Response to Comments - Presidio Trust

protruding from a 6-floor main building.” The same individual also felt that consideration should be givento keeping the loggia because it may be “a convenience to persons entering/leaving the wings.”Response HR-1 – As stated in the earlier response to this comment (see Draft SEIS pages A-30 and A-31), it is the Trust’s opinion that nothing in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards either requires theremoval of non-historic building fabric or precludes improvements to non-historic elements intended toincrease their compatibility. The Standards do prohibit changes that would create a false sense ofhistoricity, and they require a systematic analysis of changes that have occurred on the building throughtime and that may have gained significance as part of the building’s history. The Trust has determinedthat the 1950s wings of Building 1801 have not acquired such significance. However, any improvementsto the non-historic portions of the building proposed in Alternatives 1 and 2 would be designed to avoidmimicking the historic style of the 1930s structure while providing some level of compatibility with theoriginal structure.Since the PHSH developer has proposed use of the federal historic tax credit, the alternative that isultimately selected will be subject to detailed review by NPS staff in Washington, D.C. to ensure itremains entirely consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.HR-2. Removal of Building 1801 WingsRPN and others suggested that removal of the hospital wings as proposed in Alternative 3 would betterpreserve and rehabilitate the hospital building in accordance with its historic status. Although, asindicated in the Draft EIS, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards do not require removal of non-historicfabric, RPN stressed that the Trust is now provided the unique opportunity to “correct the bad decision ofthe 1950’s decision makers before it is too late,” and should “seize the opportunity” to remove thebuilding’s wings in keeping with the Trust’s goal of preserving and restoring historic resources. Oneindividual asserted that the renovation can only be termed “historical” if it returns the building to itsoriginal, grand structure.Still others stated the issue more bluntly, proclaiming that the wings were “unsightly,” “hideous,” a“visual vulgarity,” an “eyesore,” or “aesthetic blight,” to mention some of the less colorful ways theywere described. A number of individuals warned that the Trust should not want the wings to be part of its“legacy.” Many strongly suggested the wings should be removed in their entirety due to their significant,adverse impact on the environment, offering the following reasons:1. They are grossly out of scale relative to their surroundings.2. The 1950s era wings all but obliterate the historic architecture of the early 1930s-era main building.3. The wings result in the over-development of the project site, i.e., an inappropriate, high-intense use.Response HR-2 – The Trust appreciates the views of the commenters, and recognizes the beneficialvisual effect that would be associated with removing the non-historic wings on the front of the hospital62 Responses to Comments Public Health Service Hospital