civic Engagement
Contributing Landscape Market Street Character‐ Status Character‐Defining Feature Integrity Analysis Feature/Canopy Characteristic Defining Feature Location Category Throughout Spatial Verticality of streetscape Extant Buildings that line Market Street articulate vertical planes that define streetscape Organization the space for procession at street level, but also establish Market Street as an amphitheater with an audience elevated within buildings above. As such, retained alignment contributes to integrity of setting for Market Street. Throughout Spatial Grid alignment Extant Market Street retains its alignment as a meeting place between two streetscape Organization discordant grids laid over the city’s typography, oriented perpendicularly to the street grid in the south. Retained alignment contributes to integrity of location, design, feeling, and association. Throughout Cluster Plaza arrangement along Extant While Justin Herman Plaza, Robert Frost Plaza, Mechanics Monument streetscape Arrangement Market Street Plaza, Mark Twain Plaza, Crocker Plaza, Hallidie Plaza, and United Nations Plaza were not present along Market Street during the entire period of significance, they were added as open spaces for public gathering during the period of significance and remain intact as places along the processional route for participant and audience gathering. Retained arrangement contributes to integrity of design, location, setting, feeling, and association for the streetscape. Throughout Cluster North‐south intersections Extant North‐south intersections clustered along Market Street remain intact streetscape Arrangement as locations that allow participants and audiences of civic engagement activities access to east‐west processional route from the northern and southern street grids. As such, these intersections contribute to integrity of design, feeling, and association. Throughout Circulation Sidewalks Partial Market Street retains the presence of sidewalks for pedestrian streetscape Features circulation and audience participation during public engagement events, which contribute to integrity of design and association. The sidewalks have been altered since the 1870s–1967 segment of the period of significance and do not retain integrity of design (width alteration), materials, workmanship or feeling. For the Market Street Redevelopment Plan era, sidewalks do retain integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II Canopy and Escalator July 2017 A‐4 Modernization Project, Market Street, San Francisco, California ICF 00203.17
Appendix A Character Defining Features of San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Market Street Landscape and United Nations Plaza
Contributing Landscape Market Street Character‐ Status Character‐Defining Feature Integrity Analysis Feature/Canopy Characteristic Defining Feature Location Category Throughout Circulation Roadway Partial Market Street retains the presence of roadways used as the route for streetscape Features public procession in protest and celebration, which contribute to integrity of association. However, the roadway width has been altered since the 1870s–1967 segment of the period of significance and do not retain integrity of materials, workmanship, or feeling. For the Market Street Redevelopment Plan era, roadway does retain moderate integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Throughout Topography Grade Extant Market Street’s grade remains relatively flat along Market Street from streetscape the Embarcadero to Castro Street, but increases from east to west as during its period of significance, and contributes to integrity of design, material, workmanship, feeling, and association. Throughout Views and Broad view of streetscape Partial Broad view of streetscape from sidewalks and intersections remains streetscape Vistas intact, offering visual access to audience at street level and in buildings to processions down Market Street. However, the view is diminished slightly by the addition of Muni high‐low structures in the street. As such, the vista contributes to integrity of design, feeling, and association. BART entrance Views and Vista of City Hall from Partial Vista of City Hall from United Nations Plaza remains intact, offering 17, 19, and 20 Vistas United Nations Plaza visual connection between the plaza gathering space and the seat of government. However, the view is diminished slightly from some vantage points by the Bolivar statue, which partially obstructs the view of City Hall when observers are standing in the United Nations Plaza Fulton promenade. As such, the vista contributes to integrity of design, feeling, and association. Not applicable/ Views and Justin Herman Plaza open Extant View of Justin Herman open space remains intact, offering visual access Not adjacent to a Vistas space to mass gatherings. As such, the view contributes to Market Street’s BART entrance integrity of design, feeling, and association. Not applicable/ Constructed Lotta’s Fountain Extant Lotta’s Fountain is retained from pre‐Market Street Redevelopment Not adjacent to a Water Plan Market Street development and contributes to integrity of design, BART entrance Features materials, feeling, and association for the streetscape.
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II Canopy and Escalator July 2017 A‐5 Modernization Project, Market Street, San Francisco, California ICF 00203.17
Appendix A Character Defining Features of San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Market Street Landscape and United Nations Plaza
Contributing Landscape Market Street Character‐ Status Character‐Defining Feature Integrity Analysis Feature/Canopy Characteristic Defining Feature Location Category Throughout Small‐Scale Path of Gold Light Partial Path of Gold Light Standards are replicas and do not retain integrity of streetscape Features Standards materials and workmanship, but do retain integrity of location, design, feeling, and association. Thus, existing Path of Gold Light Standards from Justin Herman Plaza to Valencia street retain enough integrity overall to contribute to Market Street’s integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association for the streetscape. Throughout Small‐Scale AWSS fire hydrants Extant Retained infrastructure contributes to integrity of design, materials, streetscape Features workmanship, feeling, and association for the streetscape. Not applicable/ Small‐Scale Samuel’s Clock Extant Retained monument contributes to integrity of design, materials, Not adjacent to a Features workmanship, feeling, and association for the streetscape. BART entrance Not Small‐Scale Mechanics Monument Extant Retained monument contributes to integrity of design, setting, feeling, applicable/Not Features and association for the streetscape. adjacent to a BART entrance BART entrance Small‐Scale California Statehood Extant Retained monument contributes to integrity of design, setting, feeling, 11 Features Monument and association for the streetscape. AWSS = Auxiliary Water Supply System; BART = Bay Area Rapid Transit; Muni = San Francisco Municipal Railway Note: Table edited from ICF. “Table 6‐2. Feature Analysis Table: Market Street as a Venue for Civic Engagement,” Cultural Landscape Evaluation, Better Market Street Project, Market Street, San Francisco, CA. (2016), 6‐11–6‐13.
Table A‐3. Character Defining Features of the Market Street Cultural Landscape: Market Street Redevelopment Plan Landscape
Contributing Landscape Market Street Character‐ Status Character‐Defining Features Integrity Analysis Feature/Canopy Characteristic Defining Feature Location Category Throughout Natural Sunlight channeled through Extant Street alignment that allows this benefit remains intact and contributes streetscape Systems and northern diagonal street to integrity of setting for the streetscape. Features grid into triangular plazas Throughout Spatial Alignment of 120‐foot‐ Extant Market Street remains in its Market Street Redevelopment Plan‐era streetscape Organization wide street, diagonally alignment and width, establishing integrity of location and contributing from east to west to integrity of design for the streetscape.
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II Canopy and Escalator July 2017 A‐6 Modernization Project, Market Street, San Francisco, California ICF 00203.17
Appendix A Character Defining Features of San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Market Street Landscape and United Nations Plaza
Contributing Landscape Market Street Character‐ Status Character‐Defining Features Integrity Analysis Feature/Canopy Characteristic Defining Feature Location Category Throughout Spatial Pedestrian‐oriented Partial Reintroduction of streetcar and trolley transit using electric overhead streetscape Organization separation of foot, vehicle, catenary wire to street‐level undermines integrity of design, feeling, and rail traffic and association for the Market Street Redevelopment Plan‐era streetscape. Not applicable/ Spatial Justin Herman Plaza Partial Significant alterations to Justin Herman Plaza features, along with Not adjacent to a Organization addition of new features, undermine integrity of the plaza, but sufficient BART entrance integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, under and association remain to express role as an organizing feature of consideration Market Street. Not applicable/ Spatial Hallidie Plaza Partial Alterations to Hallidie Plaza features, along with addition of new Not adjacent to a Organization features, undermine integrity of the plaza, but sufficient integrity of BART entrance location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and under association remain to express role as an organizing feature of Market consideration Street. BART entrance Spatial United Nations Plaza Partial Alterations to United Nations Plaza features, along with addition of new 17, 19, and 20 Organization features, undermine integrity of the plaza, but sufficient integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association remain to express role as an organizing feature of Market Street. BART entrance 1 Spatial Robert Frost Plaza Partial Minor alteration to small‐scale features undermine integrity of the Organization plaza, but sufficient integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association remain to express role as an organizing feature of Market Street. Not applicable/ Spatial Mechanics Monument Partial Redesign of the plaza has significantly undermined integrity, but Not adjacent to a Organization Plaza sufficient integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, BART entrance feeling and association remain to express role as an organizing feature under of Market Street. consideration Not applicable/ Spatial Crocker Plaza Partial Alterations to Crocker Plaza undermine integrity, but sufficient Not adjacent to a Organization integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling BART entrance and association remain to express role as an organizing feature of under Market Street. consideration
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II Canopy and Escalator July 2017 A‐7 Modernization Project, Market Street, San Francisco, California ICF 00203.17
Appendix A Character Defining Features of San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Market Street Landscape and United Nations Plaza
Contributing Landscape Market Street Character‐ Status Character‐Defining Features Integrity Analysis Feature/Canopy Characteristic Defining Feature Location Category Not applicable/ Spatial Mark Twain Plaza Extant Mark Twain Plaza has suffered little post‐Market Street Redevelopment Not adjacent to a Organization Plan‐era alteration. Sufficient integrity of location, design, setting, BART entrance materials, workmanship, feeling and association remain to express role under as an organizing feature of Market Street. consideration Not applicable Spatial Market Street Plaza ‐ Given construction may be more closely related to Yerba Buena Center based on analysis Organization redevelopment, status and priority level are not assigned. Throughout Cluster Plaza placement along Extant Arrangement of large and small plazas along market street remains streetscape Arrangement length of Market Street consistent with Market Street Redevelopment Plan design and contributes to integrity of design, setting, feeling, and association for the streetscape. Throughout Cluster Repeating pattern of Extant Arrangement of entrances along the length of Market Street remains streetscape Arrangement BART/Muni subway consistent with Market Street Redevelopment Plan design and entrances along length of contributes to design, setting, feeling, and association for the Market Street streetscape. Not applicable Cluster Repeating pattern of small‐ Lost With loss of some small‐scale features, arrangement along the length of based on status Arrangement scale furnishings Market Street is not consistent with Market Street Redevelopment Plan design and diminishes integrity of design, setting, feeling, and association for the streetscape. Throughout Cluster Repeating pattern of street Partial Few Market Street Redevelopment Plan‐era street signs remain intact; streetscape Arrangement signage (square and thus, repeating pattern is not discernable. This replacement of original circular) signage undermines integrity of design, setting, feeling, and association for the streetscape. Throughout Cluster Repeating pattern of traffic Extant Arrangement of traffic lights and traffic signage along the length of streetscape Arrangement lights and traffic signage Market Street remains consistent with Market Street Redevelopment Plan design and contributes to design, setting, feeling, and association for the streetscape. Throughout Cluster Arrangement of street Extant Arrangement in double‐ and single‐tree allées along sidewalks flanking streetscape Arrangement trees in double and single Market Street, appears to be intact and contributes to integrity of rows down sidewalks design, setting, feeling, and association for the streetscape.
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II Canopy and Escalator July 2017 A‐8 Modernization Project, Market Street, San Francisco, California ICF 00203.17
Appendix A Character Defining Features of San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Market Street Landscape and United Nations Plaza
Contributing Landscape Market Street Character‐ Status Character‐Defining Features Integrity Analysis Feature/Canopy Characteristic Defining Feature Location Category Throughout Circulation Red brick paving in Extant Original brick paving continues to unify circulation sidewalk and plaza streetscape herringbone pattern that circulation routes, but is missing from crosswalks. Integrity of design, distinguishes pedestrian material, workmanship, feeling, and association are diminished slightly. from vehicular space Not applicable Circulation Decorative paving at Lost The circular decorative paving is no longer present on the streetscape. based on status Market and Steuart Streets Loss diminishes integrity of design, material, workmanship, feeling, and association. Not applicable Circulation Granite gutter, crosswalk Lost This element is no longer present on the streetscape. Loss diminishes based on status edging, and lower Market integrity of design, material, workmanship, feeling, and association. Street centerline paving All Canopy Circulation Tree allées (double and Extant Trees continue to create pedestrian lanes on the sidewalks, Locations single rows) contributing to integrity of design, feeling, and association. All BART Circulation Vertical circulation Extant Vertical circulation features continue to allow pedestrian movement Entrance features (elevator, from street level to underground transit, contributing to integrity of Locations escalator, and stairs) of design, feeling, and association. BART/Muni stations (Civic Center, Embarcadero, Montgomery, and Powell) and Muni‐only station (Van Ness) Throughout Vegetation Street trees Extant Original species remains intact for street trees along Market Street, streetscape contributing to integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association for the streetscape. BART entrances Buildings and BART/Muni station Partial Minimal design—form, location, and material selection—continues to 1‐6, 7‐12, 13‐16, Structures street entrances: reduce impact of transit presence on the street‐level pedestrian and 17‐22. Embarcadero Station, experience and contributes to integrity of design, setting, feeling, and association, but some examples have security gate additions and Montgomery Station alterations to finishes and railing that undermine integrity of design. Powell Station, Civic Center Station
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II Canopy and Escalator July 2017 A‐9 Modernization Project, Market Street, San Francisco, California ICF 00203.17
Appendix A Character Defining Features of San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Market Street Landscape and United Nations Plaza
Contributing Landscape Market Street Character‐ Status Character‐Defining Features Integrity Analysis Feature/Canopy Characteristic Defining Feature Location Category Throughout Buildings and Van Ness Muni station Partial Minimal design—form, location, and material selection—continues to streetscape Structures street entrances reduce impact of transit presence on the street‐level pedestrian experience and contributes to integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. BART entrance Views and Retained view of City Hall Partial Connection between pedestrians on Market Street and view of City Hall 17, 19, and 20 Vistas from Market Street is retained, but integrity of design, setting, feeling, and association are slightly diminished by presence of statue obstructing sightline. Throughout Views and Retained broad view of Partial View remains unobstructed in many locations and allows visual streetscape Vistas Market Street width connection between pedestrians and the streetscape. Obstructions have been introduced in some locations in the form of Muni boarding structures and bus shelters. These additions slightly diminish integrity of design, setting, feeling, and association. Not Constructed Lotta’s Fountain Extant Retained water feature remains intact, contributes to integrity of applicable/Not Water design, setting, feeling, and association. adjacent to a Features BART entrance under consideration Not applicable Small‐Scale Wood‐slat benches Lost Loss diminishes integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, based on status Features and association. Not applicable Small‐Scale Backless stone benches Lost Loss diminishes integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, based on status Features and association. BART Entrance Small‐Scale Granite bollards with chain Partial Bollards contribute to integrity of design, workmanship, feeling, and 19 and 20 Features links association, but integrity of material is slightly diminished with missing chain links and paint covering stone in some locations. Not applicable Small‐Scale Bronze bus shelters Lost Loss diminishes integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, based on status Features and association. Not applicable Small‐Scale Granite and bronze Lost Loss diminishes integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, based on status Features drinking fountains and association. Throughout Small‐Scale Bronze BART/Muni street Partial Locations remain but design, materials and workmanship are altered. streetscape Features level elevators
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II Canopy and Escalator July 2017 A‐10 Modernization Project, Market Street, San Francisco, California ICF 00203.17
Appendix A Character Defining Features of San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Market Street Landscape and United Nations Plaza
Contributing Landscape Market Street Character‐ Status Character‐Defining Features Integrity Analysis Feature/Canopy Characteristic Defining Feature Location Category Not applicable Small‐Scale Bronze light standards, Lost Loss diminishes integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, based on status Features poles with square and association. translucent luminaries Not applicable Small‐Scale Bronze circular advertising Lost Loss of circular advertising kiosks on the Market Street streetscape based on status Features kiosks diminishes integrity of design, feeling, and association. BART entrance 1 Small‐Scale Bronze four‐sided street Extant Presence on streetscape contributes to integrity of design, materials, and 9 Features clocks feeling, and association. Throughout Small‐Scale Street signage Partial Presence on streetscape contributes to integrity of design, materials, streetscape Features workmanship, feeling, and association. Throughout Small‐Scale Semaphore‐style traffic Extant Presence on streetscape contributes to integrity of design, materials, streetscape Features signage and traffic lights workmanship, feeling, and association. Not applicable Small‐Scale Bronze telephone booths Lost Loss diminishes integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, based on status Features and association. Throughout Small‐Scale Bronze tree grates Partial While the majority of tree locations retain their Market Street streetscape Features Redevelopment Plan‐era grates, a notable number have been removed, diminishing integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Not applicable Small‐Scale Bronze trash receptacles Lost Loss diminishes integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, based on status Features and association. Throughout Small‐Scale Path of Gold Light Extant Retained features that pre‐date the Market Street Redevelopment Plan streetscape Features Standards remain intact, continue to contribute to integrity of design, setting, feeling, and association for the streetscape. Throughout Small‐Scale AWSS fire hydrants Extant Retained features that pre‐date the Market Street Redevelopment Plan streetscape Features remain intact, continue to contribute to integrity of design, setting, feeling, and association for the streetscape. Not applicable/ Small‐Scale Samuel’s Clock Extant Retained features that pre‐date the Market Street Redevelopment Plan Not adjacent to a Features remain intact, continue to contribute to integrity of design, setting, BART entrance feeling, and association for the streetscape. under consideration
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II Canopy and Escalator July 2017 A‐11 Modernization Project, Market Street, San Francisco, California ICF 00203.17
Appendix A Character Defining Features of San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Market Street Landscape and United Nations Plaza
Contributing Landscape Market Street Character‐ Status Character‐Defining Features Integrity Analysis Feature/Canopy Characteristic Defining Feature Location Category BART Entrance Small‐Scale California Statehood Extant Retained features that pre‐date the Market Street Redevelopment Plan 11 Features Monument remain intact, continue to contribute to integrity of design, setting, feeling, and association for the streetscape. Throughout Small‐Scale Emergency call boxes Extant Retained features that pre‐date the Market Street Redevelopment Plan streetscape Features remain intact, continue to contribute to integrity of design, setting, feeling, and association for the streetscape. AWSS = Auxiliary Water Supply System; BART = Bay Area Rapid Transit; Muni = San Francisco Municipal Railway Note: Table edited from ICF. “Table 6‐3. Feature Analysis Table: Market Street Redevelopment Plan Landscape,” Cultural Landscape Evaluation, Better Market Street Project, Market Street, San Francisco, CA. (2016), 6‐19–6‐25.
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II Canopy and Escalator July 2017 A‐12 Modernization Project, Market Street, San Francisco, California ICF 00203.17
Appendix A Character Defining Features of San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Market Street Landscape and United Nations Plaza
Table A‐4. Character Defining Features of the United Nations Plaza
Contributing Landscape United Nations Plaza Status Character‐Defining Features Integrity Analysis Feature/Canopy Characteristic Character‐Defining Location Category Feature BART entrance Spatial Located along Market Extant The plaza’s placement remains consistent, contributing to integrity 17, 19, and 20 Organization Street between 7th and of location. 8th Street BART entrance Spatial Triangular plan with two Extant The plaza’s plan remains consistent, contributing to integrity of 17, 19, and 20 Organization linear promenades design, feeling, and association. projecting north and west BART entrance Spatial Placement of fountain in Extant Placement of the fountain remains consistent, contributing to 17, 19, and 20 Organization eastern section integrity of design, feeling, and association. BART entrance Circulation Multi‐modal Extant Access to multi‐modal transportation remains intact, contributing to 17, 19, and 20 transportation access integrity of design, material, workmanship, feeling, and association. point BART entrance Circulation Vertical circulation for Extant Vertical circulation features remain intact, contributing to integrity 17, 19, and 20 Civic Center BART/Muni of design, material, workmanship, feeling, and association. station including stair and escalator BART entrance Circulation Two pedestrian Extant Fulton Street east‐west and Leavenworth Street north‐south axis 17, 19, and 20 circulation axes configuration remains intact, contributing to integrity of design, material, workmanship, feeling, and association. BART entrance Circulation Red brick paving in Extant Paving remains intact, contributing to integrity of design, material, 17, 19, and 20 herringbone pattern workmanship, feeling, and association. BART entrance Vegetation Trees Extant Tree rows remain intact, contributing to integrity of design, material, 17, 19, and 20 workmanship, feeling, and association. BART entrance 19 Vegetation Planting beds Partial Beds in Fulton promenade and adjacent to BART/Muni station and 20 remain intact, but grass is mostly replaced with decomposed granite, contributing to integrity of design, material, workmanship, feeling, and association. BART entrance Views and View of City Hall Partial View of City Hall obscured by Simon Bolivar Statue, diminishes 17, 19, and 20 Vistas integrity of design, setting, feeling, and association. BART entrance Constructed United Nations Plaza Extant Fountain remains intact, contributing to integrity of design, 17, 19, and 20 Water Features Fountain materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II Canopy and Escalator July 2017 A‐13 Modernization Project, Market Street, San Francisco, California ICF 00203.17
Appendix A Character Defining Features of San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Market Street Landscape and United Nations Plaza
Contributing Landscape United Nations Plaza Status Character‐Defining Features Integrity Analysis Feature/Canopy Characteristic Character‐Defining Location Category Feature BART entrance Constructed “Ocean pools” and “earth Extant Loss of “earth tide” cycle is not permanent and, therefore, does not 17, 19, and 20 Water Features tides” water cycle of significantly diminish integrity. Arched jets of water and “ocean United Nations Plaza pools” remain intact and contribute to integrity of design, feeling, Fountain and association. No potential impact from installation of BART canopy. BART entrance Small Scale Granite light standards in Partial Light standards have been modified, diminishing integrity of design, 17, 19, and 20 Features Fulton promenade materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Potential impact if complete BART canopy installation or construction related to BART canopy installation requires permanent relocation or removal of granite light standards. BART entrance Small Scale Light poles at fountain Extant Light poles are intact, contributing to integrity of design, materials, 17, 19, and 20 Features workmanship, feeling, and association. No potential impact from insertion of BART Canopy. Not applicable Small Scale Wood‐slat benches Lost Loss diminishes integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, based on status Features and association. Potential impact analysis not applicable. BART entrance Small Scale Flag poles with radial base Extant Flag poles are intact, contributing to integrity of design, materials, 17, 19, and 20 Features design workmanship, feeling, and association. No potential impact from installation of BART canopy. BART entrance Small Scale Granite paving with brass Extant Market Street Redevelopment Plan‐era granite paving with brass 17, 19, and 20 Features inlay inlay is intact, contributing to integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. No potential impact from installation of BART canopy. BART entrance Small Scale Stone monument Extant Market Street Redevelopment Plan‐era stone monument intact, 17, 19, and 20 Features contributing to integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. No potential impact from installation of BART canopy. Not applicable Small Scale Advertising kiosk Lost Market Street Redevelopment Plan‐era advertising kiosk does not based on status Features appear to be intact. Loss diminishes integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. No potential impact from installation of BART canopy.
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II Canopy and Escalator July 2017 A‐14 Modernization Project, Market Street, San Francisco, California ICF 00203.17
Appendix A Character Defining Features of San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District Market Street Landscape and United Nations Plaza
Contributing Landscape United Nations Plaza Status Character‐Defining Features Integrity Analysis Feature/Canopy Characteristic Character‐Defining Location Category Feature BART entrance 19 Small Scale Bollards Extant Market Street Redevelopment Plan‐era Bollards adjacent to and 20 Features BART/Muni entrance remain intact, contributing to integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Potential impact if complete BART canopy installation or construction related to BART canopy installation requires permanent removal or relocation of bollards. Not applicable Post‐Plaza Wayfinding signage Added after Addition diminishes integrity of design, materials, workmanship, based on status Completion period of feeling, and association. Potential impact analysis not applicable. Features significance Not applicable Post‐Plaza Public toilet Added after Addition diminishes integrity of design, materials, workmanship, based on status Completion period of feeling, and association. Potential impact analysis not applicable. Features significance Not applicable Post‐Plaza 1995 United Nations 50th Added after While new monument would typically diminish integrity, based on status Completion Anniversary stone period of participation of designer Lawrence Halprin in the process mitigates Features monument significance reduced integrity. Potential impact analysis not applicable. Not applicable Post‐Plaza Light poles Added after Addition diminishes integrity of design, materials, workmanship, based on status Completion period of feeling, and association. Potential impact analysis not applicable. Features significance Not applicable Post‐Plaza Simon Bolivar equestrian Added after Addition diminishes integrity of design, feeling, and association. based on status Completion statue period of Potential impact analysis not applicable. Features significance Not applicable Post‐Plaza 1995 paving, including Added after While 1995 paving and brass inlay would typically diminish integrity based on status Completion granite bands and brass period of of design, material, workmanship, feeling, and association, Features inlay in Fulton promenade, significance participation of designer Lawrence Halprin in the process mitigates circular granite United reduced integrity. Potential impact analysis not applicable. Nations symbol BART = Bay Area Rapid Transit; Muni = San Francisco Municipal Railway Note: Table edited from ICF. “Appendix A, DPR Forms, United Nation’s Plaza, Table 1. Feature Analysis Table: United Nations Plaza,” Cultural Landscape Evaluation, Better Market Street Project, Market Street, San Francisco, CA. (2016), 10‐12.
Historical Resources Inventory Report for the BART Phase II Canopy and Escalator July 2017 A‐15 Modernization Project, Market Street, San Francisco, California ICF 00203.17