Save the Historical Presidio

2012-02-01T20:48:00.000-08:00

QUESTIONS, ANSWERS AND COMMENTS ON PRESIDIO HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION AND SIERRA CLUB LEGAL ACTION V. PRESIDIO TRUST

A legal action has been filed by the Presidio Historical Association and the Sierra Club against the Presidio Trust asking the federal courts to declare the Trust’s Main Post Update and Record of Decision invalid and to find the Trust in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Presidio Trust Act. Further, the action seeks to halt the revised zoning of the Main Post approved in the Main Post Update and the Record of Decision (ROD). Those approvals would for the first time permit construction of a fourteen building hotel and a greatly enlarged movie theater in the Main Post. The text of the complaint may be found at www.presidioassociation.org/issues/htm.

WHY?

1. Why is this legal action against the Presidio Trust being filed?

Answer. This legal action is important not just for the Presidio, but for all of our national parks and historic landmarks. It will make clear that any federal agency with jurisdiction over a national historic landmark or national park must comply fully with its trust responsibilities as well as with applicable environmental and historic preservation laws. A federal entity cannot act as if it were a commercial developer on private property. Failure to make the Trust accountable for any violations of environmental law at the Presidio would set a dangerous precedent for other parks and national historic landmarks controlled by agencies other than the National Park Service.

2. Isn’t this just more NIMBY opposition to anything new, such as the planned hotel in the middle of Main Post?
Answer: There is no compelling reason to damage the Presidio National Historic Landmark, but the Trust has nevertheless decided to do that with its proposed new construction. It would set a bad precedent for other parks and national historic sites if any Trust violations of the law go unchallenged. The Trust’s own documents report that its plans for the hotel and other new construction will damage the historic integrity of the Presidio. The NHPA requires federal agencies to avoid such damage.
comment at pencil icon

WHAT?

3. What is the Presidio Trust’s reason for the planned new construction of a hotel and enlarged movie theater on the Main Post in the center of this historic site?
Answer. The reason given for changing Main Post zoning in order to permit a large hotel and a large addition to the historic theater was to “revitalize” the Main Post of the Presidio. The Trust’s highest statutory priority is to support the purposes of the National Park and National Historic Landmark, not to destroy or compete with those purposes by sponsoring commercial activities.
4. What is the basis for the plaintiffs’ argument opposing new construction on the Main Post, except for construction replacing an old building by a new building of the same size, located on the site of the building being replaced?
Answer. The law that established the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in 1972 limited new construction to buildings that replaced pre-existing buildings on their original locations. That law was upheld by the courts in 1986, after the Sierra Club sued to stop the Army and the Postal Service from building a post office on Crissy Field. The Presidio Trust Act contains a similar prohibition on new construction.
comment at pencil icon
MONEY?
5. Isn’t the new construction necessary for the Trust to meet the requirement in the Trust Act that it must earn enough to keep the Presidio operating without federal funds after 2013?
Answer. No. This is a common misunderstanding. The Trust’s 2010 Annual Report to Congress said, “ Since 2004, the Trust’s earned revenue has fully offset operating costs”. In addition, the Doyle Drive Project has resulted in over 60 million dollars of right of way compensation, a huge windfall for the Trust. Trust budgets show it will remain profitable in the future.
comment at pencil icon
WHY A HOTEL?
6. Other national parks have hotels. Why shouldn’t there be one on the Presidio?
Answer: The Trust’s statements comparing its planned hotel on the historic Main Post of the Presidio with hotels in other national parks are misleading. The historic great lodges at Yosemite, Yellowstone or Grand Canyon, for example, were built where there was no alternative housing for visitors to those parks. In comparison, the Presidio is surrounded by the 33,000 hotel rooms in San Francisco. There is no environmental or financial rationale that justifies new construction in the park that will damage the National Historic Landmark.
7. A resort hotel, Cavallo Point, was built in Marin at Fort Baker, which is a part of the GGNRA. If the Trust’s plans to build a hotel in the center of the Presidio’s parade grounds violate environmental laws, why has the National Park Service allowed the hotel at Fort Baker to be built?
Answer. Fort Baker is not a National Historic Landmark. The Presidio is. National Historic Landmarks are to have the highest degree of protection by law.
Also, the Park Service, for the most part, partly hid its new construction at Fort Baker behind existing historic structures. In comparison, the Trust plan for the Presidio Main Post is to build 70,000 square feet of new construction in the center of the highly visible historic heart of the Presidio. This planned construction is not at all like the carefully located, partly hidden hotel buildings at Fort Baker.
8. What about the recently announced Presidio Inn that will be in a rehabilitated historic building? Did the PHA and Sierra Club oppose that?
Answer. No. The new “inn” will provide rooms in a historic building that will be rehabilitated. Such repurposing is encouraged by preservation laws. The inn did not require any new construction in the historic landmark. On the other hand, the Trust’s fourteen building hotel obviously will require massive new construction. We were, however, disappointed that the Trust’s inn was designed for the wealthy, (rooms are $300-500), rather than for middle class park visitors.
comment at pencil icon
WHO?
9. Who will represent the Plaintiffs in this legal action?
Answer. The Environmental Law Clinic of the Stanford University Law School will represent the Presidio Historical Association and the Sierra Club in this matter. The Clinic provides an opportunity for students to work in environmental advocacy on behalf of a variety of nonprofit organizations, from national groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Ocean Conservancy to regional grassroots groups as the San Francisco Baykeeper and Voice of the Wetlands..
10. What is the Presidio Historical Association? Who does it represent?
Answer. For over fifty years, members of the Presidio Historical Association (PHA) have been dedicated to historical preservation and education at the Presidio. It opened Fort Point to the public, set up a museum there, and later established a museum and school programs for the Army on the Presidio. Its 300 members represent history fans and friends of the Presidio.
11. How can the public support this legal attempt to stop the Presidio Trust’s plans to damage the historic integrity of the Presidio?
Answer. Join the Presidio Historical Association or donate to the PHA specifically to help with Presidio legal expenses. See http://www.presidioassociation.org/donation.htm
Updates concerning this matter will also be available on www:presidioassociation.org.
comment at pencil icon

Summer Update

2011-07-03T12:23:00.000-07:00

Well, it seems a summer lull has set in at the Presidio. That is not quite so. Let's go over items one by one.

After the three year war over the Main Post Plan that started with a humongous glistening white contemporary art museum in the middle of the National Historic Landmark, the Park Service, State Historical Preservation Officer and some local groups signed off on a Programmatic Agreement to implement the Plan after the art museum was removed and the hotel was reduced from 40 feet to 30 feet in height and broken into 14 separate (but partly connected) structures. We were glad to see a "Heritage Center" in the former Officers Club.

Presidio Brat wrote to ask what objections we had about changes to the old movie theater. Let's put it into perspective. That place is one of the last remaining mostly unchanged movie houses on a military post in the WW II style. It echoes the very plain but wildly popular movies houses on Army posts everywhere. Millions of soldiers found brief respite from their duties far from home. On the other hand, it should not sit empty and unused, and a one screen small bare theater is not financially sustainable. Does the solution have to be a modern annex that is larger than the historic theater itself? And does the blank wall of this annex have to push out to the curb of a key entrance street to Main Post? This is one reason that the Historical Association did not sign the Programmatic Agreement. We feel that the effect is too adverse to historic integrity. The details of design for the theater and the hotel are being worked out between the Trust, Park Service and State Historic Preservation Officer, with several local organizations participating as consulting parties. Presidio Pal's opinion is that the theater will need redesign and that the hotel in its reduced form will not be commercially feasible.

Credit is due to the Trust for bringing in high powered experts to visualize what is possible for a visitors center and the Heritage Center. The final report of these meetings was inspiring. In my view it was unlimited visioning of what might happen. Those visions are not what will happen in the real world of budgets and turf wars between the Trust and the Park Service. The sessions raise the bar for planning, which is great. We recognize that the Heritage Center idea has gained momentum with the Trust, but we remember that its origins were as a bone thrown to historical interests in hopes we would go away when the art museum was going to be built. Happily, some Trust Board members now genuinely appreciate and support the need for a public display that explains the Presidio's heritage. The Park Service remains saddled with a large brick barracks at 102 Montgomery for a visitors center, but there are better locations for that. Neither the Park Service nor the Trust wants to become committed to the costs of setting up and running an elaborate visitors center. There should be some details on the combined visitors center and the Heritage Center this fall. If this is important to you, let your thoughts be known now. These should be magnets for the public to visit and learn of America's past found at the Presidio.

What's up with Fort Point? Once it was well visited part of the Presidio with lots of activities. It was pretty much shut down during work on the bridge. Now it is open only part time. Another casualty of federal budget cuts; or mismanagement of the funds resources that are available; or temporarily harmed by the Doyle Drive mess?

Also, take a short hike to El Polin Springs to see what the archeologists are uncovering there. Hats off to the Trust archeology staff.

Finally, the summer isn't all that dull. The Trust has presented a Mid-Crissy Field Plan for comment. The idea is to have another tenant for the large building that Sports Basement is in. Preferred use is some form of museum. Strictly my guess is that the Trust has had inquiries from a museum-like activity, commercial or not. They are specific to the point of suggesting changes to the building. There also is thought to add on outbuildings to expand the environmental center. The old Post Exchange building across the lot from Sports Basement will be removed. At first look, the plan does not appear objectionable. The mid-Crissy area will be disrupted by Doyle, has the Crissy Marsh and includes non-historic buildings. It's historic integrity is pretty much kaput as it is. We will see what the plan means for the area.

As always, vigilance by those who care makes all the difference at the Presidio.

What's Going On This Summer?

2011-04-25T14:19:00.000-07:00

One area of activity over the summer will be for the details of the recently approved Main Post Plan to be hammered out in the Programmatic Agrement process. Following nearly three years of disputes concerning a contemporary art museum, a hotel and shaping the future purposes of the Main Post of the Presidio, in February the Presidio Trust Board approved its plan. It also approved a "Programmatic Agreement," which is a formal contract that lays out what has to be done for historic preservation as the Trust moves to implement its plan. The key actors for doing that are the State Historic Preservation Officer and the National Park Service. They are joined by less influential but very important public and neighborhood groups. They are hammering out the detailed rules and procedures that the Trust must follow as it acts on the approved plan. What will the buildings or additions actually look like? The Programmatic Agreement process led to great improvements in the Lucasfilm buildings, for example. The Presidio Historical Association has chosen not to sign the Programmatic Agreement because that signature would mean that we agree that the Presidio Trust has met its legal obligations to minimize damage to the National Historic Landmark. We do not.

A second set of activities is centered on creating a visitors center and a Heritage Center, places where park visitors can go to find out why the Presidio is a valuable national park and what it offers to the public. The result of a series of workshops about the visitors center will be presented at the log cabin (in Fort Scott near the small chapel) at six o'clock, May 31. The visitors center concept, place and financing all remain pretty muddled. Lots of public concern and pushing will help to ensure that the bureaucratic and conceptual problems that exist are finally overcome. After all, where else is there a national park that has not had a real visitors center for ten years?

A third problem that the Trust faces is action by Congress to eliminate funding for the Presidio Trust. That was expected in 2013, so these cuts move the cutoff date forward by two years. Frankly, the Trust remains in good financial shape. It is the Park Service that is hurting. Trust budget cuts should not weaken commitments to create the Heritage Center in the Officers Club, nor will they materially harm historic preservation projects. "Greening" of Main Parade is underway. The Trust received an additional five million dollars in 2010 for the Heritage Center and six million dollars more than its original request to the federal government for other projects. The expected budget for 2011 was cut eight million, but in the past two years the Trust received over sixty million dollars for the Doyle Drive destruction of historic properties. Normal income from rentals has softened only slightly. The federal budget cuts can be absorbed by the Presidio Trust without missing a thing.

The Trust is rehabilitating the remaining Montgomery Street Barracks with its own funds, rather than rely on tenants. We understand that there will be a temporary visitors center in building 205, next to the Disney Family Museum. A business school is eyeing that building to lease. The Trust has pledged to use the ground floor of these historic buildings for "public purposes." That sounds like a deliberately misleading term for tee shirt shops and snack bars.

Finally, the Concours d'Elegance that was held successfully the past two years will not be on the Presidio in 2011. All the construction work prevents that from happening.

Please, attend meetings and keep your interests known by e-mailing, phoning or writing to the Presidio Trust and the National Park Service.

Trust Board of Directors Approves Plan to Harm the Presidio's Historical Integrity

2011-02-25T23:16:00.000-08:00

The Presidio Trust Directors approved a Record of Decision on February 23 to go ahead with the plan that it has been boosting contrary to 3,000 public comments that emphasized revealing the Presidio's history, not building a commercial hotel for golf tours and convention goers. The approved plan will increase demolition of historic buildings and increase new construction in the National Historic Landmark's heart, the Main Post, above the levels set in the 2002 Trust Plan. The chief feature of the new plan is a 100 plus room hotel including 70,000 square feet of new construction.

The Trust's own documents report that the plan will harm the historic integrity of the Historic Landmark. And why? What logical reason does the Trust give to harm the Landmark that law requires it to protect? The best it can come up with as an explanation is a statement that the hotel will "fulfill the longstanding goal to make the Main Post the heart of the park." Let's think about that. A commercial hotel defines the "heart" of a national historic landmark and a national park? They've got to be kidding.

Elsewhere, the Trust documents identify the Main Post as already being the "heart of the Presidio." The TRust cannot create that "heart" (whatever that means) by demolition an intrusive new construction. The Record of Decision undermines its own argument with illogical statements and vague definitions. It is a seriously flawed document.

The Record of Decision is the final step in the official Environmental Impact Statement process. Will public outrage continue to make sure this is not the final step in building a hotel in the center of the Presidio? Ask the 3000 people who wrote letters or spoke against the plan.

Congress Acts to Cut 15 Million Dollars from the Presidio

2011-02-17T11:42:00.000-08:00

Today, February 17, the House of Representatives voted to cut 15 million dollars that was expected by the Presidio Trust. There are chances for this money to be restored later, but presidiopal thinks that is unlikely. Congresswoman Pelosi fought to keep the money for the Presidio by pointing out that it was to be the last appropriated funds for the park under the arrangement of the Trust Act. The principal effect of this cut most likely will be to defer rehabilitating some historic structures. In effect, this cut moves the date for the Presidio to be financially self-sufficient, as the Trust Act requires, from 2013 to 2012.

It remains to be seen if the Trust will use this cut in federal funds as an excuse to build commercial activities on the Presidio such as the proposed hotel.

ANSWER TO PRESIDIO BRAT'S COMMENT

2011-02-16T14:02:00.000-08:00

Presidio Brat commented to this blog to ask why presidiopal and others object so strongly to the proposed hotel in the center of Main Post and to the expansion of the Post Theater to be larger than the original historic structure.

First, let me be clear: our objections are not from off the tops of our heads. They are not NIMBY, as the Trust believes. We have professional historical architects to advise us. We have studied the Secretary of the Interior's Standards that describe preferred treatments for historic properties. We have consulted Park Service experts. We recognize that the Trust Act requires the Trust to protect the historic integrity of National Historic Landmarks.

The central concept that guides us is "historic integrity." There are technical definitions, but the best way to understand it is to ask if a person from the past were to visit the place today, would he recognize the key features of the Presidio? If a contemporary visitor comes to the Presidio, will she see the outline of the past?

The measure for how historic integrity is eroded overtime is "cumulative effects." By the Trust's own analysis and the analysis of the Park Service, the theater expansion and the hotel add to adverse cumulative effects on historic integrity. When these are added to Doyle Drive Construction, the removal of dozens of historic buildings on Crissy and elsewhere, rerouting roads, conversion of buildings to commercial purposes and building the LucasFilm Center, then presidiopal believes that these cumulative effects do indeed harm historic integrity and make it more difficult to understand the history of the Presidio. They begin to interfere with understanding and enjoying the "sense of place" that is so important to a historic park. If the Fisher art museum had been built as the Trust proposed, that would have moved cumulative effects beyond the tipping point. The Park Service warned that the National Historic Landmark status to the Presidio would be in question. Every demolition or new construction brings the Presidio closer to that tipping point. There must be compelling reasons for such actions.

We do not oppose all new construction. We suggested alternate locations for a hotel, but the Trust prematurely announced its chosen location by inviting developers to make proposals for their chosen site, not considering realistic alternative. We suggested that the theater could be rehabilitated and expanded, but not so much that the addition is larger than the historic building and not so that the addition juts out prominently to curbside on a major entry road to the Main Post. The Trust tells us that the theater then would not be commercially feasible. So?

New construction in a National Historic Landmark District is the "least preferable" option according to the Secretary of the Interior. If new construction must happen and it has an adverse effect, then there has to be a compelling reason for it. Is any reason for the hotel compelling? You tell me.

A light hand and deep understanding of how to protect historic integrity are vital for any new construction in a National Historic Landmark. In the present case, that light hand and delicate understanding by the Trust are missing.

WAITING FOR DECISIONS

2011-02-16T13:57:00.000-08:00

The Presidio Trust Board meeting on February 7 contained no surprises. Once again, those who value the Presidio, especially its Main Post, as the most significant National Historic Landmark District on the West Coast came to speak against the Trust's construction "steamroller". The Trust continues to advocate a fourteen building hotel and a "modern wing" (really a whole new building) next to the historic theater. And it refuses to consider placing a Visitors Center and/or Museum at that location. And once again, there was no immediate response from the Trust. ( The manager of the Presidio Golf Club was in favor of a hotel, but did not state any reason why the hotel should be placed in the center of Main Post where it most damages the historic district, as compared with any other Presidio location where it would not. )

A decision in the form of a “record of decision” on the environmental impact statement could come in a "week or so". We have no reason to believe that the Trust will change its ill advised course after its continuous three year campaign advocating both the hotel and until recently, the monstrous contemporary art museum. The Trust hotel is not supported by any of the major public groups in the city or the nation. After the Fisher family's withdrawal of the Museum, the Trust has continued spending its “own” - and really your- federal dollars promoting a fourteen building hotel in the Main Post. It is a project which in the eyes of everyone but the single-minded Trust, promises to be a major financial loser and waste of federal money, as well as diminishing the historic experience in the Main Post.

On a slightly more positive note, planning by the Trust, the Park Service and the Golden Gate Park Conservancy to establish a real NPS Visitors Center on Main Post is getting underway. After ten years of having none, it bewilders me why they have not even decided where this new visitors center will be, and why they refuse to even consider the most logical location, which happens to be site chosen for the hotel?

Construction and rehabilitation of the Officers Club, which contains portions of an early Spanish Presidio building, has begun. Part of that building is supposed to house a 13,000 square foot “Heritage Center” to be established by the Trust. To our knowledge, no expert or public planning for the use of such a center has begun, even though the building is now undergoing remodeling for that purpose. The Trust recently has agreed that the content of the Heritage Center should be designed in cooperation with the Park Service. This is a point that the Presidio Historical Association has urged. Progress!

It is bewildering that there is no coordinated plan for interpretation of Main Post. If a central plan is not completed promptly to express a vision for how a park visitor is to enjoy and understand the historic resources of the Presidio and their implications for the nation, then the time and money now being spent on specific projects such as the Heritage Center and the visitors center will result only in a hodgepodge of unrelated visitor experiences. We may miss a one-time opportunity to achieve a great historical park that reveals its obscured history to the public by a coherent set of exhibits and educational programs that a coordinated by a central vision for visitors' experiences of history.

Stay tuned for an analysis of any “Record of Decision” on the Main Post Plans.

One more thing: PLEASE RESPOND WITH A COMMENT TO THIS BLOG TO ADVISE US WHETHER A FACEBOOK FORMAT WOULD BE A BETTER MEANS OF COMMUNICATING WITH YOU AND TO GET YOUR IDEAS EXPRESSED.

Thanks for your dedication to making the Presidio the unique historic park that it could be. Presidiopal

February 7 Trust Public Board Meeting- BE HEARD!

2011-02-02T19:21:00.000-08:00

Come at 6:30 P.M., February 7, to the Golden Gate Club (near the Presidio National Cemetery) to join your voice with the many who will speak their minds to the governing board of the Presidio.

The awful mess in Egypt is inspiring. People who care, who have little individual power, have banded together to make history. In our small corner of the world at the Presidio, we will have a chance to make our voices heard. Recently, there have been many indications that the Trust will not listen. It will bull ahead with its misguided plans and public misinformation. The Trust Board, composed of unelected appointees who really report to no one, is poised to approve 70,000 square feet of new construction for a commercial hotel in the historic center of the Presidio. There also will be a modern addition to the historic Post Theater that is larger than the historic building itself. The public is told this construction is necessary to "restore the heart of the Presidio" or "enhance the visitor experience." The Main Post is "the heart of the Presidio." What visitors? Conference goers and golfers?

The Trust is throwing a bone to the public in the form of a promised "Heritage Center" to be located in one-third of the El Presidio headquarters, the former Officers Club. Is this real? There is no plan for what to do with those 13,000 square feet, no plan to fund a "Heritage Center" and no expertise on the Trust staff for museums or educational displays. Over 3,000 public comments over the past three years have asked for more history at the Presidio. There has not been a real visitors center for nearly ten years in this, a national park.

Only the passion of the public or the protection of the courts will thwart Trust plans that make no sense and have no understandable reason. Why would the Trust that is responsible in law for protecting the Presidio National Historic Landmark knowingly take actions that would damage the historic integrity of the Landmark? That's what the Park Service and its own reports say that it is planning to do. Demand answers that satisfy you. Be there.

OKAY. IT REALLY IS CRUNCH TIME ON FEBRUARY 7

2011-01-15T22:11:00.000-08:00

The Presidio Trust has announced a new date, February 7 at 6:30 P.M., at the Golden Gate Club for its delayed Public Board Meeting. This should be some love fest... not. We do not know if the Trust will have already approved building the hotel and doubling the size of the theater on Main Post prior to this meeting. Will we get to tell them what we think after their decision, or will they really listen to the public's ideas and suggestions before they act? If they do pay attention, it is because they might be waking up to the damage a hotel would do to the historic site. They also should be realizing that the Main Post Update is filled with violations of the National Environmental Policy Act. They know now that the public does not want the Plan, but seem intent to approve it. Facts and details are for the little people on the staff to work out.

And what about the Trust's declared passion to create centers to welcome and orient park visitors? For ten years there has not been more than a bookstore in the Officers Club for the public. Sure, there is a promise to have a 13,000 square foot Heritage Center in the Officers Club along with other activities such as an "event space." (A place to charge people to use the room.) Ask what this new "Heritage Center" will be. Ask if there is a qualified person on the Trust staff to lead such a Center. Ask why an agreement signed months ago to have a visitors center has not resulted at least in a plan.

For those of you who have really read the foot high stack of documents over the past two and a half years, state informed ideas and use quotes if you can to strengthen your objections.

However it goes, there will be a hot time in the old town on February 7. Be there! Speak out!

While We Wait ???

2010-12-14T22:10:00.000-08:00

What is happening between the Cancellation of the December 8 Presidio Trust Board meeting and the Holidays? Short answer: a lot of heavy lifting and maneuvering by neighborhood groups, national organizations and the Presidio Historical Association. The Trust has given us a short deadline to agree to sign a "programmatic agreement" that the "Big Three," the key agencies, have agreed to sign. This is an agreement on the procedures how they will supervise any actions that the Trust takes after - or if - it approves the plan for construction on Main Post of the Presidio. The Trust had planned to do that by the end of 2010. The big danger to us is that if we sign, the agreement is worded to go beyond procedural approval to say that the Trust has "taken into account" the many objections to its building plans. What does "taken into account" mean? How can the Trust approve actions that its own study says will harm the historic integrity of the Presidio and "take into account" the fact that this damage will happen?

This bizarre situation is our main issue: what does "taken into account mean?" Organizations that do not sign will lose their rights as "concurring parties" in future implementation of the plan, such as commenting on what a hotel would look like. But if they sign, they may be yielding completely to the Trust's incorrect claim that the Trust building plans comply with regulations and law. We know that they do not. How can we sign a document that says it is okay to go ahead and damage the historic landmark? Even worse, signing would undermine any later complaints we make through other channels.

So? The Trust has been asked to extend the deadline to sign the programmatic agreement until the end of January, It is now due on Christmas Day. That time is needed to get help from technical experts and for community groups to meet with their membership. For you, I say forget this stuff until after the Holidays and return from good times with family and friends to fight another battle soon after the New Year.

Season's Best to All, Presidio Pal

DECEMBER 8 TRUST MEETING SUDDENLY CANCELLED

2010-12-07T22:15:00.000-08:00

Today, December 7, the Presidio Trust abruptly cancelled tomorrow's long-announced Board of Directors meeting that included the last time that the public could speak directly to the directors to tell them that people care about the Presidio and do not want a commercial hotel in the middle of it..... especially since the Trust has no real reason to do that harm to the National Historic Landmark.

One thing about being a Presidio groupie is that there's never a dull moment. And, we never know exactly what's going on.

So, we ask, what's up? Even though the Trust was not required by law or policies to open tomorrow's meeting to public comment, it announced that it would. Now, the meeting is cancelled until some time in January, a date uncertain. They claim scheduling difficulties for this meeting that has been scheduled for weeks? Not convincing. Has the Board decided that it could not take take the heat of more hours hearing the public telling them that they are on the wrong course? No, the board members are very experienced in flak catching.

My speculation - absolutely a SWAG - is that one or more of the board members is asking to maneuver around more public testimony by making the decision first and then later having a public meeting to announce the decision. On the other hand, there are few board members who do have quiet reservations about a controversial hotel decision being really necessary right now, when there is not a commercial sponsor chomping at the bit to pay for it and ready to start building. Are these directors bucking the Trust's group think and speaking their minds to cause this delay?

Wouldn't it make sense if the hotel project were put on the back burner until it could be revived - if the Trust decides to fight on - in a revised master plan for all the Presidio that is due in a few years? By then, personal egos can chill and the memory of the art museum fiasco will fade away. Then, maybe a hotel could be located in a far less sensitive location that makes better sense for temporary lodging purposes and better respects the historic values of the national park. Nah, nothing at the Presidio makes sense, so why should this?

December 8 Meeting of Presidio Trust Board is Crunch Time

2010-12-02T22:06:00.000-08:00

At 6:30 p.m., December 8, the Presidio Trust Board of Directors will hold a business meeting at the Golden Gate Club (near the National Cemetery) with an opportunity for the public to speak. This is our LAST CHANCE to tell the Trust that they have no understandable excuse to knowingly harm the historic landmark that Congress told them to protect by building a commercial hotel in the center of the most sensitive historic heart of the Presidio. The commercial hotel chain that offered a proposal has disappeared. The Trust gives no economic reason for this damaging project. Competition from 33,000 hotel rooms in San Francisco makes building 100 more in an urban national park ridiculous.

The Board will formally approve the project shortly after this meeting unless YOU, the public, makes it clear that this turkey won't fly. We did it with the proposed modern art museum, and we can do it again on Wednesday night.

For details, go to the Presidio Historical Association website at www.presidioassociation.org. For more, go the the Presidio Trust website - Major Projects - View the Documents. Find the latest Main Post Update dated November, 2010, and see pages 36 and 37 for their sanitized description of the "Lodge." An earlier analysis of the damage Trust plans will do to the historic integrity (that's what makes it a NATIONAL Landmark) is in a document titled "Finding of Effects," also on the Trust web site. It is written in National Historic Preservation Act language, but we all can see that even the Trust admits it is screwing up if it builds this hotel.

Why does the Trust Board persist in this scheme that started as an arts district based on the now-defunct "gift" of a mega art museum? Hubris perhaps? Top staff's careers invested in getting something out of this mess to save face? No, the Trust Board is made of very prominent and well intentioned people accustomed to the sort of power no one says "NO!" to. They aren't used to reexamining their assumptions or backing off under pressure. They don't question wayward staff judgments, and they have staff that does not challenge them. YOU, the public, have to make that challenge. Wednesday, 6:30 p.m., Golden Gate Club (next to the National Cemetery. Signs will be posted.) BE THERE!

APOLOGIES TO FOLLOWERS OF THIS BLOG

As you can picture, there are too few of us in the trenches and Presidio issues have been flying fast and furious. My day Presidio volunteer job is eating up most of the time. (Don't ask). Presidio Pal has not responded to over 80 posts. In fact, I missed finding them until today. This cybergeezer has much to learn about blogging. Thanks for your patience and support. We are in the midst of redesigning our web/blog/social networking methods. Until then, stay tuned, but above all, keep up your wonderful presence in supporting the richly historic Presidio and Golden Gate National Park. Thanks, Presidio Pal

UPDATE AND CALL TO ACTION

2010-09-17T13:56:00.000-07:00

There will be a Presidio Trust Board meeting Sept. 22, Wednesday at 6:30 at the Golden Gate Club (next to the Presidio National Cemetery.)

Be there. It is your last chance to speak directly to the Trust Board before they approve a large hotel in the middle of the parade grounds. If they can explain why a commercial hotel is needed in a historic National Park surrounded by 33,000 hotel rooms in the city, I would be surprised. If they can explain why the Trust plans to build this hotel which its own studies admit will have an "adverse effect" on the historic integrity of the 220 year old site, integrity that the Trust is required by law to protect, then they will speak with forked tongue. It's crunch time. Come and speak your mind.

There will be more interesting and, I hope, good stuff at this meeting. The Park Service and Trust agreed in a formal document months ago to work together to get a real visitors center on the Presidio, so people can understand the richness of its layered history from the birth of San Francisco to the Pacific Coast in World War Two. Finally, we will get an update at this meeting and hear from the new person who has been hired to lead this vital program.

By the way, did you notice that Dave Grubb, the Trust Board President who led the charge for the Fisher Museum Fiasco and then was replaced by the Secretary of the Interior is now REAPPOINTED to the Trust Board. Do those folks on the Trust contribute big time to politicians? Are they tight with Pelosi?

I apologize to the many who have commented on this blog without a response. Presidio Pal has been up to his what'sit writing and researching tangled historic preservation laws and regulations to write the documents that have made a difference. We got the hotel cut back from 95,000 square feet (humongous) to 70,000 of new construction (merely huge). Best, the height is now 30 feet instead of a towering 45 feet. But, there is no place for a nonessential commercial hotel in a National Historic Landmark District...NO WAY, NO NEED !

If you enjoy self-abuse, go to the link to our formal statement about the hotel and other technical stuff. It is in the press release on the first page of www.presidioassociation.org. Important but dull technical matters we have been slaving on for the past months explain the process and who's who.

See you Wednesday, 6:30, Golden Gate Club

Put Up or Shut Up, Says the Presidio Trust

2010-04-13T14:41:00.000-07:00

Groups including the Presidio Historical Association have been working in a consultation being conducted according to the National Historic Preservation Act. This process has reduced the size of the commercial hotel that the Trust wants to build 150 yards from the flagpole from 140,000 square feet of two story building to 70,000 square feet - sort of like trying to make us happy because only one half of our house burned down.

Our right to be part of these discussions may be denied soon. The Presidio Trust has notified all public groups that we cannot participate in these historic preservation talks after May 10, unless we agree to sign a statement that the legal requirement of the Act have been followed. In effect, we are being told to Put Up or Shut Up. The same demand was made of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Cow Hollow Association, Marina Homeowners groups and many others. It will take more time than allowed for us to find out if this demand is legal, and if so to decide what to do about it. It is inconceivable that any group would waive its legal rights in order to sit at the table to talk about the final design features for a commercial hotel that will have adverse effects on a historic landmark.

Another problem is a dispute over whether or not to keep the two ugly WW II barracks in front of the Officers Club. They are important because they tell a story. The barracks were for junior officers who crowded the Presidio during WII. Those officers slept near the original Spanish adobes where the Americans later slept. For almost 200 years, the officers of Spain, Mexico and the United States ate in the same building, and the barracks outside the officers club were there so the young officers would live near the officers mess. This is a neat story to show the layering of story on top of story at the Presidio. I think that the old barracks should stay, become used as an education space for school kids about the El Presidio site, and remain part of the story.

The hurry on this is probably related to changes on the Trust Board that are waiting for a White House decision. It's long overdue. I guess that the White House does not place the same importance on a Presidio Trust Board member as it does a Supreme Court Judge!

See the Presidio HIstorical Association website presidioassociation.org for the details.

MAYBE GOOD SENSE WILL WIN AND THE PUBLIC WILL BENEFIT

2010-03-08T11:27:00.000-08:00

So, what's going on now in the long-lasting struggle over the Presidio: will the 230 year old historic site become a great national park for all the people, or will it become an office and arts park for the few? The struggle is taking place in two arenas.

One, a formal federal process requires consultation about plans to build a commercial Larkspur Hotel near the Spanish El Presidio and the U.S. flagpole of the historic site. Most recently, two leading agencies in the consultation, the National Park Service and the State Historic Preservation Officer have sent detailed objections to the Presidio Trust concerning procedures and mishandling of information. The core concern is that the review of the hotel is taking place without the larger context of what is planned where being brought up to date. The last update on the larger plan (draft Main Post Update) was February, 2009. That plan included the monstrous modern art museum idea that the Trust supported. Removing it from the picture - thanks to your public opposition- changes the game, so the hotel plan is being evaluated in a vacuum. Both the Park Service and the Historic Preservation Officer, the chief "deciders,"have stated that they will not agree to any hotel without having a full plan for the heart of the Presidio - the historic Main Post. Key to this is having a firm location and plan for a Park Service Visitors Center. It has to be a valuable service for the public to expand their appreciation of the park, and it cannot be located near a commercial hotel. We strongly support the official agencies that are insisting upon a complete plan before any decisions will be approved.

The second arena of the struggle for the Presidio's future is with the Board of Directors of the Presidio Trust. Some of them see the Main Post as a development opportunity, a place for buildings to increase income. Others see it as an opportunity to satisfy their personal interest in contemporary art. Recently, the "Goldsworthy Spire" appeared. Soon, there will be ten more "art installations" on the Presidio. These could be interesting, but art of any kind has to be very carefully weighed against the distraction it will cause from the natural and historic values of the park itself. There isn't modern art at Yosemite Falls or Gettysburg for good reason. Google "Goldsworthy Spire" to see what I am talking about. Under pressure to justify the defunct modern art museum, the Trust promised to make the former Hispanic headquarters that became the Officer's Club into a "heritage center." To date, there is nothing to say what that means. The Park Service and Trust are talking, but the Trust does not have a qualified person on its staff to credibly lead such an effort. We don't know if the Trust Board has its heart in paying for a "heritage center."

The members of the Trust Board of Directors can make the right things happen to benefit the public, or they can continue to pursue ideas that damage the park and leave the Presidio's historic stories unknown to visitors. That will be decided this year. The new Board President, Nancy Bechtle, has a lot of experience leading the Symphony. Can that talent be shifted to serve the broad public that visits national parks?

Thanks for recent comments. Some have provided useful information. Others are answered on the web sites of the Presidio Historical Association or the National Park Service. Watch this blog for updates.

Looking Ahead to 2010: Promise and Problems

2009-12-24T09:53:00.000-08:00

The coming year will prove to be the turning point for the Presidio's emergence as a great national park. Let's look at the promise, then the problems.

THE PROMISING OUTLOOK. Defeat of the monstrous proposal for a contemporary art museum in the center of a National Historic Landmark has brought new realism and strong support to oppose other destructive ideas. A 70,000 square foot, 30 feet high hotel right in front of the flagpole is being fought by the Park Service, the State Historical Preservation Officer, and many community groups, including the Presidio Historical Association. The hotel project is being examined and changed in a process carried out in accordance with the laws that protect national historic landmarks. The final result will be only advice to the Trust: the Trust can ignore recommendations. The Trust never has made a case why this hotel is needed beyond spin such as "every great national park needs a great lodge." We believe the hotel will be moved, greatly redesigned, or abandoned.

Another favorable development for 2010 is the recent election of Nancy Bechtle as Chair of the Presidio Trust. She conducted the open meeting on December 8 with a new tone of civility and respect for the public. Mrs. Bechtle is a social leader, former President of the Symphony Board and longtime patron of the arts. She was Vice Chair of the National Parks Foundation. The year ahead will tell if she has the leadership needed to take a clear eyed look at the Presidio and change its direction.

Finally, there is movement after ten years for the Park Service and the Trust to collaborate on "interpretation." which is NPS language for receiving and educating visitors to the history and ecology of the park. The Acting Superintendent of the GGNRA, Frank Dean, appeared at the December 8 meeting and both he and Mrs. Bechtle promised to work together on a visitors center and interpretation plan. This would be wonderful news, but we have heard such promises many time before. This time, however, I believe good things will happen. Congresswoman Pelosi earmarked 5 million dollars of the recent Defense budget for a history display in the Officer's Club. That is not enough to rehabilitate the building and design and install displays. That will be at least $ 20 million. Nevertheless, this has to be made part of the overall interpretation plan that is sadly missing. The Presidio will benefit from the new collaboration and focus.

THE PROBLEMS. The Trust seems to be moving by inertia by continuing to push for the hotel. It has staff that have spent most of their careers at the Presidio developing the plans and starting the process for the contemporary art museum, while ignoring public opposition. The hotel was conceived in its proposed location in front of the flagpole as an "edge" to the Main Parade, which was to become a grand lawn in front of the museum that extended almost to the Bay. Why this ill conceived hotel continues to waste thousands of hours and many more dollars is beyond understanding, unless it is mere inertia and hubris. The hotel company that wanted to build it isn't even sure if it wants to continue the project without the art museum and in today's financial climate.

The notion of a heritage center in the Officers Club is attractive, but how will the Trust and NPS collaborate to do this? The Trust does not have a senior manager to design history exhibits or to manage a mini-museum. The Park Service is woefully understaffed, and its idea of a visitors center is basically a carbon copy of every other park visitors center. Where will the needed imagination and leadership come from?

Finally, there is the basic challenge of a changed Main Post Plan introduced when the contemporary art museum was driving the process. It has been fought over under the process laid out by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in a environmental impact report. The "revised Main Post Update" includes many elements that are destructive to the purposes of a national park and that threaten a national historic landmark district. The process has experienced many procedural and substantive errors. If radical changes are not made in the document prior to the Trust Board approving it, then continued struggle by public groups with the Trust will make 2010 a bleak experience.

I would rather see, as would you, the Presidio's rededication to serving and educating the general public on the history of America at the Presidio, rather than fight over real estate development or art museums in a "cultural center." The public would rise in support and be overjoyed to put years of contention to rest. It would be the best holiday gift of all.

Happy New Year!

December Looking Ahead

2009-11-30T14:12:00.004-08:00

December 8, the Trust Board will hold a public meeting at the former Officer's Club at 6:30 p.m.. There will be a chance for the public to speak. The business includes to provide a Main Post Update, to Provide an update of the Visitor Center Planning Process, and update on Doyle Drive. Be there to express your views.

Sometime in December there will be a meeting of the consulting parties, including pubic groups, the Park Service, the State Historic Preservation Officer and the federal Advisory Council on HIstoric Preservation about the latest version of the Trust's building proposals, including the 70,000 square foot hotel in the middle of the historic Main Post. The three federal agencies have written to the Trust with strong concerns about the project as it stands now.

So, the fight goes on. Get ready to support efforts to change the Trust's mindless continued enthusiasm for an obsolete building plan that was based on an art museum that no longer will be built on the Presidio. In fact, we have heard rumors that the proponent of the hotel, Larkspur, has lost interest in project.

Meanwhile, have a joyous holiday season .

Looking Ahead

2009-11-30T14:12:00.003-08:00

Looking Ahead

2009-11-30T14:12:00.001-08:00

November Update

2009-11-08T17:26:00.000-08:00

First, answering some questions we received since last month:

OLD ARMY MUSEUM AND THE FUTURE FOR THE PRESIDIO AS A HISTORIC PARK

The old Army Museum was in the beautiful historic building on the corner of Funston and Lincoln, which was a Civil War era hospital. The Museum was closed by the Park Service because the Army took most of the collection when it left. The old building also did not meet the standards of the American for Disabilities Act. The mission of the Presidio Historical Association is to preserve (no more Fisher Museum) and educate (do all we can to get important, entertaining and educational displays on the Presidio so people understand America's presence there.) Under public pressure organized by the Association, the Trust now seems to be moving to help with history education... but no museum yet.

The Park Service has the responsibility for educating the public, but has little funding. When the Park Service pushed back against recent Trust development plans, it also renewed its interest in a real Visitors Center and in historic education programs. The outlook is much better for making the Presidio a park where people can learn America's history at the Golden Gate while they enjoy the Presidio.

But, the money is not there now to do what is needed for museums and visitor centers.

THE CONTEMPORARY ART MUSEUM IS GONE, SO WHY SHOULD THE PUBLIC CARE ANYMORE?

Whoa! It's not time to slack off. The Presidio Trust still is proposing a large hotel complex dead center in the old Presidio. It still wants to build an enlargement of the historic theater building that is larger than the historic structure itself. It wants to build a "public program facility," which they cannot explain, on the site of the Bowling Alley. These development ideas are irresponsible for the Trust to push. After all, the Trust is directed by Congress to preserve the national historic landmark. If the public- YOU - takes its eyes off the Presidio, the developers will win.

Okay for the questions, now more update:

Doyle Drive and Trees. Some of the tree removal has been part of a science based reforestation plan. Others by Doyle Drive have had to come down to make way for the temporary construction roads that are necessary for Doyle Drive construction that will begin this year.

What's Happening with Building Plans of the Trust? A major conference of the federal agencies and public groups that are official participants in the process will be held this month.We expect that the Trust will be directed to make additional modifications to its plans in order to protect historic integrity of the Presidio. The game is not over.

New Trust Board Member. John Reynolds, retired Deputy Director of the National Park Service, began serving on the Trust Board of Directors at a meeting September 17. He will speak directly for the Secretary of the Interior, an influence that has not existed before. He is dedicated to Park Service values and has many years of top level management. Three more appointees are waiting for White House confirmation. There will be some surprises, I bet. The question is if the Trust can get their building plans to a vote before the new directors are appointed. That's what the game looks like.

The Fight to Make the Presidio a Great Historic Park Is Not Over- Stay with us!

SEPTEMBER UPDATE

2009-08-31T09:28:00.000-07:00

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS:

The Trust does not control Doyle Drive's removal of trees. The Drive project is a billion dollar BIG DEAL that the Trust, the NPS and the Presidio Historical Association all have participated in, but Doyle has huge momentum because of design and seismic safety issues. Trees and a few historic buildings will come down. The Trust also is doing some necessary tree removal because the trees simply are too old and becoming dangerous. Give the Trust credit for getting long overdue reforestation started.

Yes, the Trust has revealed a new proposal for a "public program facility" at the Bowling Alley site. What in the name of full disclosure is that? Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe the Trust does not know and just put a "filler" in their plan. The big new hotel and the extension that more than doubles the size of the historic theater are still being proposed. More on this later.

Who is responsible for the long-standing fiasco over the Fisher Museum and the continuing difficulties? There is enough blame to go around, including the very design of the Trust Act that set up the Trust. That was done by an in-group of businessmen including Don Fisher, but a Republican Congress made it worse in an ideological campaign that wanted all national parks to pay their way. The Presidio Trust was a model for their nutty idea. Sure, the present Board of Directors should have seen the mess that the Fisher/hotel scheme would make of a national park. Yes, the staff did not do the job it should have forecasting what the mess would be. Were the staff blind cheerleaders or good soldiers doing what they were told after they voiced honest opinions? Who knows? Let's not point fingers. Let's move on and get this mess behind us so there will be a great historic park at the Presidio that is unlike any in our city or our state.

BIG HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEETING IN AUGUST RAISED MORE DOUBTS ABOUT TRUST PLANS.

A lengthy, contentious but productive three days was spent with the top federal and state historic preservation agencies, the Trust, and concerned public organizations. The Trust persisted in seeking approval for its plan for a hotel. enlarged movie theater and now a much smaller "public program facility" instead of the Fisher Museum. (Remember when the Fisher Museum was disguised as a "cultural facility"?)

At the end of three days, it was pretty clear that the federal and state leaders believed that there was a long way to go with historic review and design modifications before this turkey will fly.

An explanation and design of the "public program facility" is necessary, and then it will remain controversial from a historic preservation viewpoint. Is this a compelling need in a national historic landmark?

The idea of a Holiday Inn style motel was shot down. The Trust will look at their early plans for dispersed lodging in historic buildings. Any new construction would be smaller scale and dispersed.

The shape and glassiness of the theater addition are in question, as it its size, which is more massive than the original historic theater. When does the addition become the main theater and the historic theater become an addition to the modern part?

There is no way that the Trust will meet its revised deadline for a Board vote on a final plan by the end of this year, and the outlook for anything like what has been on the table for two years is dim. Remember, three more director's appointments have expired and we are waiting for the White House to name replacements, for better or for worse.

YAHOO! WHAT A MONTH JULY HAS BEEN! THERE IS A NEW SHERIFF IN TOWN.

2009-07-29T16:43:00.000-07:00

YES! First, Don Fisher recognized that no way in hell was he going to be able to build his art museum as he wanted, where he wanted, on the heart of the historic Presidio. He packed up his marbles to play elsewhere. Thanks to the public for that - those hundreds who wrote letters and attended endless meetings.

Then, The National Park Service named Jon Jarvis to be the new head of the National Park Service in Washington. Jon has been a professional with great integrity to protect Park Service values. As the recent Superintendent of the Pacific West Region of the NPS, he was the head Smokey the Bear fighting against Trust projects that would impair the Presidio National Historic Landmark. It is wonderful to have him as the top man in Washington.

Today, July 29, the Secretary of the Interior named his designee to the Presidio Trust Board of Directors to replace Dave Grubb, the construction executive who now holds the key position as President of the Presidio Trust Board. The new Secretary of Interior appointee is John J. Jarvis, a very experienced high level retired Park Service professional who is deeply familiar with the Presidio situation. John Reynolds was at the Presidio when it was transferred from the Army to the Park Service. He rose to be the number two man in the Park Service. He has great judgment and skills working with the pubic - qualities that will help the Trust Board.

What does all this mean? To me, it means that the Park Service will no longer look the other way when the Trust wants to ruin the Presidio as a national park. There is a new sheriff in town. I also believe that these great developments could signal a new era of cooperation of the Presidio Trust, the National Park Service and the public to bring to reality the great promise that the Presidio has a wonderful national historic park.

IT'S NOT OVER YET, BUT CELEBRATE FOR NOW

2009-07-02T15:37:00.000-07:00

Yes, Donald Fisher has finally realized that his vision is not going to happen to convert the Presidio's Main Post, which is the center of a National Historic Landmark, into a grand mall for his contemporary art museum . He is packing up his marbles to play his game somewhere else. Let's hope that he finds the right spot in San Francisco.

I believe that three things happened.

First over 3,000 official comments from the public were overwhelmingly opposed to the art museum as the wrong idea at the wrong place. The public respected the Presidio as a special place with a remarkable history.

Second, public voice gave political backup to the National Park Service, those people who wear funny Smokey the Bear hats. The Park Service devastated the Trust for its plans. The Park Service has a proud tradition carrying out its legal role to protect the nation's historic landmarks from well intentioned bad ideas. I'll thank every Smokey the bear I see for their courageous stand. After all, they had to oppose the Speaker of the House, who can cut their budget or blackball their promotions. Bravo, Park Service! Gutsy bureaucrats standing up for what they believe !

Third, comments submitted June 1 from historical organizations and neighborhood groups were very well prepared. In contrast to previous environmental reviews by the Trust, this time the public organizations understood the legal framework and played hardball instead of rolling over to be "partners" with the Trust. The Trust finally recognized that if this mess were presented in court, the courts would throw out the environmental review. It has been badly mismanaged. The Trust Board members did not want that kind of embarrassment.

The terms of fours of those people appointed by the White House to the Trust Board have expired. They serve only until replaced. They are the ones who wasted about five million dollars of your money on this fiasco. They forced about 12,000 hours of the public's time to be spent opposing their plans. They are the ones who have been tone deaf to public outrage. They are the ones who should be replaced if the Trust is to regain public confidence. Will Nancy Pelosi name people who are sensitive to public concerns and who value historical parks, or will she ask the President to appoint more of her real estate mogul Pacific Heights cronies who again will try to make the Presidio their private playground? How about an educator and a historian instead? Let Pelosi know who you want on the Presidio Trust Board: write her, call her office or e-mail.

The Big Bad CAMP is gone. Let's celebrate today and get back to work on the next steps at the Presidio tomorrow! No new hotel building. No movie theater. But, yes a real honest to God way to teach the public about America's history found at the Presidio.

What are your comments?

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN --- THE PRESIDIO TRUST FACES NEARLY UNANIMOUS OPPOSITION

2009-06-05T21:51:00.000-07:00

Hundreds of letters and e-mails slammed the Trust before the June 1 deadline for public comments. Trust plans for a contemporary art museum and a hotel in the center of the national historic landmark and the illegal review process were opposed by every major comment that I have read. (The Mayor and some form messages were the exceptions.) Many were detailed, expert and legally important papers: for example, by the City and County of San Francisco, Presidio Historical Association (presidioassociation.org,) Save the Presidio (savethepresidio.org), the Cow Hollow Association, the Sierra Club, the Marin Community Association, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Descendants of de Anza and Portola Expedition, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and many, many more organizations and private individuals.

THE PUBLIC WANTS AN UNDERSTANDABLE PROCESS, HONEST DOCUMENTS, A REAL NEED EXPRESSED, AND PROJECTS TO PRESENT HISTORY, NOT HOTELS OR ART UNRELATED TO THE PRESIDIO.

NEXT: The Trust will need several months and a lot of lawyers to revise their messed up environmental review. If they persist with their reckless plan, then the public sees a "final" Impact Statement and has 30 days to comment before the Trust can declare its approval for Fisher's museum. That looks possible (but unlikely) in early Fall.

A lot is going to happen before then, I predict. My personal belief is that the Trust will find a way to kill this skunk before it becomes a real stinker in court. How deep into the doodoo will the individual Trust board members, who otherwise have prominent and respected reputations, wade before they wake up to the fact that they are being associated as individuals with the stink coming from this mess?

THE PUBLIC WANTS AN HISTORIC PARK THAT WELCOMES ALL THE PEOPLE.

I Sense the Tide Has Turned

2009-04-25T22:25:00.000-07:00

On April 7, the Trust Board held a public meeting. A revised - but the same- plan for the art museum was presented with a lot of spin. The first hour of comments was dominated by well dressed people we had never seen at a previous meeting. I am told that they arrived by bus and were headed to a cocktail party. Hmmm? Then a Cal law school class gave its comments. Very interesting and pointed criticism. The public was well prepared and thoughtful in opposing the "preferred alternative" of an art museum, hotel and movie house located near San Francisco's birthplace.

The knockout punch was delivered April 17 by the National Park Service in a formal report to the federal government's top historical preservation council. This report stated five times in no uncertain terms that the Trust proposals "threaten" the Presidio's national landmark status, which is the highest form of protection an historic site can have. The Trust is bound by law to protect that status. There is very little wiggle room in this report that requires the art museum to be moved to the edge of Crissy Field if it is to be located on Main Post. Stay tuned: will the Trust ignore the report at its peril, try to wiggle around it with halfway changes, or use the considerable political muscle of its board members and Don Fisher to put on the fix in Washington?

The Park Service Report is called a "section 213" report. To see it , go to presidioassociation.org and click on "Issues".

Play Ball! Entering the Eight Inning of the Presidio Game

2009-03-31T21:33:00.000-07:00

Today, April Fool's Day, the Trust begins another round of hearings and written comments. Are you tired of the Presidio Trust wasting your time and millions of public dollars on an illegal intrusion into a national park and historic landmark? SAY SO!

It will be a battle royal at the Palace of FIne Arts Theater commencing at 6:30 P.M, TUESDAY, APRIL 7. Come early and sign up to express your mind. Specific comments with examples are the most powerful. Point out specific propaganda that has insulted you or procedures that have confused the public. Say what you value in the national park and why what the Trust proposes is damaging to the values of the park. Wonder aloud why the Trust supported the CAMP proposal with great fanfare and paraded out the Mayor and art museum directors to do so, and only later it said that it had not made up its mind, and that is why we are enduring this tedious environmental review. Do some homework. Look at the Save the Presidio. org and presidioassociation.org websites for more information.

YOUR VOICE ON APRIL 7 COUNTS! BE THERE!

Turn Out to Tell the Tone Deaf Trust Board What You Think about an Art Museum and Hotel Near the Heart of the Presidio's Most Historic Area

2009-03-23T22:59:00.000-07:00

The meeting will be on April 7, at 6:30 PM, Palace of FIne Arts Theater. Come prepared with a short comment about what bothers you most. Be specific to say why what the Presidio Trust is planning is wrong or why the enviromental review process has confused you and the public. Has any information been misleading or incomplete? Give an example.

FISHER ART TEMPLE II

2009-02-28T17:52:00.001-08:00

Another Glassy White Intrusion into a National Park and a National Historic Landmark District

2009-02-28T17:39:00.000-08:00

This is the rendering that the Fisher people leaked to the Chronicle. Can you believe the Trust's lack of sensitivity to the historic site? Law requires that any construction permitted in a National Historic Landmark be "compatible" with the structures on the site. This is compatible? Trust documents imply that the National Park Service approved this contemporary museum. That is not true. The Park Service participated in a workshop to identify characteristics of a design that might be acceptable from an historic preservation point of view. This building is not what the NPS described.

Revised Main Post Plan Is Released

2009-02-27T21:35:00.000-08:00

OH, NO! NOT ANOTHER 300 PAGES! The supplement to the supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was released today (February 27). Is this fun or what?

We have quickly scanned the version posted on the Trust website and have issued a press release available at presidioassociation.org.

In summary, the revision is mostly the same sour wine in new bottles. The Fisher art museum now is partly underground, but still at the objectionable location at the head of the parade ground near the El Presidio, the 1776 birthplace of San Francisco. Oh, yes, that's part of it. The other part is placed across Moraga Street in the area of the old Library and the Child Care Center.

Our main objection echoes over 1,000 of the public comments: a contemporary art museum just does not belong in a national historic landmark or in a national park. The Presidio is both. The final call is based on total intrusion into the historical landmark of changes past. present, and future. When Lucasfilm, the Disney Museum's expected 400,000 visitors a year, the art museum and its 300,000 visitors a year, an 85,000 square foot hotel, "greening" the Main Parade and a hokey walk through time next to the hotel, a multiscreen movie house, Doyle Drive, parking meters, on street parking where there never was any, stop lights soon? etc., are added up to judge if these all together wil impair visitors' ability to experience the history of the Presidio, there can be only one conclusion: all that construction will bury the historical character of the most important historic site on the West Coast forever. With your help, that will not happen.

And where is the Park Service? It bravely objected last April for historic preservation reasons. It has yet to rule out this project for the reasons laid out in the laws that govern ALL national parks. I bet that it will though, when the time comes. That time may be in court.

Stay tuned. No one has read the whole document yet.

New Proposals for Alien Art Museum on Presidio to Be Announced in Late February

2009-02-11T15:04:00.000-08:00

Just when we thought that we had gotten rid of pigs wearing lipstick, the Presidio Trust and Donald Fisher will soon introduce another scheme for a contemporary art museum and a big hotel in the center of the Presidio National Historic Site and National Park. Think of a contemporary art museum in Valley Forge. Think of Fisher's modern museum in San Francisco's Alamo Square or its being side-by-side with Mission Dolores. Unbelievable, but that is the mentality that once again wants to build the art museum in the Presidio.

There are National Park rules that are based in law that rule against building "cultural facilities" in National Parks unless the facility is directly related to the resources and values of the park. Somehow to me, a 1776 Spanish Presidio and 230 years as the Presidio's being central to America's growing presence on the Pacific do not have any relationship to contemporary art. The Park Service has not said that it will permit this museum that is so alien to any national park to be built.

The Trust officials and Mr. Fisher never have made the case why this art museum belongs on the Presidio other than Fisher's saying that is where he wants it.

Mr. Fisher, listen to the over 1,000 letters that say we the people do NOT want it there.

Please write, e-mail or phone Nancy Pelosi and the Trust to let them know how you feel. Why does a contemporary art museum belong in the Presidio close to the birthplace of San Francisco, when such an art museum would be permitted anywhere in a national park?

FACING THE DECISIVE YEAR FOR THE PRESIDIO AS A NATIONAL PARK

2008-12-30T21:17:00.000-08:00

2009. What lies ahead? A large hotel and a contemporary art museum in the center of a national park and a national historic landmark? The path open for more wealthy donors to build their personal dreams in a park that belongs to all of the people? The present proposals and the revisions we are told to expect in January will continue to endanger the Presidio's status as a national park. If it to continue as a national park, it must be managed to the standards of a national park. Every action that the Presidio Trust Board takes that impairs the historic resources of the Presidio is one step closer to the Presidio's losing its status as a national park and national historic landmark. There are people in San Francisco and in Washington who would be delighted to see that happen. Some don't want the Presidio to be governed by national park rules, but to be a gorgeous vacant lot upon which they can build their fantasy of the moment. Others probably think that they could profit from such a development. Still others think that they can manage the park functions of a national park better than the men and women of a Park Service that has nearly 100 years of experience and proud tradition as custodian of America's national parks.

All the public - even those who admire Mr. Fisher's art collection- cannot find a single reason why the Fisher Museum has to be in a national park rather than in the thriving, arts-loving city nearby. That is because a contemporary art museum is alien to the values of the Presidio. It expresses the values of a modern city. It makes the Presidio someplace that is fundamentally different than when it was designated a national historic landmark.

So, how can we continue to keep the pressure on to save the Presidio? Write now to Congresswoman Pelosi to express your outrage that this struggle is still going on. Ask on what authority the Presidio would be a part of the only national park in the nation with a newly built contemporary art museum, when no other national park would have such an alien activity forced upon it. Ask her why the Presidio believes that it is not required to follow the laws concerning the protection of national park resources that guide all other other national parks. Does she support that position? Was the intent of Congress in the Presidio Trust Act for the Presidio to be in the parks system, but not follow the rules that define what a national park is? Is or is not the Presidio a national park? Send a copy of your letter to mainpost@presidiotrust.gov .

Write! Continue to monitor this blog and presidioassociation.org.

MORE CHAOS AT THE PRESIDIO

2008-11-21T21:43:00.000-08:00

Events are occurring so fast in the environmental review process for a huge art museum and a 140 room hotel on Main Post that even we who spend half our lives fighting for a true historical park cannot keep up. Here's a guess as to what's happening:

1. The historic preservation authorities at Park Service, state, and national level have finally convinced the Trust that Fisher's museum cannot be built at the chosen bowling alley site and that it cannot be built elsewhere as a massive monument. Public opposition made it possible for these authorities to do their job in a difficult political situation. What government agency wants to buck the Speaker of the House? Public opposition paid off in this step toward preserving the historical Presidio- but we are a long way from having succeeded.

2. NPS and Trust got together to work out what MIGHT be acceptable for the art museum in the area of the Day Care Center across Moraga Street. Those ideas are now the subject of review. IMPORTANT: This does not say the art museum should be at that location: it only studies what it would have to look like if it were located there. I argue that there are very strong objections to having 100,000 square feet of two story construction within 160 yards of El Presidio and located at an elevation 26 feet above the objectionable bowling alley site and Main Parade.

3. This idea of relocating and redesigning does nothing to answer fundamental policy objections concerning the legality or appropriateness of a contemporary art museum in ANY national park.

4. The ideas do nothing to justify ANY construction in a national historic landmark when there is no clear statement of purpose and need. The Trust's propaganda "purpose and need" in the Main Post Update is meaningless with such phrases as "revitalization" and "making the Presidio a great urban park." This is marketing. These are not clear expressions of need that can be analyzed throughout the EIS. The public should be able to understand a convincing need that is expressed in clear terms such that when the project is done, the results can be measured, Objective analysis based on a purpose and need that is understandable should be able to guide the public in its analysis and support for one of the alternatives in the EIS. That is required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

5. There are many rumors that the schedule will be changed yet again, but that was denied by the Trust attorney at the recent meeting when the new design concepts were introduced. These concepts are posted on the Trust website presidiotrust.gov.

STAY TUNED. There is a key historic preservation consultation scheduled for preservation organizations and neighborhood groups on December 2. The situation should be clearer then.

I suggest waiting to write your comments due December 15 until after the December 2 meeting when I will update you. Meanwhile, look at the new concepts on the website. Review "purpose and need" in the Main Post Update, also available on the Trust website. If you think they don't make sense, then please write a letter saying that and mail it to the Trust. Overwhelming public objection or lack of understanding of the "purpose and need" would require the Trust to rewrite the Main Post Update and repeat most of the review process. PresidioPal

TRUST FEELING THE HEAT: CHANGES DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING

2008-11-07T11:31:00.000-08:00

For the second time, the Trust has changed the date of the big public meeting. Could it be that they do not want 700 more angry citizens objecting in front of the press to the wild plans to fit a huge contemporary art museum into the heart of a 230 year old National Historic Site and a National Park? The new date is December 9, but keep checking- a lot is happening behind the scenes.The Trust staff and Board of Directors are feeling heat from you, the public, and from national official preservation authorities.

Please keep e-mails and letters to the Trust flowing in. You may write more than once if you have a new idea or another specific objection. Go to the Trust website presidiotrust.gov and look at the documents. The Main Post Update has screwy statements of need: what really is the need for a contemporary art museum and hotel? It has design guidelines to control building that are specific to Fisher's art museum. Do you object to those guidelines, and why? Pick an item or two that really bugs you from the Main Post Update and then write your concerns. Be specific and cite the page number that you are objecting to.

The tide is turning!

NEW LOCATION FOR NOVEMBER 13 PUBLIC HEARING

2008-10-31T12:01:00.000-07:00

I guess that the Trust either expects a humongous crowd of angry people, or it hopes that parking will discourage some of us from attending, but the last chance for the public to sound off is November 13, 6:30 P.M., at Saint Mary's Conference Center, 1111 Gough Street. Some parking in the Cathedral lot off Gough and more at the Japanese Cultural Center. Be there with a very short statement to the point of what you want to happen or, better, what bad information or lack of information bothers you, or how the whole process may be illegal or at least procedurally hard to understand.

It Gets Curiouser and Curiouser

2008-10-31T11:48:00.000-07:00

We expected an authoritative analysis of the damage a large art museum would do to the Presidio as a National Historic Landmark. That may still happen, but what we did get was a series of presentations by the Trust to the people working on behalf of the public who are concerned about keeping the Presidio protected as a National Historic Landmark. The Trust, after consultation with the Park Service experts (Why didn't that happen two years ago and save us all this grief?) is proposing a large structure or structures for Fisher's contemporary art museum uphill from the site of the bowling alley and across Moraga Street. The details of what that structure or structures might look like are up in the air. My first reaction is, "Oops, that area is 28 feet higher than Main Parade!" "Wouldn't a large art museum there tower over the heart of the historic Presidio even more than it would at the earlier proposed site at the head if the parade ground?" We don't know enough to sound the alarm, but we do know that the suggested site for CAMP is the only possible site on Main Post for a major history center. CAMP at this new location would crowd out the possibility of a first class history center on the Presidio. Stay tuned.

New Article on the Presidio

2008-10-10T14:54:00.000-07:00

Everyone should read this article that explains the current battle for the historic soul of the Presidio: See the article at www.coastandocean.org.

Strong Opposition to CAMP Grows: NEW SCHEDULE

2008-10-10T14:28:00.000-07:00

First, the new schedule is for a public hearing to be held by the Trust Board on Nov 13. This replaces the meeting that was scheduled for Oct. 10 because the official report on the damage that CAMP would do to the Presidio's historic integrity is not due until October 18. The Trust will need time to adjust to what we expect will be a damning indictment. It is very important that this meeting be crowded with friends of the Presidio as a historical park, The Fisher people are organizing art students and collecting IOU's from organizations which have benefitted from Fisher's donations to pack the crowd. Be there to represent the people.

Second, the final date for submitting comments was changed to Nov. 17. Numbers and the quality of letters count.

This Turkey Won't Fly

2008-09-18T22:53:00.000-07:00

Folks, You are doing wonders by your comments and participation. I believe that the momentum has turned strongly against the sponsors of the 100,000 square foot art museum in an historic national park, despite rigged "guided" tours led by Trust employees, not National Park Service Rangers.

The tide has turned also in the battle being fought in the background concerning technical historic preservation standards that are being violated and the National Environmental Protection Act that would be completely ignored if the Trust approved building its pet projects. An all day "consultation" held Tuesday, September 14, brought the top people from state and federal agencies, several from Washington, as well as local preservation groups and representatives for thousands of neighbors around the Presidio. It was bare knuckle time.

The Trust officials present included Craig Middleton, the hired executive for the Trust Board (and a former Pelosi staff member), the Trust's lawyer, and even the highly paid lawyer for Donald Fisher, sponsor of the contemporary art museum. They got an earful of six hours of direct, factual and expert objections not only to the proposals, but also concerning the irregular, confusing procedures that the Trust has applied to get us into this time wasting and expensive situation.

(Speaking of expensive, did you know that it is illegal for a government agency to spend funds to advocate for its favored alternative in the review processes? How much has all those marketing brochures and tour guides cost, I wonder? Do you think that they might have been biased in favor of the Trust's desired outcome? Send a comment to let us know.)

People who treasure the Presidio as what the State Historic Preservation Officer called, " A precious site unlike any other on the West Coast," left the meeting knowing that they were solid in their opposition to the Trust's reckless plans. The feeling was that the unified position of authorities and the public in the review process finally has the Trust considering its options how to wind down this mess without too much egg on its face. But, we will be jerked around in this mess by the Trust for months more. I think that the Trust staff does not have the guts to tell the governing board of the Trust that "the Emperor wears no clothes," or (mixing metaphors,) "This turkey won't fly!"

Participate! Continue your letters or e-mails to the Trust and Pelosi. Attend the workshops and meeting announced at www.presidoassociation.org or www. savethepresidio.org. We are succeeding, but do not pullback your support now.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW SCHEDULE FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION TO SAVE THE PRESIDIO

2008-09-02T21:32:00.000-07:00

Under pressure from the public and from historic preservation authorities at the national, state, and city level, the Presidio Trust has extended its deadlines once again for comments on the proposed 100,000 square foot contemporary art museum, a hotel, and an expanded multiplex theater in the heart of the Presidio National Historic Landmark, part of a national park. The new schedule is:

Public Hearing, Tuesday, October 14, 6:30 pm at the Palace of Fine Arts Theater.

Public comments due, October 20.

Answers to Comments: Museums and Bowling Alleys

2008-08-14T14:29:00.000-07:00

There was another bowling alley on the Presidio near Fort Scott, up near the Bridge. I believe that it had to be torn down because the building was in bad shape.

Yes, for years the Army operated a museum in a turn of the century hospital building. It actually was started by the Presidio Historical Association. After the Park Service took over, it was allowed to deteriorate until finally the NPS closed it due to poor access for handicapped persons, no elevator, and the need for major building repairs. It was popular with many people and school teachers, but too small to meet the needs of the Presidio. The National Park Service does not have the money or staff to operate a fully developed museum. The Presidio Historical Association has proposed a substantial museum to be established by a separate public nonprofit foundation, but with participation by the Park Service and the Presidio Trust. This vision would require a large sum of donor support. Until now, there has been little cooperation between the Trust and NPS concerning programs for the public or willingness to consider a third presence on the presidio to operate a museum.

We hope that the current debate about what the Presidio should be will reawaken and motivate new cooperation and new forms of solutions to create an important learning center to present America's history at the Presidio

LET THEM EAT CAKE

2008-07-15T11:40:00.000-07:00

Can you believe the insulting attitude of "Let them eat cake!" of the supporters of the Fisher Museum on the Presidio? A BMW SUV pulled up in front of the July 14 meeting location and handed out box lunches to CAMP supporters and the crowd, most of whom were not interested, thank you.

One extraordinarily well dressed man who spoke in favor of CAMP said, "No matter what you people do, you are wasting your time. Meetings like this are all ceremony, you know."

No wonder people's reaction is, "To the barricades!" Join them to reject CAMP.

REPORT ON PRESIDIO HEARING TODAY, July 14

2008-07-14T22:42:00.000-07:00

What a great show of support today for keeping historical values at the Presidio from being submerged in a sea of new construction that is completely unrelated to the natural and historic resources of the Presidio Park! All the 600 chairs were taken, hundreds more lined the walls, and more were turned away from the doors. The Presidio Trust offered its habitual nonsense about "revitalizing" the Presidio. Would you "Revitalize" Gettysburg or Independence Hall?

The Fisher people, including the Mayor of San Francisco, made speeches about how wonderful the art collection was and how beautiful the Presidio was, but none of them had an explanation why the unsuitably large building had to be located directly in the center of the most historic area of the 1776 historic site. Sure, we all agree to keeping the art in San Francisco, but not on the Main Post of the Presidio.

Amy Meyer, the "Mother of the GGNRA," spoke out strongly against the Trust's interpretation of the GGNRA legislation. Amy made it clear that the law does NOT permit adding up the square footage from various demolished structures to justify building one huge structure. The National Parks Conservation Association backed up that view with a stinging legal review letter sent on July 11. This obviously got the Trust Board's attention because Amy Meyer is widely respected in the community and was herself a recent board member of the Presidio Trust.

One objectionable event was a person introducing 300 signatures in support of CAMP and the Trust accepting them to the record. Isn't the whole point of a public hearing for the public to show up and express themselves? Those names should not be accepted to the record.

The key arguments used by our allies will be posted under "Issues" on www.presidioassociation.org.

All in all, it was a very good evening for those who cherish the Presidio as a park for all the people. It was you, each one of you reading this, and your friends who made a strong statement to the Trust Board....are they listening? Do they understand what they are hearing?

The Presidio Hearing and the Good News

2008-07-11T14:52:00.000-07:00

How wrong those were who said to oppose the limitless money and influence of Mr. Fisher and the arrogance of the Trust Board to support a huge modern art museum in a national park! Well, in America's unique democratic way, a powerful coalition has emerged to bring sanity to a crazy situation.

1. The National Park Service has ruled that the construction would threaten the Landmark. That was a high level announcement. The NPS has the responsibility by law to protect national landmarks.

2. The State Historic Preservation Officer has sent a very strong letter to the Trust to demand that it follows the prescribed procedures. The SHPO also has strong objections.

3. The National Parks Conservation Association has been working effectively in the background to protect park values and authority in the Presidio. The NPCA is well connected in Washington.

4. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has come out strongly in opposition to the construction ideas.

5. 42 or more neighborhood organizations are on record to oppose the Fisher Museum.

6. Many individual volunteers are working extraordinary hours to stop the art museum in the Presidio.

7. Most importantly, you, the public have been vocal in opposition. Literally thousands of comments to the press, blog entries, and letters to the Trust want history, not modern art, in our historic landmark.

Personally, I think far more progress has been made toward stopping the Trust Express than most people realize.

BUT, the Trust Directors may not be hearing you, nor are the politicians. We do not know if the intensity of the opposition is not being reported to them by the staff or if they think that public opposition cannot touch them.

YOU MUST SPEAK OUT MONDAY, JULY 14, AT THE 6:30 p.m. HEARING. If nothing else, say, "I oppose the alternatives of a big art museum or hotel, and I support Alternative 3, the History Center at the Golden Gate."

The main page of www.presidioassociation.org will lead you to more detailed suggested comments.

Well, Maybe Not Quite So Big--Preparing for July 14 Public Hearing

2008-06-26T21:37:00.000-07:00

My math enabled friends pointed out that I had omitted considering the fact that most of the CAMP (contemporary art museum at the Presidio) is two stories. So, working only from the text description in the draft EIS just released and from the rough schematic of the ground level with its scale, it works out that maybe it is not as big as 93,000 refrigerators. Is only 45, 555 refrigerators stacked up small enough that it won't make a difference to the "sense of place" of a 230 year old National Historic Landmark? You decide. It still is far, far larger than the nearby buildings.

Watch the Presidio Association website for our first analysis of the draft SEIS that is supposed to be discussed by the public on July 14. We plan to have some key points for your consideration posted on July 7. Wading through 318 pages of distortions, omissions, and ambiguities is not easy. We hope that you are trying to read the study, nevertheless.

Do not base your opinion on the slick P.R. materials that have been issued. A brochure with a historic picture of soldiers in front of a 1902 barracks on the cover from that says we will bring back history by building a large contemporary art museum and a big hotel in front of those barracks. This does not pass the test of common sense.

First Look at Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2008-06-20T17:07:00.000-07:00

Doublethink pervades the draft EIS for the art museum, hotel and expanded theater in the Presidio National Historic Landmark. Readers are asked to believe that the Trust is defending the historic place by building a huge contemporary building! Think about that. We see a brochure with Spanish American era soldiers sitting on the steps of a 1902 barracks, and inside is the smallest picture of the art monument that can be imagined. Somehow, the new construction of an art museum and hotel is supposed to "revitalize" a national park by bringing activity to the park that is not grounded in national park values or practices. The NPS quit building hotels like the Awahnee in Yosemite many, many years ago. The Trust says that every great national park needs a large hotel!

The Park Service takes its responsibility under the Park Service Organic Act to protect park resources and values very seriously. The Presidio Trust says that it does, and the law establishing it orders the Trust to protect the National Historic Landmark. Despite these facts, the Trust recommends a preferred alternative that inflicts damage so severe that the Park Service has stated it would threaten the Landmark Status (and the protection against development that landmark status is supposed to provide.) The Trust draft SEIS is so convoluted in its logic that we have to wonder if it were written by George Orwell as an example of his propaganda controlled world in 1984.

A serious deficiency is that the Trust acknowledges in the draft EIS that there will be "adverse effects" on historic integrity, but there is no analysis of those adverse effects nor how to mitigate them. Why this omission? The answer is that the Trust has suspended detailed consultation with the Park Service, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the Presidio Historical Association. This consultation was part of a formal process recommended in the National Historic Preservation Act. Instead, the Trust has chosen to hire a consultant - the usual solution for getting the answer you pay for. The consultant is to write a "Determination of Effects" that describes adverse effects. This procedure bypasses input by expert organizations that the Trust knows oppose the massive construction. It also fails to inform the public so it can comment with full informaton at the public meeting scheduled for July 14 and in written comments due to the Trust by July 31.

We will spend a week or more to thoroughly analyze the EIS and post a detailed point paper here or on the Presidio Association web site, . The analysis will be assisted by a registered PhD. Architectural Historian. This analysis will be completed in time for you to make your own decisions prior to the July 14 meeting at the Officers' Club at 6:30. Be early and get in line to speak. It will be a crowded event.

Thanks to those who have posted comments, phoned or e-mailed. Keep your thoughts and suggestions coming!

New Environmental Impact Study Ignores Objections of the National Park Service and National Trust for Historic Preservation

2008-06-12T09:27:00.000-07:00

We have not yet seen a copy of the Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement released by the Presidio Trust to the press before September 9. The long document is posted on the Presidio Trust website. We will soon summarize our analysis here.

The headline in the San Francisco Chronicle that reported on the new study erroneously stated that "park officials" selected the museum plan. In fact, the Park Service strongly opposes this plan. The reporter made the frequent error of equating the Presidio Trust with the national parks. The Presidio Trust is a Republican-appointed board of business people that have no official relationship to the Park Service: the Trust is an oddity in our national system. It reports only to a subcommittee of Congress, which in practice means that the Presidio Trust has very little oversight at all.

We do know that the new study follows what seems to be a predetermined path to approve the nearly three football fields' worth of new construction in the heart of a National Historic Landmark and a national park belonging to all the people. The study selects as the preferred alternative to build the 100,000 square foot Fisher Contemporary Art Museum and a large hotel in the center of the historic landmark, despite warnings by the National Park Service and the National Trust for Historic Preservation that the actual status of the Presidio as a landmark would be threatened by such construction. The Presidio Trust would ignore such opposition at its peril: these organizations are dedicated by law to preserve national historic landmarks - as is a mission of the Trust itself! If this construction happens, the board members of the Trust would be defying this mandate from Congress.

Stay informed. Our analysis of the new study will be posted on the Presidio Historical Association website, www.presidioassociation.org, by June 21. This will give you time to form your own opinions to express at the key public meeting scheduled for July 14 at the Presidio Officers Club. Be There!

Board of Supervisors Will Vote to Create a Committee to Monitor the Presidio

2008-05-21T17:35:00.000-07:00

Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier has introduced a resolution to establish a watchdog coalition to focus on Presidio projects, including a contemporary art museum, a large hotel, and a movie multiplex to be constructed on the National Park, which is also a National Historic Landmark. The resolution responds to residents' outcry against the Presidio Trust's development plans.

The Board of Supervisors is expected to vote on June 3 to create the Presidio Neighborhood Working Group for the people of San Francisco to monitor development of the national park, the Presidio of San Francisco.

Nation's Leading Voice for Historic Preservation Opposes Contemporary Art Museum and Hotel on the Presidio

2008-05-19T09:12:00.002-07:00

The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which is the most prominent national organization for preserving the architectural heritage of America, has written a strong letter condemning construction of a contemporary art museum on the Presidio National Historic Landmark. The Presidio Trust that manages the Presidio has publicly supported this proposal and has selected a developer for building a 80,000 square foot hotel near the art museum and the 200 year old site of the Spanish Presidio in the center of the historic district.

The NTHP stated in a letter to the Presidio Trust "This project would not conform to the Secretary's (of Interior) standards, and indeed, would be inconsistent with the Presidio Trust's own planning guidelines and analysis."

The NTHP elsewhere in the letter makes this strong statement: "Taken together, the diminished historic integrity of the Main Post that would result from the proposed undertaking is profoundly disturbing. Given the Main Post's role as the historic heart of the Presidio, the degradation of its historic integrity would be fundamentally contrary to the Presidio Trust's mandate, and must be avoided at all costs."

The National Park Service and the National Trust for Historic Preservation now are on record along with the people of San Francisco to demand that the historic character of the Presidio be preserved. How can the developers on the board of the Presidio Trust be so deaf to the voice of the people and the authority of the nation's top historic preservation organizations that they plunge ahead with the reckless idea of a contemporary art museum and a hotel in the center of an historic national park?

IF YOU HAVE NOT CONTACTED THE PRESIDIO TRUST WITH YOUR OPINION ON THIS DESTRUCTIVE PROPOSAL, DO IT NOW. E-MAIL: Mainpost@presidiotrust.gov.

San Francisco Neighborhoods Unite to Save the Historic Presidio

2008-05-10T09:59:00.000-07:00

A powerful coalition of 48 San Francisco neighborhood groups has united in opposition to the construction of the large Contemporary Art Museum at the Presidio. This is a break-through development that clearly and forcefully mirrors the opinions of hundreds of letters received by the Presidio Trust that oppose any building that damages the historic character of the Main Parade Ground area of the Presidio.

The resolution of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods "urges our elected officials to oppose any buildings or activities that compromise the historic significance of the Parade Ground either by their purpose and function, architecturally, by the size, color and design of the proposed new building(s), or by the level of activity that will be generated by the new use(s)."

The Neighborhood Coalition also stated its concerns about the growing traffic and parking issues associated with any large new enterprise on the Presidio.

New Key Support to Preserve the Presidio National HIstoric Landmark

2008-04-11T22:00:00.000-07:00

The National Park Service has taken a strong position warning that the proposed Fisher art museum would have serious adverse effects on the integrity of the National Landmark. The law requires the Presidio Trust to preserve the Landmark. The Park Service's strong and principled statement strengthens greatly the odds that the art museum will be moved and modified in size.

Many do not know that the entire Presidio is a National Historic Landmark designated by the Secretary of the Interior after review by a panel of historians and historic architects. The National Park Service is the federal agency responsible for identifying and preserving national historic landmarks. The are about 2,500 national landmarks in the nation selected to preserve an important story of American history. The Presidio is even more rare, a landmark DISTRICT, which is a collection of structures and landscape that collectively express important stories of American history.

The National Park Service is responsible for preservation of the "integrity" of National Historic Landmarks by advising and warning. It does not have the legal power to compel an acton. It is participating with the Presidio Historical Association, the State Historical Preservation Officer and other agencies in a review of the proposed new construction, including the massive contemporary art museum that has been supported by the board members of the Presidio Trust. Other agencies have joined the Park Service and the Presidio HIstorical Association in rejecting the size, design and location of the museum proposal. These positions opposing the art museum are being taken in a formal process under the National Historic Preservation Act. Although the Presidio Trust can by law ignore the recommendations of the panel, it would take a tin ear by the Trust to ignore formal opposition under the Historic Preservation Act and the outpouring of public outrage expressed in hundreds of letters, comments to newspaper articles, and questions from the press.

Nevertheless, money talks and money talks loudly to politicians. The possibility of a massive modern structure paid for by a billionaire in the middle of San Francisco's treasured historic landmark district is still very real. If you have not written Congresswoman Pelosi, please do. If you have, write or e-mail again. We hope that the message finally will get through to the key decision makers. Until now, their gatekeepers are protecting decisonmakers from the truth about the real threat the Fisher art museum is to the Presidio remaining protected as a National Historic Landmark.

Public outrage expressed well, often and loudly will be the real "decider"in the Presidio fight. Make your opinion known.

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 14th floor, San Francisco, CA 94102. Or,

sf.nancy@mail.house.gov.

Also, Board of Directors, Presidio Trust, P,O, Box 29052, 34 Graham Street, San Francisco, CA 94129.

New York Times Chimes in on Challenge at the Presidio

2008-03-29T23:41:00.000-07:00

The Sunday, March 30, New York Times has an excellent article that accurately and forcefully outlines the fundamental issues and personalities concerning a proposed 100,000 square foot art museum in the historic center of the National Landmark.

We do not yet have permission to post the full article. Go the the New York Times website. You can easily find it. You may have to register. The author is Patricia Brown. The title is "Art and History Clash on City's Sacred Ground."

We think having the national newspaper of record recognize this situation for what it is will focus a bright light on the abuse that is developing at the Presidio where an unelected board of business people is trying to force an inappropriate and possibly illegal privately managed personal art museum into the center of historic grounds owned by the people of the city and the nation.

Unbelievable: Now a Multiplex Theater is Planned for the Historic Presidio!

2008-03-15T16:45:00.000-07:00

First, the developer for a 80,ooo square foot 100 room luxury hotel right in the center of the Old Main Post was selected. A few months later, the Presidio Trust welcomed a proposal for a glass and white stone huge contemporary art museum to be built next to the flagpole. Historical groups and regulators point out that such glaringly inappropriate and large new construction in the area would destroy the integrity of the National Historic Landmark: such construction can't happen there.

Now, a new building is being planned. It is an addition to the Old Post Theater on Moraga Avenue located right across Montgomery Avenue where the big art museum is to be. The addition is a modern movie mall sort of structure that is larger than the historic old theater building itself. The management of the Trust has shown either arrogant disregard for historic preservation principles, or the Trust Board has its head in the sand and does not want to recognize that there are real limits from public opinion and historic preservation standards that prevent massive inappropriate new construction in a National Historic Landmark. What the Trust wants to do is build 200,000 square feet - MORE THAN THREE FOOTBALL FIELDS - of modern looking new structures within a few hundred yards of the 1776 Spanish Presidio the and even closer to the flagpole.

BUT YOU, THE PUBLIC DOES NOT WANT BIG BUILDINGS IN THE CENTER OF THE PRESIDIO. ONLY 10 PERCENT OF THE 300 LETTERS RECEIVED BY THE TRUST SUPPORTED THE IDEA OF A HUGE ART MUSEUM IN THE HISTORIC MAIN POST.

What can we do to stop this madness that will ruin the Presidio and maybe even cause it to be removed from the list on National Historic Landmarks? E-mail Nancy Pelosi with your thoughts to: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov and copy the Trust at Mainpost@Presidiotrust.gov.

Your actions will bring sanity to this crazy situation.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPPOSE CONTEMPORARY ART MUSEUM IN THE HISTORIC HEART OF THE PRESIDIO

2008-02-13T10:31:00.000-08:00

Less than 10 percent of letters from the public received by the Presidio Trust want a contemporary art museum in the designated prime location on the historic landmark, the Presidio of San Francisco. 30 percent specifically favor a proposal by the Presidio Historical Association for a History Center at the Golden Gate. The Trust chose not to consider that proposal due to the fact that it was not funded. Comments ranged from 15 percent in favor of both museums to 15 percent saying no museum construction at all.

This information was acquired by reviewing one half of the 300 letters submitted. 43 of the letters were from civic and cultural organizations or commercial businesses. Of these, only 10 percent want the contemporary art museum built as proposed, while 25 percent specifically endorsed the History Center proposal.

The Presidio Trust made the decision to move forward with the Contemporary Art Museum at the Presidio (CAMP).

Stay tuned. How long can the Presidio Trust Board (on which Mr. Fisher, the donor of CAMP has served) ignore overwhelming public opinion that CAMP is the wrong idea in the wrong place at the center of a valued National Historic Landmark and a National Park?

TRUST SELECTS ART MUSEUM FOR THE PRESIDIO

2008-01-30T22:31:00.000-08:00

Today, January 30, it was announced that the CAMP Museum (Contemporary Art Museum at the Presidio) was selected by the Presidio Trust, the govermental corporation that manages most of the Presidio National Park. However, overwhelming public opposition resulted in the Trust confirming that no decision would be made until a comprehensive environmental review is completed. It is possible that this review will require relocating the big glass and white stone structure away from a proposed central position in the historic park to a less objectionable site. That would be a major victory for those of us who defend historical values and American history.

The Presidio Trust also announced 5 million dollars for a visitors' center ( a Park Service responsibility that has not been funded) and a "history center." But, the "history center" is nothing more than a promenade with exhibits along the way and an audio tour of the buildings: it does nothing real to bring meaning to the history of America found at the Presidio National Historic Landmark District. That historical meaning will remain a closed book to the public if the promenade were to be the only "history center."

A proposal for a 50,000 square foot "History Center of the Golden Gate" was rejected on the grounds that it was not funded. The group proposing the History Center, the Presidio Historical Association, had asked the Trust to join with it to explore funding opportunities for a museum with nation importance at the Presidio, a proposal that is fitting with the magnificent site and National Historic Landmark.

PRESIDIO NOMINATED AS MOST ENDANGERED HISTORIC PLACE

2008-01-09T11:55:00.000-08:00

The Presidio of San Francisco was nominated to be one of the nation's "11 Most Endangered Historic Places". What do you think? Let us hear your comments. Here is the press release:

News Release

For Immediate Release - January 9, 2008

For more information, contact:

Whit Hall, Director: 707/778-6975,

Gary Widman, President: 415/921-8193, presidio-assoc@att.net

http://www.presidioassociation.org/

Historical Association Seeks “Endangered” Status for San Francisco’s

Presidio

The Presidio Historical Association (PHA) announced today that it is

seeking “Most Endangered Historic Site” status for San Francisco’s

Presidio park.

On Tuesday, the Historical Association formally requested that the

National Trust for Historic Preservation include the Presidio on its 2008

list of the nation’s “11 Most Endangered Historic Places.” The National

Trust, a prominent nonprofit organization, provides leadership, education,

advocacy, and resources to save America’s diverse historic places.

PHA President Gary Widman said the move was necessary because the

Presidio’s management requested a proposal from Gap founder Donald Fisher to build a 100,000 sq. ft. modernistic stone-and glass-structure

showcasing his contemporary art collection on the Presidio’s historic Main

Post. The Presidio Trust, a federal agency, manages that part of the

Presidio. It has already named a developer for another new building, an

80,000 sq. ft. hotel to be built nearby on the Post.

The Presidio was a military garrison from 1776 to 1994, and is designated

a National Historic Landmark District, the highest possible designation,

by the Secretary of the Interior. Its buildings and setting reflect 220

years of America’s heritage.

The Presidio has not had a history museum since 1994. PHA submitted a

plan for a “History Center at the Golden Gate” as an alternative to

Fisher’s much larger art museum.

“This precious historical site must be preserved for future generations

and protected from incompatible structures and uses that would destroy

its integrity forever,” said Widman. Widman noted the location sought for

the art museum lies in the heart of the Presidio, just yards from where

the Spaniards built their garrison in 1776.

Preeminent San Francisco landscape architect Lawrence Halprin said of

Fisher's proposed structure, "The design...is absurdly inappropriate. It

would ruin the unique architectural character of the Presidio..."

Charles A. Fracchia, Founder and President Emeritus of the San Francisco

Museum & Historical Society and author of three San Francisco history

books, wrote that “...the [Main Post] should be preserved as it exists.

The intrusion of a large hotel and museum in a contemporary style of

architecture into this delicate space would be a desecration, both to the

aesthetic and historic importance of the site. Such a mistake, if allowed

to continue, will be looked upon in ages to come as eyesores built by the

unfeeling and the insensitive.”

Boyd de Larios, speaking for the Descendants of the Anza and Portola

Expeditions, whose ancestors founded the original Presidio garrison in

1776, supported PHA’s request for endangered status to bring “national

attention to the irresponsible proposals for large-scale, new, and

inappropriately designed construction in the historic heart of an

irreplaceable national treasure.”

The controversy over building the art museum and hotel on the historic

Main Post, when many more appropriate sites are available on the Presidio,

has generated thousands of critical comments on the internet.

Founded in the 1950s, the nonprofit Presidio Historical Association (PHA)

has worked in cooperation with the National Park Service and Presidio

Trust since 1994 to advocate for preserving the integrity of the

Presidio’s National Historic Landmark District, located within the Golden

Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA). PHA created a museum for the Army when it was based at the Presidio. Earlier, PHA helped restore historic

Fort Point at the base of the Golden Gate Bridge.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AT THE PRESIDIO

2007-12-21T22:35:00.000-08:00

The very modern contemporary art museum proposed for the Presidio of San Francisco National Historic Landmark District viewed from in front of an 1890's barracks at the intersection of Sheridan and Montgomery Streets looking toward the 1776 "El Presidio." (Officers Club.) Is this the right building at the right place in a national historic landmark?

Despite official words of welcome for the 100,000 square foot art museum by Presidio Trust officials and the Mayor, and the premature praise of some newspapers, it is becoming clear that the proposal for an out of place, oversized, inappropriately designed art museum on the Presidio is not going to be a "slam dunk." The National Historic Preservation Act calls for a formal consultation process that includes representation from the Park Service, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Presidio Historical Association. The first meeting of this group recognized many difficulties with the art museum proposal as it stands now and with the hurried process that an environmental review is scheduled to take. The protected status of the Presidio as one of fewer than 2,500 National Historic Landmark Districts in the nation brings close scrutiny when a proposed action, such as the art museum, would have severe adverse effects on the national landmark. We also are encouraged by public opposition to this project that has been expressed in letters to the Trust and by e-mails to the newspapers that have reported on the art museum. The weight of public opinion is leading to an atmosphere in which - just perhaps- reason will prevail and a redesigned art museum would be located elsewhere on the Presidio, while a suitably designed history center might be established somewhere near Main Post. That would be a win-win situation for everyone, including the public that a national park is meant to serve and the values the park represents.

Public Letters on the Presidio's Future

2007-12-17T10:29:00.000-08:00

The comment period closes today for letters or e-mails to the Presidio Trust concerning several proposed projects on the historic Main Post. These letters are for the public to tell the Trust what must be studied in a proposed Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. This SEIS is supposed to make it possible to build an 80,000 square foot hotel and a 100,000 square foot contemporary art museum within 200 yards of each other, the flagpole, and the 1776 El Presidio (Officers Club).

The letters range from the highly detailed and technical submission by the Presidio Historical Association to individual angry comments against any construction at all.

Thank you, Everyone, who sent in e-mails and letters. We have not seen them, unless you sent them to us. Within a day, we will post some on this blog and invite you to post yours as comments. Also, ask questions that you think all would like to have answered, and we will do our best to answer them.

Watch this space for some sample letters and e-mails.

FIRESTORM OF PUBLIC OUTRAGE

2007-12-05T10:18:00.000-08:00

Over at the San Francisco Chronicle blog, SFgate, look for the comments on John King's article yesterday. 210 posts last time that I looked. Most see a big airport looking building as out of place in the historical park district, but would like to see it elsewhere in the Presidio.

The organization proposing a more fitting history center is at www.presidioassociation.org.

Take a look there at an alternative to the mega museum in that location..

Monstrous Art Museum in a National Historic Landmark and National Park???

2007-12-04T17:25:00.000-08:00

The image of the proposed Contemporary Art Museum of the Presidio was revealed in a well orchestrated demonstration of Establishment support at a meeting on December 3. We will post those images here or on as soon as we get them. In short, the 100,000 square foot structure would overwhelm the site. It would have three to four times the size of any nearby building. It would change the identity of the Presidio from a National Historic Landmark into an office park of old buildings where that big art museum is. The 220 years of history would be overwhelmed in visitors' perceptions.

The Presidio Association responded with a proposal for a history center half the size, with much less bulk, sensitive to the surroundings and environmentally advanced. It would have an inviting open layout and the latest exhibition design, all to present four themes: Completion of America's Westward Expansion, America on the Pacific Rim. Changing Peoples and Cultures, and From Here to Where.

In the tightly controlled meeting, assertions were made with much enthusiasm how a contemporary art museum would "revitalize" the old Presidio and bring the public to it, thereby making it a great national park. Somehow the logic escaped me that a museum that had nothing to do with the values of a National Park could make a great park. The Historical Association presented the case for a modern, well thought out and appropriate history center that could accomplish "revitalizing" the Presidio as a park better. This assertion was simply not acknowledged. We cited the British Columbia Museum in Victoria which draws over 1,000,000 visitors a year. The chief tourist attraction in San Francisco is not MOMA; it is Fisherman's Wharf, with 12 million visitors a year. Alcatraz alone attracts 1.4 million and many more turned away. There is no question that the issue of attracting crowds is wrongly put: the first issue is what is the carrying capacity of the Presidio to handle large numbers of visitors. After all, the Disney Museum claims to bring in 400,000 a year (highly unlikely, in my judgment, but what do I know?) How many succesful mueums can the Presidio have before it is unable to receive any more the visitor?

The crowd last night was packed with speakers brought in by the art museum sponsors, from Mayor Newsome and two MOMA directors, through many art dealers and board members with Mr. Fisher at MOMA, to several architects who sang the praises of this completely overscaled, inappropriate museum proposal that showed no sensitivity to the site.

This begins a long process of hearings and regulatory processes. The art museum proposal obviously has very major adverse effects on the integrity of a national historic landmark district. That fact triggers a lot of regulatory standards and guidelines. Unfortunately, the way the Presidio Trust Law is written, it manages a national park, but does not report to the Park Service, that has the responsibility for preserving national landmarks. Instead, it reports directly to a congressional subcommittee.

In this regulatory morass, THE PUBLIC MUST BE HEARD again and again.

More later. NEXT STEP: get in your letter dealing with the scope of what you want studied on Main Post of the Historic Presidio.
Your ideas on the fast schedule of this process, scope, and alternatives to present in the E.I.S. are important.

Critical Meeting Monday, Dec 3, 6:30 p.m., Officers Club

2007-11-30T18:32:00.000-08:00

Okay, folks, you have been great. 27 spoke at the November 28 meeting. NO ONE spoke against, and many spoke for, a history museum on the Main Parade grounds of the Presidio.

Now, we are on the home stretch: yet another meeting is on Monday to learn about, compare, and get your comments of the merits or problems of a contemporary art museum and/or a history center proposed for the Parade Ground - where the nonhistoric bowling alley is now. You will make up your own mind, but think of which proposal fits the site best and will be less intrusive into the historic landscape. Consider which offers the greatest public benefit to the broadest cross-section of park visitors. Ask yourself which best fills the purposes of a unique National Historic Landmark District, a fully paid for contemporary art museum, or the History Center at the Golden Gate that will take years to negotiate and find the necessary donors.

Whatever your decision, it should not be based on financial gain for the Presidio Trust. This particular location is too central to the historic district for mere commercial exploitation. A large insitution at the proposed site will dramatically affect the "integrity" of the entire historic heart of the Presidio. A decison based on financial expediency now cannot be undone. This choice will shape the Presidio's identity as a national park forever.

I think that there are other, more suitable and better sites for a large contemporary art museum on the Presidio.

Your grumbling, your concerns, will make no difference unless you show up and speak. A well financed and influential personal project can overwhelm a silent public. The only remaining chance to input will be a letter to the Presidio Trust by December 15.

See you there Monday evening!

Public Meeting November 28: Your Ideas Count

2007-11-23T18:25:00.000-08:00

The public has a chance to influence the future of the historic Presidio of San Francisco. Be at the Officers Club on Main Post near the flagpole at 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, November 28. Come with your ideas on what you would like to see happen on Main Post: what alternatives do you want the Presidio Trust to Study? What has not worked out in the old plans for Main Post? How do we make the central area of the Presidio National Historic Landmark District into a great National Park for all the people?

NEWS! History Center Proposed for Presidio

2007-11-10T14:34:00.000-08:00

Take a look at the vision for a "History Center at the Golden Gate" on the website of the Presidio Historical Association, presidioassociation.org.

You remember that a contemporary art museum is planned by a wealthy art collector for the heart of the Presidio's historic Main Post? Lots of questions from the public about that, but the art museum comes with all the money and political clout needed to make it happen. Now, a group of people who have supported history at the Presidio ever since they opened Fort Point to the public over 50 years ago have stepped forward with a museum proposal for the Presidio's Main Post that makes a lot of sense. It sure looks good for the ordinary public who national parks are meant for. The big rub? These Presidio fans have no money. It will take the Presidio Trust, the Park Service, and wealthy donors to make this vision for an American History museum at the Presidio into a reality.

At the least, this proposal for a public history presentation on the 230 year old Presidio seems more fitting that an art museum or Disney Family Museum. But money talks, and money builds museums - even in a National Park.

You can make your feelings know about this idea of a history museum in the location planned for a contemporary art museum by a letter to Museum Scoping, Compliance Officer, Presidio Trust, PO Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129 or e-mail PresidioMuseum@presidiotrust.gov.

A Victory for History at the Presidio UPDATED Nov. 1

2007-10-27T09:14:00.000-07:00

Thanks to your strong public statements concerning the planning process for a contemporary art museum in the heart of the historic Presidio, the Presidio Trust has announced that it will expand the scope of its environmental impact study. The planning will be expanded in scope annd allow more time. This is a truly important new development that will allow the public to thoughtfully suggest what the future of Main Post area should be.

Here is the new schedule:

NOVEMBER 28 6:30 PM, Officers Club - Public meeting to hear comments on the proposed scope of the new EIS for Main Post. This meeting replaces to one previously scheduled for November 21.

DECEMBER 15 - Written comments on the scope of the new study about Main Po.st are due to the Presidio Trust, ATTN: Compliance Officer, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129.

Meanwhile, the process for submiting proposals for "cultural institutions" continues. The Presidio Historical Association will submit a proposal for the "History Center at the Golden Gate." Watch this blog for an exciting announcement soon.

Above all, congratulations to you, the public, for showing up in force to convince the Presidio Trust that serious planning is needed: no more big projects rushed through without lots of public scrutiny and responsible input. Your comments revived historical values and the priority for public uses in planning at the Presidio.

WATCH THIS BLOG FOR THE LATEST INFORMATION AND DEVELOPMENTS.

Letters Concerning the Scope of Review for an Art Museum

2007-10-12T21:02:00.000-07:00

Here are two letters to the Presidio Trust to recommend the scope of the environmental review concerning the proposed 100,000 square foot art museum. They will go into the record. Names have been deleted. What are your comments on these letters?

RE: Comments on Proposed EIS for a “Public Museum at the Presidio - Main Post”

Dear Mr. Pelka,
In response to the September 24, 2007 public meeting and the August 8, 2007 Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS, I submit the following comments regarding the construction of a museum in the Presidio’s Main Post.

I am delighted that the Presidio is at long last entertaining the notion of a museum. Historic interpretation of this unique National Historic Landmark District has been glaringly absent for many years. While the “Notice of Intent” does not specify the contents of the proposed museum, the Presidio Trust has repeatedly and publicly endorsed the construction of a contemporary art museum to be donated by the Fishers. Given that the Notice of Intent is dated August 8, 2007, the same day as the news conference announcing the Fishers’ donation, I would venture to say that the Presidio has already decided what kind of museum will be constructed.

Regardless, let’s pretend that no decisions have been made. The NEPA (National Environment Protection Act) process, after all, exists to assist federal agencies in making well-informed decisions. Under NEPA the Presidio Trust must consider the potential environmental impacts of a range of alternatives, including “no action” and the “preferred alternative.” Potential alternatives could be:

o contemporary art museum at the southern boundary of the main parade ground
o contemporary art museum elsewhere in the presidio in existing structures
o historic museum at the southern boundary of the main parade ground
o historic museum in existing structures at the main post
o no action

Each alternative must receive equal or “comparable” analysis (40 CFR 1502.14) so perhaps the end result will recognize the benefits of having both a contemporary AND an historic museum in the Presidio. In these early stages, however, the Presidio is pitting historic versus contemporary. While there is virtually no money available for an historic museum, there is $16 million for a contemporary museum – ready to break ground in August 2008!

The Presidio is certainly large enough to have BOTH an historic and a contemporary museum. The real question hinges on siting: Do you insert a modern museum in the center of the most historic part of the Presidio, or do you put an historic museum in the core of its subject matter? A contemporary museum, totally unrelated to the Presidio, would be unaffected by its location elsewhere in the Presidio; but an historic museum outside of the heart of the historic landmark district would be sadly out of context. Freed from the constraints of the Main Post, the contemporary museum could have significantly more design options and could easily rid itself of parking, historic, and cumulative impact issues.

The proposed location of a newly constructed museum at the southern boundary of the Main Parade ground is rife with significant environmental issues: parking, historic resources, site lines, and transportation. Alone, any one of these issues could complicate the proposed museum, but when considered with the growing list of other Main Post projects (Main Parade Ground, Lodging, Doyle Drive, Building 100, etc.), the cumulative impacts are insurmountable. Project by project, the Presidio drifts away from its 2002 Presidio Trust Management Plan (PTMP) and examines each project individually, discounting the amalgamated effects. The PTMP is obsolete and must be revisited, complete with a NEPA review of the revised plan.

In summary, I support a contemporary museum in a different location, preferably in an existing building. I urge the Presidio to develop a fully integrated historic interpretive plan radiating from a museum in the Main Post. And I advise the Presidio Trust to prepare a new Management Plan to address the cumulative impacts of the myriad of proposed projects in and around the Main Post.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed undertaking and I look forward to following its development

Another letter:

1. These comments are submitted in response to the announcement dated August 23 asking for comments concerning the scope of an E.I.S. for new construction of a 100,000 square foot museum at the Presidio.

2. The scoping must take place within the context of the Presidio of San Francisco being a National Historic Landmark District. It must comply with the standards of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (National Park Service, 1996), related Department of the Interior publications, and NEPA.

3. The Trust is reminded of the Congressional Findings in the Trust Act:

The Congress finds that—
(1) the Presidio, located amidst the incomparable scenic splendor of the Golden Gate, is one of America’s great natural historic sites;
(2) the Presidio was the oldest continuously operating military post in the Nation dating from 1776, and was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1962;
(3) preservation of the cultural and historic integrity of the Presidio for public use recognizes its significant role in the history of the United States;

These basic principles have been echoed in numerous publications by the Presidio Trust, and the Trust has generally acted responsibly under financial constraints to carry out its strictly architectural preservation responsibilities. It has not, however, succeeded in responding to the Congressional directive intent in the phase, “FOR PUBLIC USE” in the context of cultural and historic integrity. The National Association of Public Administration report also highlighted the absence of normal functions for public and educational use of the portion of the Presidio under Trust management.

Therefore, the scope of the forthcoming E.I.S for a cultural institution must evaluate the effects of various proposals on the Trust’s compliance with meeting the Congressional intent for “public use” in the context of cultural and historic integrity.

4. The area proposed for primary consideration for a cultural Institution lies at the “head” of the Main Parade Ground, even though this area is excluded from the Main Parade Ground Environmental Assessment by designation of Sheridan Avenue as a boundary. This results in an irrational separation of the Main Parade Ground proposal and the museum proposal. One project flows into the other. Parking, public access, and cultural landscape integrity concerns are the same. Visitor experiences will be combined. The same preposterous segmentation and sequencing of environmental reviews applies to the lodging proposal currently under review by the Trust. The Presidio Trust is required avoid segmented and sequential reviews.

5. Recently completed and proposed projects in the Main Past of the Presidio and the magnitude of new construction in the proposed cultural institution, lodging, and Main Parade Ground proposals, as well as the long delayed realization of Building 102 as a visitor’s center, require review and updating of the Main Post District Concept and Guidance of the PTMP. This should fall out easily from a comprehensive E.I.S of Main Post in the context of the proposed major cultural institution, lodging plan, Main Parade plan, transit center, etc. Until this is done, it is inadequate to argue that detailed accommodation of the proposed public museum environmental review can be “tiered” directly from the Presidio Trust Management Plan. A “tiering” approach should be avoided in the scope of the new EIS.

6.The very few possible sites for major construction of a new cultural institution on the Presidio are precious. Each should be evaluated for its best use in terms of the public. A mistake in allocation one of these few locations for new construction cannot be undone. Alternative sites should be evaluated for various proposals for cultural institutions, including consideration of traffic, effect on cultural landscape integrity, and effectiveness in enhancing widespread public use by the general public, rather than a specific segment of the public, in the context of cultural and historical integrity, environmental education, or other public purposes normally served by a National Park.

The combination of major proposals concerning the Main Post District presently before the Trust may lead to the historic heart of the National Historic Landmark District becoming a truly public park offering pleasant visitor experiences and education relevant to the historic landmark to a large and diverse public. Unfortunately, these proposals could cumulatively make the Main Post into a preserve of unrelated private schools, foundations, and private museums, such as the Disney Family Museum and the proposed contemporary art collection, none of which have relevance to a National Park nor to a National Historic Landmark District. The scope of the forthcoming E.I.S. should be inclusive enough to respond to this challenge. Failure would mean the failure of Main Post as a National Park.

TIME FOR YOUR ACTION CONCERNING 100,000 SQ. FT. CONTEMPORARY ART MUSEUM IN THE HISTORIC CENTER OF THE PRESIDIO

2007-10-03T15:58:00.000-07:00

Written comments from the public are very important in the environmental review procedures that must be done prior to any large new construction in an historic district. The previous post on this blog has the address and details for you to take action.

In your letter, we suggest that you ask yourself:

Is a contemporary art museum a compatible "cultural institution" for the Presidio's historic setting?

Is new construction larger than the Museum of Modern Art and more than twice as large as any nearby building possible at the Presidio without destroying its distinguishing historic character?

Will the review process include consideration of other current or proposed actions around Main Post, such as hotel lodging, a promenade down the length of the Main Parade Ground, eliminating parking from the large Main Parade Ground, the Walt Disney Museum, and finally establishing the long-delayed permanent Park Service Visitors Center? All these will be importantly affected by a large art museum close by.

Should there be a comprehensive review of all changes around the Main Post, past, current and proposed? (There is no specific plan for the most sensitive historical area of the Presidio other than general platitudes in the Presidio Trust Implementation Plan of several years ago.)

Are other locations on the Presidio being considered for the proposed contemporary art museum?

How "public" will the proposed privately funded and directed art museum be? Will governance of the museum be responsive to public input and interests, as is appropriate for a National Park? What will be the mechanism for public input and influence concerning the proposed art museum?

Are alternative uses being considered for the proposed art museum location at the head of the parade ground, near the flag pole and historic Spanish Presidio? This is the most central, visible, and character defining location on the Main Post. Shouldn’t alternatives other than a contemporary art museum be considered for this site, if there is to be any new construction there at all?
Add other matters that concern you most for inclusion in the environmental review.

YOUR WRITTEN COMMENTS BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD. PLEASE MAKE YOUR CONCERNS KNOWN. YOUR VOICE WILL DETERMINE THE FUTURE OF THE PRESIDIO AS A PARK.

Looking at the Law and the Presidio of San Francisco

2007-08-23T18:49:00.000-07:00

A quick look at environmental law tells me that there will be times for the public to comment on proposals such as the 100,000 square foot new contemporary art museum building next to the flagpole and a short distance from the original Spanish headquarters. New construction in a National Historic Landmark District is not desirable under preservation guidelines, especially if its purposes have no relationship to the history of the place. Looks like quite a controversy is brewing. Anyone interested, look at the Cultural Landscape Foundation site for information on all this. PresidioPal

Modern Art Museum in a National Historic Landmark District?

2007-08-21T21:29:00.000-07:00

Why is a 100,000 square foot modern art museum being planned for 50 yards from the flag pole and the spot where General Pershing's family perished in a fire while he was away in Mexico fighting Pancho VIlla? (Oh, you forgot that chapter of American-Mexican relations?) It will be about 100 yards from the archeological remains of the first Spanish Presido (1776). The humongous museum will dominate the parade ground and contrast sharply with the historic architecture all around it.

Don't get me wrong, I think that a better site should be found for this important collection of modern art on the Presidio, but not in the historic heart of this remarkable place.

And while I am at it, have you visited a museum on the Presidio to learn about its history or even glanced into a useful visitors center? Of course not, after ten years of leasing the Presidio to commercial and private interests, there is no museum to let the public know about this place that is a remarkable National Historic Landmark District.

What do you think? What should be done?