THE DAILY KERNEL

This September 9th article from the Los Angeles Times explores the ongoing Main Post controversy. (h/t to TDK Reader KW)

The Fishers have made it clear that they want their building to sit on the promontory at the top of the parade ground, and those familiar with the negotiations said there is a chance that if the museum’s site, size and design are not approved, the Fishers would retract their offer.

Wow. 

Just the site, size and design? Is that all?

“Their” building?

–Doug Kern

Tags: Conflict, History, New Construction by Doug
No Comments »

This online August 22, 2008 article in Preservation Magazine, describes the ongoing controversy surrounding the Contemporary Art Museum at the Presidio (CAMP) and reports this news:

Kicking it Up a Notch

In a rare move, this week the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation requested guidance from the National Park Service in the form of a “Section 213 report.” That document, due in October, will assist the council in its review of the proposed museum by recommending ways to ”avoid, minimize, and mitigate” harm to the Presidio National Historic Landmark District. The council’s sparingly used request is a direct result of a July 8 letter from National Trust President Richard Moe, who explained the need for an objective review of the proposal’s impact on the park.

In this previous post, I took a look at the Section 106 process from the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Now, the rarely invoked NHPA Section 213 is put into action. What is Section 213 and what does it mean for the Presidio Section 106 process?

Section 213 [16 U.S.C. 470u].

To assist the Council in discharging its responsibilities under this subchapter, the Secretary at the request of the Chairman, shall provide a report to the Council detailing the significance of any historic property, describing the effects of any proposed undertaking on the affected property, and recommending measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects.

This is an important request by the Executive Director of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to the Director of the National Park Service. As noted in the article and the section language these reports seek to make recommendations about avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating adverse effects to the National Historic Landmark District (NHDL). This report will aid the ACHP in the Section 106 consultation process.

This interesting Section 213 report for the proposed Highwood Generating Station on the Portage Route of the Lewis and Clark Expedition near Great Falls, Montana, determined that proposed mitigations were not effective or adequate and went on to say that the proposed construction was immitigable unless the project was relocated. That project has received widespread negative public reaction and has been tied up since the Final EIS was issued in January 2007.

–Doug Kern

Tags: Conflict, History, New Construction by Doug
No Comments »

Several documents pertaining to the Main Post museum project have been posted to the Presidio Trust website. These include the:

• Main Post Finding of Effects, Part 1
• Main Post Finding of Effects, Part 2

The Finding of Effects (FOE) is an important document in the Section 106 Process. This report identifies historic properties in the area of potential effects (which is the entire Presidio, for the National Historic Landmark District) and evaluates the effects of the proposed undertaking on the historic properties.

This summary table from the FOE indicates the effects determined to occur from the various alternatives proposed in the Main Post SEIS. There are three different effects possible:

• No Historic Resources Affected: No Effect
• Altered According to the Secretary’s Standards: No Adverse
• Resource Adversely Affected: Adverse

Editor’s note: Brings back word usage nightmares, no? affect (mostly, a verb) and effect (mostly, a nown)

(i) Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property

(ii) Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, hazardous material remediation and provision of handicapped access, that is not consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR part 68) and applicable guidelines

(iii) Removal of the property from its historic location

(iv) Change of the character of the property’s use or physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance

(v) Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s significant historic features

(vi) Neglect of a property which causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization

(vii) Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of Federal ownership or control without adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long‐term preservation of the property’s historic significance

From the table, it is clear that the proposed alternatives, particularly Alternative 2, will have many adverse effects. We knew that, but now it is officially documented. Discussions will occur with “consulting parties to the Section 106 process” to ”seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate the adverse effects.”

Other notes on the FOE at this early stage of review: Yes, the date on the draft for Part 1 is May 27, 2008, about 11 weeks ago. The document hasn’t been released to the public until now, because the Trust had it under internal review for that period. No changes were made by the reviewers, who took about 77 days to review the document. I understand that the Trust is allowing the consulting parties to the Section 106 process a 30-day comment period on these materials.

I may have missed it before today in my review of other materials, but I notice now that there is a Presidio Chappel Addition being proposed in Alternatives 1, 2, and 2A. I don’t know what this is yet. More to come on that proposal.

This note from the Presidio Trust website regarding these recent postings:

Many of the documents referenced are in draft form and should not be relied upon as establishing Presidio Trust policy unless adopted by the Trust Board of Directors.

I’m sure the Trust will let us know when we can rely on these documents.

–Doug Kern

Tags: History by Doug
No Comments »

We are hearing a lot about Section 106 in the Main Post debate.

What is Section 106 and where does it come from?

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was passed in 1966 and according to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the independent federal agency created by the NHPA,

The goal of the NHPA is to have federal agencies act as responsible stewards of our nation’s resources when their actions affect historic properties. The ACHP is the only entity with the legal responsibility to encourage federal agencies to factor historic preservation into federal project requirements.

The NHPA has 46 sections: 

• Sections 1-2
• Title I Sections 101-113 
• Title II Sections 201-215
• Title III Sections 301-309
• Title IV Sections 401-407

The full text of Section 106 states (note: emphasis mine -ed.):

The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any State and the head of any Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The head of any such Federal agency shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation established under Title II of this Act a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking.

Once the NHPA became law, the Act was placed into the appropriate Title, Chapter, Subchapter and Sections of United States Code. In the case of the NHPA, it can be found in:

• Title 16: Conservation
• Chapter 1A: Historic Sites, Buildings, Objects, and Antiquities
• Subchapter II: National Historic Preservation
• Section 470: Programs
• Part A: Effect Of Federal Undertakings Upon Property Listed In National Register; Comment By Advisory Council On Historic Preservation

You can find examples of drilling down through the US Code to the NHPA here and here. 

OK, so the short paragraph listed above is Section 106. What is the Section 106 process?

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), as an independent Federal agency, may create rules or regulations in order to implement US Code. These regulations have the force of law. In order to implement Section 106 and require Federal agencies to evaluate the impact of all Federally funded or permitted projects on historic properties, the ACHP created the “106 process” in their regulations.

The ACHP rules are contained within the Code of Federal Regulations under

• Title 36 - Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 
• Volume 3
• Chapter VIII
• Parts 800-899 - Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

The regulations of the ACHP Section 106 process are contained in the links listed below:

• Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties. 
• § 800.1   Purposes.
• § 800.2   Participants in the Section 106 process.
• Subpart B—The section 106 Process
• § 800.3   Initiation of the section 106 process.
• § 800.4   Identification of historic properties.
• § 800.5   Assessment of adverse effects.
• § 800.6   Resolution of adverse effects.
• § 800.7   Failure to resolve adverse effects.
• § 800.8   Coordination With the National Environmental Policy Act.
• § 800.9   Council review of section 106 compliance.
• § 800.10   Special requirements for protecting National Historic Landmarks.
• § 800.11   Documentation standards.
• § 800.12   Emergency situations.
• § 800.13   Post-review discoveries.
• Subpart C—Program Alternatives
• § 800.14   Federal agency program alternatives.
• § 800.15   Tribal, State, and local program alternatives. [Reserved]
• § 800.16   Definitions.
• Appendix A to Part 800—Criteria for Council Involvement in Reviewing Individual section 106 Cases

Incidentally, you can see the Presidio Trust regulations in Part 1000-1099, Presidio Trust.

That’s a brief overview as to what Section 106 is and where it comes from. You may be interested in reading these three particular sub-sections as they are clearly relevant to the current situation at the Main Post:

• Assessment of adverse effects.
• Resolution of adverse effects.
• Failure to resolve adverse effects.

There is obviously a lot more to interpreting these regulations and making sure that the Presidio is afforded the protections that these laws and regulations intended for historic resources.

–Doug Kern

Tags: Conflict, History, New Construction by Doug
No Comments »

TDK Reader WH shares his thoughts…

Parking on the El Presidio is a tough problem that has to be solved. Worse, there is Moraga Street cutting across the archeological site directly in front of the 1778 structure, the Officers Club now. And Moraga is on the city’s scenic 49 MIle Drive. How can it be cut off so the historic site can be revealed and presented, or that the traffic on it can easily be diverted?

There will have to be some compromises, but there is no excuse for not having a plan. The Trust refuses to face reality concerning parking becasue it does not want to discourage future tenants. Even now, the historic streetscapes that had little or no parking, as along Funston, are crowded with cars. One part of a plan might be some parking extended between the Library and Day Care Center, maybe with one level under ground and one on the surface, landscaped so it is not very visible. Parking in that area could serve a history center built nearby and the Officers Club. This suggestion does not solve the Moraga Street problem, however.

–Doug Kern

Tags: Conflict, History, New Construction by Doug
3 Comments »

After viewing this post, TDK Reader DP makes a request:

The proposed parking near the archeological site of El Presidio de San Francisco is a severe negative impact on the special nature of the historic site.

Are you able to describe this aspect in more detail?

Yes, I think I can describe what people may be upset about. The archeological site of El Presidio de San Francisco is the seminal archeological feature of the Presidio historical period beginning in 1776, and a key feature of the National Historic Landmark District. Page 35 of the Main Post SEIS envisions a restored El Presidio site as a major historical element of the main parade ground and, I believe rightly, a major visitor attraction.

Unfortunately, other leased buildings crowd this particular site. My understanding is that Building 39 is leased to a tenant for at least another 30 years and their lease agreement includes parking within a certain distance of the building.

How does this parking impact the El Presidio site? Two proposed future parking areas for this building are shown on Page 27 of the Main Post SEIS. Page 95 of the document shows a table indicating that there will be 75 parking spaces at the El Presidio site for Alternatives 2 (the Trust preferred alternative) and 2A. 

The figures on Page 35 and Page 27 are not at the same scale. It is a little difficult to make out how the parking translates from Page 27 onto Page 35, but here’s a go at it. Parking is allocated directly adjacent to the most archeologically sensitive site on the Presidio and ironically, it’s not even for visitors to the site! (Maybe, they can squeeze in.) The parking area largely eliminates the intimate plaza, and brings noise and traffic almost on top of a culturally precious area. Clearly, reality is not quite the vision depicted on Page 35.

The Trust says they would prefer not to have the parking in that spot, but that their hands are tied. (I thought they were in charge.) They will try to get rid of the parking in 30 years, or so. Maybe.

Parking rules!

–Doug Kern

Tags: Conflict, History, New Construction by Doug
1 Comment »

This comment from TDK reader WH on being informed by history so that we make better choices for the future:

As a person who spent several years in the world of museum management, I applaud your vision of a Presidio where the programs relate to the world and world issues. The Presidio Historical Association introduced a proposal for a “History Center at the Golden Gate” located on the Presidio that would weave themes of cultural changes, economic uniqueness of the West of Sierras region to the rest of the U.S., American role on the Pacific Rim, and environmental consequences into a story of the Golden Gate and the Presidio. It would be a history of our remarkable region of the world and the many ties the Presidio has with that history. For example, did you know how rich wildlife was when the first Europeans arrived? The first white man in a canoe paddling up the Sacramento River had to post an Indian on the bow with a stick to beat a path through rafts of water fowl, for example. Did you know that America’s first reach for empire in Asia was based at the Presidio in the Spanish American War to seize the Philippines, our first permanent presence in the Asia/Pacific region, and our first overseas “counterinsurgency’ war against residents of a land who resisted our permanent occupation?

There are lessons in Presidio history and in the retelling of that history that can inform our thinking about future decisions for our nation.

–Doug Kern

Tags: History by Doug
No Comments »

TDK reader BC expresses concern regarding the CAMP project.

This is very important to me. If this project proceeds as planned, my work as an interpretive docent is affected. How can a visitor to the “heart” of this army outpost be enriched by the history of this unique place when they have to imagine it rather than experience it directly? The goal of the rehabilitation on the main post is to bring back a vibrancy with tenants and visitors to enjoy its spacious and grand locale, with the draw of over 200 years of stories in a spectacular place. Imagine Colonial Williamsburg with a Bank of America building up front and in the prominent spot. It does not make sense, even if you valued or wanted a handy bank.

There are a growing number of organizations opposed to this project, and the Presidio Trust has to respond to every comment. It really does matter when the public voices their concerns.

• Public Meeting Monday, July 14, 2008 6:30 p.m. 
• Presidio Herbst International Exhibition Hall, 385 Moraga Ave.
• Public comment accepted, make your concerns known

–Doug Kern

Tags: Conflict, History, New Construction by Doug
No Comments »

A new idea captures your imagination.

Your attention is taken by a “great opportunity” and suddenly you are distracted from the big picture, the bigger picture, and, well — the great big picture.

The things you said you always wanted to do become secondary. You lose your way. You go off on a big tangent instead of remaining focused on your goals. You may rationalize, ignore people close to you, and possibly even act beyond your legal authority.

Kinda like falling in love with someone who’s really not all that good for you. Your friends go ignored. You create your own reality. It’s almost impossible to hear people warning you that you’re headed. for. big. problems.

Hey, it happens to all of us.

That’s why your family trys to bring you back to reality, before you make a really serious mistake.

Sometimes, you just have to learn these lessons the hard way.

Really, isn’t this shiny object best returned to where you found it? Let someone else become distracted and thrown off on a tangent. Because we’ve got urgent challenges to tackle right now. 

One person’s provocative view carried on CBC News. James Howard Kunstler. Author. Futurist.

Tags: Conflict, History, New Construction by Doug
No Comments »

For more reference material on Presidio History and the Main Post SEIS please check out the Presidio Historical Association’s website at: 

http://www.presidioassociation.org/

They’re also now listed under TDK Friends on this website.

–Doug Kern

Tags: History by Doug
No Comments »