|
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
|
