## Facts

- The Presidio of San Francisco is a former U.S. Army base within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and a designated National Historic Landmark District; the Main Post is a central historic area.
- Congress created the Presidio Trust to manage much of the Presidio and to pursue dual aims: preserving historic and natural character while making the Presidio financially self-sustaining.
- The Trust adopted a management plan and later a Main Post update contemplating demolition and new construction; the dispute centered on a proposed lodging project near the Main Parade Ground.
- The final lodge design consisted of multiple smaller structures modeled on historic Civil War–era barracks, replacing an earlier concept of a single large building.
- The Trust conducted extended consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), including engagement with the National Park Service (NPS), state and federal preservation entities, and consulting parties (including the plaintiffs).
- The Trust evaluated alternatives, including options avoiding new construction by using existing historic buildings, but concluded those alternatives did not meet project purposes, including financial viability tied to the Trust’s self-sufficiency mandate.
- NPS opposed the lodge and preferred “no new construction” alternatives; the Trust adopted many NPS recommendations but proceeded with new construction, explaining its reasons in the administrative record.
- After issuing decision documents and supporting analyses, the Trust approved the lodge project.
- Plaintiffs sued, alleging NHPA violations; the district court granted summary judgment to the Trust, and plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Presidio Trust violated NHPA § 110(f) by failing, “to the maximum extent possible,” to minimize harm to a National Historic Landmark when it approved the lodge project.
2. Whether the Trust failed to satisfy NHPA consultation and documentation duties by rejecting NPS’s preferred “no new construction” alternatives and approving new construction in the historic Main Post.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Presidio Trust.
- The court held the Trust complied with NHPA § 110(f) by developing, adopting, and documenting an adequate program to minimize and mitigate harm.
- The court held the Trust satisfied NHPA consultation and explanation requirements despite NPS’s disagreement.
- Applying APA arbitrary-and-capricious review, the court found the Trust’s decisionmaking reasoned and supported by the administrative record.

## Legal Principles

- NHPA compliance is reviewed under the Administrative Procedure Act’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard.
- The NHPA is primarily procedural: it requires informed consideration and documentation, not a particular preservation outcome.
- NHPA § 110(f) requires an agency, before actions that may directly and adversely affect a National Historic Landmark, to minimize harm “to the maximum extent possible” and to adopt a program for minimization and mitigation of harm.
- “To the maximum extent possible” does not mandate selection of the least-harmful alternative or the alternative preferred by another consulting entity when the agency reasonably explains its balancing of competing statutory objectives.
- Consultation obligations require meaningful engagement and reasoned responses to comments; they do not confer veto power on consulting agencies such as NPS.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld the Presidio Trust’s approval of a lodge near the Main Parade Ground because the Trust documented a reasoned minimization-and-mitigation program under NHPA § 110(f), meaningfully consulted with preservation stakeholders, and reasonably balanced historic preservation with its statutory duty to achieve financial self-sufficiency.


Presidio Historical Ass'n v. Presidio Tr., 811 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016)