THE DAILY KERNEL

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 past evening, Monday 28th, the Presidio Trust held a workshop to discuss the transportation, parking and traffic impacts resulting from the Main Post museum, lodge and theater proposal. The meeting began at 6:30 p.m. and lasted until a little after 9:00 p.m. The meeting was well-attended by the public and Trust staff. I estimate that the crowd was over a hundred people.

Let me commend the Trust staff who led the meeting. They made a Powerpoint presentation, fielded questions and actually responded to the audience in real time. In my own experience the Trust rarely responds to questions in real time at large public meetings. Such a format is difficult to pull off without a reasonable command of the data. The audience asked a lot of detailed questions and made comments. The Trust responded, sometimes acknowledging that the comment was a “good point.” It was conversational, not confrontational. Refreshing.

I left the meeting feeling that transportation impacts had not been fully analyzed, however. Several audience member questions or comments stood out. Here is a small sampling:

• How will large events on the main parade ground add to parking and traffic?
• How will the Girard exit from Doyle Drive impact and add to Presidio cut-through traffic?
• Parking structures attract more cars and have no place in a national park.
• 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.
• Visitation and the resulting traffic/parking problems may be grossly underestimated.
• Prior to pushing ahead with a preferred alternative, planners should better understand the greater impacts to surrounding neighborhoods.
• How will the Trust expand services such as MUNI, when MUNI is considering reductions in service to the Presidio?
• The Trust proposes new signaling as mitigation for poor level of service at gateway Presidio intersections as traffic increases. What are the issues and costs of those proposed mitigations to the local neighborhoods? Higher traffic speeds and flow resulting in more pedestrian accidents?

I learned that there is a 217-page Appendix A to the SEIS, specifically on transportation, that was not included in the printed version of the SEIS. This document includes level of service reports for existing and future conditions at various intersections for all of the alternatives.

This meeting was a healthy exchange of information on the specific and highly important transportation component of a very controversial proposal. I hope the communication lines stay open.

–Doug Kern

Tags: New Construction by Doug
1 Comment »

From today’s Matier and Ross, this on the Presidio Trust’s Main Post SEIS meeting on Monday. (h/t to TDK Reader MY.)

Hundreds of people were turned away from Monday night’s packed, six-hour Presidio Trust hearing over Gap founder Don Fisher’s proposal for a contemporary art museum on the old Army base’s parade grounds.

There was no shortage of political orchestrating leading up to the big meeting, on both sides.

For weeks, Mayor Gavin Newsom’s chief political consultant, Eric Jaye, and community organizer Alex Tourk had been working for Fisher to drum up a big turnout of fans of his proposal.

Calls and letters went out to scores of nonprofits and community groups that have benefited from Fisher’s philanthropy, including the San Francisco Boys and Girls clubs, the African American Democratic Club and Friends of the Urban Forest.

On the flip side, foes led by the Presidio Historic Association mobilized a neighborhood turnout against the project - including posting talking points for opponents on the association’s Web site.

There was also some criticism from unexpected sources - such as Margaret Brodkin, the mayor’s own director of the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families. Despite having declared her support for Fisher’s museum, she dispatched a staffer to the meeting to raise concerns about its effect on a nearby day-care center.

For all the public hoo-rah Monday, the museum would sit on federally controlled land - and Fisher’s real battle may rest with the National Park Service and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The latter is warning that the building’s size, location and design would have “adverse effects” on the park.

–Doug Kern

Tags: Conflict, New Construction by Doug
1 Comment »

The meeting last night to discuss the controversial Presidio Main Post museum plan brought out the local television and news reporters. Here is a sampling:

• CBS 5 - Heated Debate Over Plans For Presidio Development (with video)
• KTVU 2 - Presidio Museum Proposal Sparks Controversy (with video)
• ABC 7 - Hundreds Pack to Debate Presidio Plans, The Presidio Got An Earful Over the Proposal of a Contemporary Art Museum (with video)
• San Francisco Chronicle - Groups Air View Prior to Presidio Meeting
• Examiner - The Room Spilleth Over, (reporter couldn’t get into the meeting)

Tags: Conflict, New Construction by Doug
1 Comment »

The public came out in droves last night to comment on the Presidio Trust’s controversial plan for the Main Post. Many were turned away. In addition to the many comments offered until the meeting finally closed at around midnight, two major things happened:

(1) The comment period for the Main Post SEIS was extended to September 19, 2008. We thank the Presidio Trust for the additional time to analyze the documents and develop comments on this complex proposal. There will be a second public meeting, as yet unscheduled, prior to the close of public comment.

(2) Mayor Gavin Newsom was soundly booed out of the building after appearing before the gathering and making an extended series of comments in support of the Museum proposal. While other museum supporters were given time, shown respect and lightly applauded, the mayor was actually booed.

Frankly, it was embarrassing to see a city leader appear so insensitive and uninformed about concerns voiced by citizens opposed to the proposal and clearly in the majority at the meeting. Perhaps it was his tone. Perhaps it was his dismissiveness towards museum opponents. Perhaps it was that he came out publicly in favor of a proposal prior to receiving his own staff’s analysis, but still offering that staff’s help. 

Whatever. The audience let him know that they were not happy with his performance.

My non-scientific estimate was that for every comment in favor of the proposal there were three strongly opposed. The meeting was recorded and we were told that the comments would be posted on the Trust website soon, so a more thorough analysis will be possible then.

–Doug Kern

Tags: Conflict, New Construction by Doug
No Comments »

I arrived early for the Presidio Trust public meeting to discuss the Fisher Museum. Good thing. Quite soon after the doors opened the place was packed.  Many fellow citizens were prevented from entering by the fire marshall due to overcrowding concerns; they were left peering in through the windows. News reports indicated that the Herbst International Exhibition Hall contained 500 people and that many hundreds more were turned away at the door.

Tags: Conflict, New Construction 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 »

Don Fisher has lots of money. He gives a fair amount away to charities of his choice. We appreciate his many contributions to education and the arts. We acknowledge his service on the Presidio Trust Board of Directors from 1996 to 2004.

I don’t know Don Fisher personally, but I know many who do. Some have good things to say about his philanthropy. Others, not so much. What comes out consistently is that he’s got a personal and political agenda and since he has money, he works that money into the political landscape to get what he wants. No secrets there.

He probably doesn’t care one way or the other what I personally think about his Presidio museum proposal. But he should. In a democracy, and in the national parks which we all own equally, all of our voices matter, money or not.

It is troubling that he is willing to propose a project that radically alters the vision for the Main Post in the Presidio Trust Management Plan (PTMP), a plan that contains numerous agreements reached after years of discussion with the public, a plan that was completed in 2002 while he was an active member of the Trust Board of Directors. I guess Mr. Fisher believes that one wealthy individual can radically and irrevocably alter the community and agency plans for the Presidio Main Post, a key, defining area of an historic national park, if he has his own plans that better suit his own agenda.

An argument is made by project proponents that this is a marvelous collection of modern art and an incredible gift to the people of San Francisco. No doubt. But “the gift” comes in a great big box, the size of a typical Walmart.  Obviously, this “gift box” doesn’t have to be on the Presidio’s Main Post, destroy artifacts and mangle a National Historic Landmark District in order for all of us to enjoy the Fisher collection’s many virtues.

Here’s what Mr. Fisher has to say about showing his art at the Presidio. He doesn’t seem too concerned about the impacts his “gift” and “gift box” will have on the National Historic Landmark District.

If you want to show your own art… otherwise what do you do with it? You got to sell it, or give it away and people leave it in the basement. And… I don’t want to have our art in the basement. (Chuckle) And so this is ah… this is a way ah… this is a way of… avoiding that.

–Don Fisher

Clearly, the museum should be built in a place without permanently damaging irretrievable resources where traffic and public transportation will give it easy access. But, it appears that things didn’t work out with SFMOMA when he went there first with his proposal. It seems the SFMOMA folks didn’t want to display his very large collection all at one time and give Mr. Fisher the kind of control he wanted over displaying the collection. The “gift” had strings attached. No surprise there.

When Don Fisher’s project with SFMOMA didn’t work out he went to the Presidio Trust and offered to assist with other projects he knew the Trust wanted, such as “greening” the Main Post ($10 million) and rehabilitating one of the Montgomery Street Barracks ($15 million.) Despite having to proceed with a disruptive and distracting set of processes to review the new Fisher proposal, all that money was an offer the Trust couldn’t refuse, even if it meant jeopardizing the Presidio’s National Historic Landmark District designation and burning the community goodwill carefully nurtured by Craig Middleton since becoming the Trust’s Executive Director.

The following comments related to the Contemporary Art Museum at the Presidio, are from Don Fisher, himself. See the video. Decide for yourself if he’s at all concerned about the Presidio or if it’s all about Don Fisher and his art collection. What does Mr. Fisher have to say about the name of his museum and how that ties into the Presidio?

History?  No.  Archeology?  No.  Scenic beauty, surely!  No. (Drumroll, please.)  He ties his museum to the Presidio as a campground!

In fact, the name of the museum is CAMP, Contemporary Art Museum at the Presidio, and that really ties into the Presidio itself, as a campground. (smiling)

–Don Fisher

On Mr. Fisher’s choice of art. He’s knows best, of course, but if you don’t like it, tough.

If we like it and nobody else likes it, well, that’s fine. But we’ve done a pretty good job I think, of ah, of collecting what, ah, is of interest to other people as well.

–Don Fisher

But that goes directly to the point at hand: a wealthy guy saying he knows what’s in our best interest. Destroy the vision. Destroy the landmark status. Destroy the artifacts. Take my gift (with strings, of course.) Because, I know what’s best for you.

The following observations were made on Don Fisher’s philanthropy in an article in SF Weekly on June 21, 2006, unrelated to the current museum proposal (emphasis is mine. –ed.):

I’d be loath to tell a billionaire to stop donating to a charitable cause he sincerely believes will improve the lives of the least fortunate. But we haven’t really thought out what happens when we give up our democratic powers to a growing army of ideological philanthropists.

That said, there are ways to resist this trajectory. Every time a candidate, ballot measure, or lobbying front group is the beneficiary of large donations from ideologically motivated tycoons, voters get the option of accepting this trend as unavoidable and maybe even beneficial. (Or they can resist the urge to support these well-funded candidates and measures, and reject the view that the Donald Fishers of the world should determine everyone’s best interest.)

Fisher’s own example and advice might be useful for those who believe citizen control of the public realm is worth fighting for.

“I don’t think we can sit back and wait for someone else to take the lead, just so we don’t have to expend energy or money,” Fisher writes. “We’ve got to utilize the recourse it takes to advance our causes and hold up our part of the deal.”

Citizen control of the public realm is worth fighting for. Hey, Mr. Fisher, wealthy guy! We’re not sitting back and we never have. We recognize the self-interested basis for your actions and reject that you know or should determine what’s best for the rest of us in our national park. We utilize the recourse it takes to advance our cause. And yes, we continue to hold up our part of the deal. 

–Doug Kern

Tags: Conflict, New Construction by Doug
1 Comment »