NEWS RELEASE (with additional comment excerpts at the end)

For Immediate Release - June 9, 2009

For more information, contact:

Gary Widman, President, Presidio Historical Assoc.,  (c)415/609-7491/415-435-0360
David Bancroft, Co-Founder, Save The Presidio, 415-706-8779
Alan Silverman, President, Marina Community Association, 415-346-4164
Don Green, Chair, SF Board of Supervisors' Presidio Work Group , 415-751-4992

www.presidioassociation.org // www.savepresidio.blogspot.com //
www.savethepresidio.org//

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND PUBLIC SLAM PRESIDIO TRUST'S PROPOSALS

In strongly worded comments on the negative environmental and historical impacts of plans to develop the Presidio of San Francisco's Main Post, critics rebuked the Presidio Trust, charging that its proposals for the Presidio of San Francisco's Main Post are illegal and out of place.  

Comments submitted by government agencies and the private sector on the Trust's draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Findings of Historical Effects assert that the proposed Fisher Contemporary Art Museum, luxury hotel/restaurant complex and multiplex theater -- viewed individually or together -- are an unwelcome, unlawful urban development in a protected Historic Landmark and National Park.  

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), written comments to the Trust were due on June 1, though the National Park Service was granted an extension to file its final comments.

The National Park Service (NPS), City and County of San Francisco, local and national history and environmental groups, and neighborhood associations joined the outcry against highly controversial plans advanced by the Presidio Trust -- a federal agency managing real property in the Presidio National Park -- to add massive new structures and  
uses unrelated to its history.

Significantly, most comments emphasize legal violations of the Trust's statutory mandate to preserve and protect the Presidio’s historic resources from  development, especially in the park's most historically significant area, the Main Post, revered as the “Plymouth Rock of the West”.

Critics of the Trust's proposals also cite Federal law and a 1986 Federal District Court ruling which limits the square footage of new construction within the Presidio to replacement of existing buildings.  The Trust plans propose more than 250,000 sq. ft. of new construction, double the total amount of present construction in the small, historic Main Post.

NPS warned the Trust last year that its plans to develop the Main Post threatened the loss of the Presidio’s status as a National Historic Landmark District (NHLD), a status reserved for the nation’s most important historic sites. NPS warned the Trust again in a April 2009 document known as the Section 213 Report, which detailed serious flaws in the Trust's proposals, noting that, "Implementing the [proposals] will seriously threaten the integrity of the Main Post, the historic core of the [NHLD], to a degree that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level.”  

The Trust proposals for the art museum, hotel/restaurant and expanded theater are expected to attract at least 700,000  new visitors annually to the Main Post.  Added to current Main Post traffic and projected visitors to the soon-to-open Disney Museum, the Presidio Trust projects the Main Post alone will have 2,000,000 visitors per year.

Due to the Presidio’s remote location, almost all visitors will use cars and buses to transport them, requiring construction of garages and traffic lights within and outside of the Park.  Critics charge that the Main Post cannot absorb that many people and vehicles and remain the historical highlight of the Park.  

###

EXCERPTS FROM WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDIO TRUST ON NEW CONSTRUCTION PROPOSALS:

“The [proposal] is a classic example of attempting to force a square peg into a round hole.  It does not fit by any standard that gives due respect for the location in which the Trust is about to place a half million square feet of new construction and hardscape infill.”   --Lake Street Residents Association (LSRA) Comments, p. 2
                                                                                                                                                                & nbsp;                                                                                                                                                                &n bsp;                                                                                                                                                                &nb sp;                                                                                                                                                                &nbs p;                  
“[T]he Trust has abused the public process required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in order to attempt to justify a deal to which it was already committed...[T]he [Trust’s] preferred alternative (described in Trust documents) will violate several sections of the Presidio Trust Act. (PTA)”
--Marina Community Association (MCA) Comments on draft supplemental EIS, p. 2

“[T]he NPCA believes that [the proposal] would: Severely jeopardize the historic integrity of the Presidio, possibly leading to the de-designation of the NHLD [National Historic Landmark District]; Fundamentally, adversely, and irreparably alter the visitor experience at the Presidio.”  --National Parks Conservation Association (NCPA) Comments, p. 6

“[We are] concerned that the [Trust’s  plan] contains shortcomings that are not consistent with the requirements of the NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] and the Presidio Trust Act.  The cumulative impact of such massive new construction will strain the carrying capacity of the NHLD [National Historic Landmark District].”
--National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) Comments on NEPA Documents, p.1

“The entire process has been flawed from the outset by forcing a pre-designated result through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) pipeline, attempting to patch holes as the process evolves, forsaking the considered planning process that resulted in the Presidio’s Trust's Master Plan, its 2002 PTMP.”  
--Neighborhood Associations for Presidio Planning (NAPP) Comments, p. 5

“If adopted, the Trust proposals will make it impossible for more far-sighted future Park managers to protect the site and convey (a knowledge of Presidio history) in the future.  The Trust documents reflect none of the responsible, far-sighted, substantive actions mandated by the words and policies of the Presidio Trust Act (PTA), Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) Act of 1972, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or by professional land use planning practice…”
--Presidio Historical Association (PHA) Comments, p. 4

“By violating the Presidio Trust’s federal mandate, the PTMP [2002 Presidio Trust Management Plan] and [Interior] Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines, the [proposal] creates adverse effects on the NHLD [National Historic Landmark District], impacts the integrity of the NHLD and risks loss of the Presidio’s status as a NHLD...The Fisher Museum design, location and massing violates the Presidio Trust Act.”  
--San Francisco Board of Supervisors Presidio Work Group Comments, p. 2

 "This does not provide the public and decisionmakers with enough information to evaluate the comparative merits of the different alternatives.  Rather, it suggests that selection of the Preferred Alternative may be a predetermined outcome, despite the SDSEIS's assurances to the contrary."  
--San Francisco City and County Comments on the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS), etc., p. 2

 “No development should be approved by the Trust unless and until there is a transportation and parking plan.  Traffic signals and parking garages do not belong in national parks.”   --Sierra Club Comments, p.1

END OF EXCERPTS