This document responds to questions received from the public on the Main Post planning process. We will update the Frequently Asked Questions on a regular basis. If you have additional questions, please email mainpost@presidiotrust.gov.

Does the draft SEIS have both a "preferred alternative" and an "environmentally preferred alternative"?

The draft SEIS has identified Alternative 2, Culture and Heritage Center, as the proposed action. This alternative was developed in response to a number of proposals that are being considered for the Main Post that were not foreseen when the Presidio Trust Management Plan (PTMP) was completed in 2002. The proposed action includes the freestanding lodge and contemporary art museum and a history orientation center in the Officers’ Club (Building 50). At this stage, the proposed action is the alternative that the Trust identifies as fulfilling the purpose and need, taking into consideration the preference of the proponent for the location of the contemporary art museum. As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the preferred alternative and environmentally preferred alternative will be identified in the final SEIS.

Does the draft SEIS thoroughly evaluate the other alternatives with the same degree of analysis as the "preferred alternative"?  Is the assumption by the Trust that the contemporary art museum will be the exact same design, size, etc. for any of the locations presented in the SEIS alternatives?

As required by NEPA, the draft SEIS devotes substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail, including the proposed action, so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits. Visual simulations have been developed for each of the museum site alternatives and the design has been modified, as appropriate, for each site. The environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives are also presented in comparative form to provide a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public.

Does the Draft SEIS have or propose changes to the PTMP?  If yes, would any of the changes validate any of the proposed actions that would not be valid under the current PTMP?  (For example, increasing the square footage cap on new building construction to allow for more construction than the current PTMP allows.)

The draft SEIS is accompanied by a Draft PTMP Main Post Update (the basis for the proposed action in the draft SEIS) that is being considered in order to account for new uses to activate and revitalize the Main Post. These changes in circumstances and opportunities, including increased new construction, that are beyond what was foreseen when the PTMP was adopted in 2002 are described in the Draft PTMP Main Post Update. If approved by the Trust Board, the PTMP Main Post Update would serve as an amendment to the PTMP.

What methodology do you use to determine traffic impacts?

The traffic analysis in the draft SEIS uses the City Guidelines as one among several sources for travel demand characteristics of the Main Post district. The travel demand characteristics provided in the City Guidelines do not accurately reflect the Presidio’s environment in all cases, nor do the City Guidelines include trip generation rates for the AM peak hour. For these reasons, information from other available standard data sources accepted and commonly used by traffic analysis professionals, such as the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), as well as the City of San Diego, were also considered (see Table 4). This methodology is consistent with that for the PTMP EIS.

However, more detailed project related information is now available than was available at the time of the PTMP EIS. For projects for which more specific information is available (e.g., from a RFP process), the draft SEIS transportation analysis uses this project-specific data.  For instance, the Contemporary Art Museum and History Center in Alternatives 2 and 3 respectively, were modeled on the de Young museum in Golden Gate Park. Actual attendance data for the de Young museum were used to develop a trip generation rate for the proposed Contemporary Art Museum and proposed History Center. Other travel demand assumptions such as assumed mode share (percent of persons arriving by auto, transit, bicycling or walking), geographic distribution, or number of persons per vehicle for the proposed museums were based on data used in the de Young Environmental Impact Report, although a higher automobile mode share was assumed for the proposed museum projects in the draft SEIS.

How do you measure “building height?”

Building height is determined by taking the average height over a sloping site. The proposed contemporary art museum would average 45 feet in height but because of the change in grade of the site from north to south, the southerly edge of the building would be approximately 32 feet in height as measured from Moraga Avenue and the northerly edge would be approximately 53 feet measured from the grade on the Sheridan Avenue side. Mechanical appurtenances or architectural embellishments are not included.

How does the historic preservation compliance process under the National Historic Preservation Act relate to environmental compliance under the National Environmental Policy Act? Are they concurrent processes? Does the public participate in both?

Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), federal agencies must take into account the effect of their undertakings on historic properties and provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment. As outlined in the implementing regulations, the Section 106 review process “seeks to accommodate historic preservation concerns with the needs of Federal undertakings through consultation.” This process provides for participation of State and local governments, Indian tribes, representatives from various businesses and organizations, and private citizens in Federal project planning that may affect historic properties.

NEPA establishes procedures to “insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken.”  The purpose of these procedures is to foster informed decisions. Coordinating NEPA procedures with those of other federal environmental statutes and executive orders facilitates NEPA objectives by promoting efficiencies in environmental planning and development of “high quality information” on which to base agency decisions.

Given these objectives, there are slight distinctions between the purposes of Section 106 and NEPA. For instance, where NEPA calls for public comment and focuses on alternatives, Section 106 requires a consultative process and focuses on resolving adverse effects to historic properties.

The Section 106 regulations encourage agencies to harmonize their Section 106 process with their NEPA process so that information and analyses-sharing, as well as compliance, can be completed in a streamlined fashion that minimizes the duplication of effort. This synchronization also ensures historic properties receive adequate and timely consideration at the beginning of and throughout the planning process. The ACHP supports a parallel Section 106 and NEPA process, thus allowing for the coordinated timing of public participation, review, and decision points.

Who makes the final decision? What is the role of the City of San Francisco?

The Presidio Trust is the “lead agency” under the NEPA, and the Trust Board of Directors will make the final decision on the proposed action under the decision-making procedures set forth in the Trust’s NEPA regulations. The Presidio is under exclusive federal jurisdiction; therefore it is not directly subject to state and local land use plans, policies, or regulations. The Trust seeks to minimize possible conflicts between Trust activities and City policies, solicits early and acknowledges comments on NEPA documents from City officials, and consults with the City on issues of mutual interest. Since the park is outside its jurisdiction, the City has not developed any site-specific plans for the Presidio property.

Do you select one alternative, or do you piece together aspects of the various alternatives to form your final plan?

The final plan outlined in the Record of Decision may combine various elements of the alternatives, or may fall within the range they represent.

How much would the contemporary art museum project contribute financially to the Presidio?

Adding cultural institutions to the Main Post would further certain Trust goals but may not contribute appreciably to Trust finances. The Trust does believe, however, that there can be a positive economic benefit from locating a world-class cultural institution at the Main Post and hopes that under the proposed action, an orientation center, lodge, and contemporary art museum (among other proposals) would bring interest to the remaining buildings and people to support the activities and businesses in the Main Post. Negotiations for any of the proposals will not be completed until the conclusion of the NEPA process. The Trust will work with the project proponents to provide disclosure of key financial terms at an appropriate time.

Would the federal government own the building constructed by the Fisher family? Would the federal government own the art collection?

If approved, any museum constructed, as well as the associated art collection, would be owned and operated by a separate entity subject to the terms of a ground lease to be negotiated with the Trust.

In addition to the draft SEIS and Main Post Update, is there any other way for the public to learn about the proposed action and alternatives?

On Wednesdays and Sundays, June 15 to July 30, 2008, tours will be conducted from 2:00 to 3:30 pm beginning at the Presidio Officers’ Club, 50 Moraga Avenue. During an easy-to-moderate 90-minute guided walk, Presidio Trust staff will describe the historic Main Post and discuss alternatives for revitalizing it as the heart of an urban national park. Information will be available about alternative sites for various proposals. No reservations are required.

Will Main Post construction/rehabilitation projects be held to the same design standards/guidelines as those applied to the Letterman Digital Arts Center?

The Main Post has the greatest concentration of buildings in the Presidio. Most of these buildings are historic and represent a myriad of architectural styles. To insure that contemporary architecture and landscaping will complement this particular setting, specific Design Guidelines for new construction and historic rehabilitation have been proposed for the Main Post and are included in the draft Main Post Update.

What is the timeline for completing the proposed projects? What is the timeline for Doyle Drive reconstruction?

No timeline has been established for the proposed projects in the Main Post. The San Francisco County Transportation Authority, the Federal Highway Administration, and the California Department of Transportation anticipate that the reconstructed Doyle Drive facility would be open to traffic in mid-2013. Construction would on that project is estimated to begin in 2010.

What is the role of the National Park Service in this planning process?

Under National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) procedures, the Presidio Trust, the California State Historic Preservation Office, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Park Service signed a Programmatic Agreement that stipulated a process for identifying historic properties, assessing effects of proposed projects, and recording decisions made regarding the effects of those projects at the Presidio. As a signatory to the Programmatic Agreement, the National Park Service is participating in the NHPA, Section 106 consultation to resolve any adverse effects from the proposed action and alternatives. The National Park Service has also provided comments through the NEPA scoping process and will have further opportunities to provide comments on the draft SEIS.

Is the Fisher Team willing to consider sites other than the one indicated in their proposal?

The process for the draft Main Post Update will conclude with a Record of Decision (ROD) approved by the Presidio Trust Board of Directors. The ROD culminates both the NEPA and NHPA Section 106 process. Negotiations with proponents will not be finalized until the ROD is signed. As the actions approved in the ROD may combine various elements of the analyzed alternatives or fall within the range they represent, it will then be up to each of the proponents to determine how to proceed with further negotiations.

Is the area just south of Building 34 (the proposed site of the Park Lodge in Alternative 2 … bordered by Graham Street and Anza Street) considered “built space” or “open space” according to the Presidio’s National Historic Landmark District status? When were the buildings in this area removed?

The area south of Building 34 was the site of Civil War-era barracks through the end of the period of significance (1945) for the Presidio of San Francisco National Historic Landmark District. These buildings were removed in the 1950s. The site, therefore, is considered “built space.”

Would the bowling alley and / or the Presidio Child Development Center be relocated if the Contemporary Art Museum at the Presidio is built at either of those sites?

The bowling alley may be relocated, subject to a separate Request for Proposal process and approved lease agreement. The Child Care center could also be relocated, but a potential site has not been identified.

When was the Presidio Theatre actively used?

Built in 1939 by the Works Progress Administration, the Presidio Theatre, Building 99, was an active movie theater from the date of construction through the early 1990s when reduced use associated with base closure caused it to be closed.

Who prepared the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement?

Trust staff assisted by consultants prepared the draft SEIS. The Presidio Trust as lead agency is responsible for its scope and content. The names and qualifications of the individuals responsible for preparing the components of the draft SEIS are identified in Section 5.1 (List of Preparers) on pages 297-299 of the draft SEIS.

In Table 7 of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (p. 80), are the trip generation rates based on square feet?

Yes, the rates are per 1,000 gross exterior square feet unless another unit is identified for the land use. For example, the daily rate of 15 for office means 15 one-way person trips per 1,000 gross square feet of office space. For lodging, the rate is based on number of rooms, and for housing, the rate is based on number of units.

What are the heights of some of the buildings on the Main Post?

• Building 39 (San Francisco Film Centre): 48 feet (height to roof ridge measured from center of building)
• Building 50 (Officers’ Club): top of tower - 57’ (measured from sidewalk at front door); ridge of 2-story addition - 48’ (measured from sidewalk at front door); ridge of Mesa Room roof - 16’ (measured from sidewalk at front door); ridge of Moraga Room roof - 24’ (measured from sidewalk at front door)
• Building 86 (Enlisted Men’s Barracks/Office): 36 feet (height to roof ridge measured from center of building)
• Building 93 (Presidio Bowling Center): 34 feet (height to roof ridge measured from center of building)
• Building 99 (Presidio Theatre): 41 feet (height to roof ridge measured from center of building)
• Building 100: 47 feet (height to roof ridge measured from center of building)
• Buildings 101-105 (Montgomery Street Barracks): 54 feet (height to roof ridge measured from center of building)
• Main Post Flagpole: 107 feet to top of ball