Presidio Historical Ass'n v. Presidio Trust, No. 13-16554 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThis appeal stems from a dispute between the future development of the historical heart of the Presidio of San Francisco, the Main Post. The Main Post is managed by the Trust, created by the Presidio Trust Act, 16 U.S.C. 460bb app. The Trust is governed by both the Presidio Trust Act and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 54 U.S.C.A. 300101 et seq. This appeal is limited to the Trust's amendment of the Presidio Trust Management Plan, which proposed a new lodge adjacent to the Presidio's Main Parade Ground. The court concluded that the Trust’s Update with respect to the proposed lodge and the offsetting demolition in the Main Post area is consistent with Section 104(c)(3) because it constitutes “replacement of existing structures of similar size in existing areas of development” under the Presidio Trust Act. The court also concluded that the Trust’s procedural undertakings meet the heightened standard of care imposed by Section 110(f) of the NHPA to undertake “to the maximum extent possible . . . such planning and actions as may be necessary to minimize harm to the landmark.” Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Presidio Trust Act / National Historic. Preservation Act The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Presidio Trust in an action challenging the Trust’s 2010 update for the Presidio Trust Management Plan for the area of the Presidio of San Francisco managed by the Trust, including the proposed 70,000 square feet of new lodge construction on the Main Post area. The panel held that the Trust’s 2010 management plan for the lodge complied with the Presidio Trust Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. Specifically, the panel held that construction of a new lodge offset by demolition of other buildings in the Main Post of the Presidio constituted “replacement of existing structures of similar size in existing areas of development” under the Presidio Trust Act. The panel also held that in settling on the lodge location and design, the Trust complied with Section 110(f) of the National Historic Preservation Act, which required the Trust “to the maximum extent possible . . . undertake such planning and actions as may be necessary to minimize harm to the landmark.” The panel did not consider the Trust’s proposed replacement construction other than the lodge. PRESIDIO HISTORICAL ASS’N V. PRESIDIO TRUST 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.