The Main Post Update and Draft SEIS comment period have been extended until November 17, 2008. The Presidio Trust has also postponed the date of the Board of Directors meeting to November 13, 2008. The meeting will be held at 6:30 pm at a location yet to be determined.
–Doug Kern
Tags: main post, SEISThis 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: Craig Middleton, Don Fisher, main post, museum, SEISAccording to the Presidio Trust website the comment period for the Main Post SEIS has been extended to October 20, 2008. This is approximately a 30-day extension.
There will be a Board of Directors meeting on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 6:30 pm at the Palace of Fine Arts Theater, 3301 Lyon Street.
In addition, the Trust will hold workshops on the Main Post. According to the website:
The workshops will also provide a forum to discuss further the kinds of activities that the public would like to see in the Main Post in the future.
The workshops will be held:
–Doug Kern
Tags: main post, SEISSeveral documents pertaining to the Main Post museum project have been posted to the Presidio Trust website. These include the:
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:
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: main post, museum, Section 106 consultation, SEIS
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:
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:
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
The regulations of the ACHP Section 106 process are contained in the links listed below:
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:
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: main post, Section 106 consultation, SEISTDK 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: main post, SEIS, transportationAfter 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: El Presidio site, History, main post, parking, SEISIn this July 29 Chronicle “Letter to the Editor” one reader laments.
She refers to this July 27 article by Harold Gilliam, the Chronicle’s environmental columnist for three decades, that gave her hope for a green vision of the Presidio, “a vision to stir our blood.” Reflecting on the Presidio of San Francisco, Mr. Gilliam asks,
So what happened to the original vision? And now that green is the color of the day, the year and hopefully the century, isn’t it high time we revive that vision?
–Doug Kern
Tags: SEIS, visionThis 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:
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: main post, parking, SEIS, traffic, transportation
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: Alex Tourk, Don Fisher, Eric Jaye, Gavin Newsom, main post, Margaret Brodkin, Presidio Historical Association, publicity, SEIS