« AnteriorContinuar »
excess to the needs of the Federal Government and were about to be developed. In addition, some of the private lands, which had been contemplated for acquisition, were sold, rezoned and scheduled for subdivision. It was then, in June, 1970, that I decided to introduce the original Golden Gate National Recreation Area bill, H.R. 18071, which contained the general concept but no specific boundaries.
In the interim, I have been in contact with Federal, State and local officials as well as individuals and organizations who had expressed interest in the proposal and together with them worked out a detailed plan for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area as outlined in my bill, H.R. 10220, now before you.
As far as I know, there is no opposition to the concept but there are likely to be objections on specific areas which are to be included or excluded, as the case may be. So far, there has been quite a bit of controversy about the Presidio-some people feel that the Army should be made to give up the Presidio ; others feel equally strongly that the Army should retain the post; and yet others would like to split it up between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Defense. In my opinion, it is both unrealistic and unnecessary to relocate the Army. Further, it would be undesirable to include only fragments of the Presidio in the recreation area, for the Army, in the interest of its own security, might be forced to fence its remaining property and restrict public access.
I believe that it is essential that all of the Presidio be included in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and in my bill, I offer a rather unusual compromise to resolve these seemingly irreconcilable differences-I propose that the Federal lands in Marin County be turned over immediately to the Secretary of the Interior while the Secretary of Defense retains ownership of the Presidio and Fort Mason. The bill goes on to direct the two Secretaries to negotiate with each other for their respective needs and gives them an equal position from which to bargain. As a matter of interest, this proposal was well received by both Departments and negotiations are already under way. When agreement is reached, the Committee may feel that it may be desirable to amend the legislation to include the provisions of this agreement.
Another area of conflict seems to be the inclusion of certain private lands in Marin County. Let me say that I feel it is of the utmost importance that all of the undeveloped lands in the headlands, whether they be public or private, be included in the recreation area. Anything less would defeat the purpose of the bill. On the other hand, included in the bill at the present time are certain other private lands to the north of the headlands, primarily for the purpose of linking this park with the Point Reyes National Seashore, where acquisition may not be necessary and other arrangements can be made with the present owners. Here is another instance where the Committee may wish to amend the bill to reflect agreements reached by negotiation.
My greatest concern is that the whole concept of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area will be endangered by the very people who support it but who, in their unwillingness to accept any version but their own, will argue over minor details and seriously delay passage of the enabling legislation. Expeditious and reasonable transfer of land is the key to this proposal and I sincerely believe, as last week's San Francisco EXAMINER editorial pointed out, that H.R. 10220 avoids bitter struggle and accomplishes the objective through cooperation.
I hope that you will give H.R. 10220 your favorable consideration.
Mr. TAYLOR. Our next witness is your Mayor of San Francisco, the Honorable Joseph L. Alioto.
Mr. DE LUCA. He is on his way, Mr. Chairman. I am his executive secretary. Perhaps you may want to go on to the next witness.
Mr. TAYLOR. We will go on to the next witness. Then we can recognize the mayor when he arrives.
The Honorable Willie L. Brown, Jr., member of the assembly. On deck, Hon. Leo McCarthy.
When I say on deck, that means move up, take a seat right close to the witness stand so that we won't waste so much time getting the witness up.
Are these witnesses here? In the absence of objection, their statements plus a resolution of the California Legislature-1971 regular session will be placed in the record at this point.
(Prepared statements of assemblymen Willie L. Brown, Jr., and Leo McCarthy plus the resolution follow :)
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIE L. BROWN, JR., MEMBER OF THE ASSEMBLY,
Mr. Chairman: California is favored with some of the most beautiful parks and recreation areas in the world. We have Redwoods and beaches, a river delta and, the highest mountains in the country. We even have a few rivers which have not yet been polluted. These wonders are all far away from the overcrowded cities. With time, an automobile and a trailer-camper, more fortunate Californians can visit the wonderlands I described above. They are entitled to use these parks; their taxes helped acquire and maintain them..
Many less fortunate citizens-who also pay taxes-do not have the time, money, and transportation available to them and thus cannot and do not have access to this recreational system.
Congressman Burton's bill, H.R. 9498, speaks to the problem I have just described above.
H.R. 9498, if enacted, would bring together into a single, viable unit, a truly magnificent array of recreational facilities which would actually be within a short ride for the urban dwellers.
The Golden Gate National Park envisioned, would incorporate all the publicly owned recreational areas into a vast park and seashore facility avoiding costly duplication of facilities.
The Burton bill makes significant provisions to insure that local consideration are taken into account during the planning stages. I think that this is of paramount importance. Too often, the people only know of their government's plans after the fact, when it's too late to participate with the decision making process.
It is mandatory that we lock the valuable public assets now found in the Bay Area into a public recreation commitment, protecting them from the kind of exploitation which has damaged so much of California in the past. There is environmental concern in the bill and provisions to guard against any action which would adversely affect the proposed area's natural beauty and importance.
The bill makes provisions for future expansion by participation from state and local governmental entitles and also provides for acquiring future surplus federal properties. The people who will enjoy the park are going to be consulted, landowners whose property may become a part of this facility are justly compensated. The bill is fair yet tough.
Public hearings covering every facet of this proposal are already incorporated into law.
I believe that the interests of the people of San Francisco will best be served by Mr. Burton's bill, H.R. 9498, and I sincerely hope that your committee will give favorable consideration to H.R. 9498.
STATEMENT OF HON. LEO MCCARTHY, ASSEMBLYMAN, SAN FRANCISCO,
The California Legislature has passed Assembly Joint Resolution 3, urging creation of a 10,000 acre Golden Gate Recreation Area. As the author of this measure, I respectfully ask, Mr. Chairman, that this committee recommend the maximum area really be established.
Before this day is over, you will be wondering why everyone agrees on a proposal of paramount environmental importance-but disagrees about how much of the Presidio should be added.
The Golden Gate National Recreation Area is a clearly apparent need-not only for this area's citizens but for millions of visitors annually from around America and that the time to create this Recreation Area was yesterday.
No responsible person, in or out of government, says anything else. But there is haggling over whether a small, key part of the proposed Area should be under the legal control of one department of the federal government or of another department of the federal government.
This division of opinion might indicate-very erroneously-that there is local indecision about the entire project.
This is simply not so. The Golden Gate National Recreation Area is a concept so clearly in the local, state and national interest that not even a small murmur of sane dissent has been heard.
It has been sought, by those in the forefront of the fight for its realization, as a continuous seafront greenbelt on both sides of the Golden Gate-and with no bureaucratic barbed wire in between.
The in-fighting, and there is no pretending that it does not exist-was started within the federal bureaucracy. Unfortunately, it has entangled a few well-intentioned personalities. One or two have been led to confuse sound public policy with our traditional good neighbor policy toward the comfort and happiness of our military defenders in the Presidio.
The wishes of the State of California, as expressed in the Joint Resolution of the Legislature that I had the honor to introduce, and of the Board of Supervisors of the City of San Francisco and other groups in concurrent statements of opinion, are unmistakeable.
Any and all lands of importance to national defense-my Resolution uses the key term "essential" to national defense-of course should remain under military control.
But all of those beautiful, unspoiled, untouched, un-marched-on-un-shot-at shoreline areas and adjacent land that have no earthly reason to be called strategic should, once and forever, become a recreational preserve in perpetuity for the people.
To me there is something bizarre in the inference-not made officially by anyone in the Army may I make clear-that the housing needs of today's Army are identical here with those established a couple of centuries ago by mail-clad musketeers.
The defense needs of today are far removed from those days. Our defenders could be removed far from our seafront, with no damage to the national safety.
The Golden Gate is the focus of our proposed new recreational and environmental resource. It is the doorway to a new national treasury of open space, clean air and outdoor health for millions of citizens yet to come.
But the Golden Gate's hinge is the San Francisco Presido. Without most of the Presidio lands to anchor it-lands admittedly of no military use-the Golden Gate National Recreation Area's main concept is destroyed.
And the need for immediately effective action is real. The question of interbureau territorial rights cannot be tucked away under some compromise language to await another day.
Agencies other than the Army, other than Interior, but elsewhere in Government and even some private entrepreneurs with big ideas have their eyes on this virgin land. Within the year past, I was joined in a hard but winning battle to prevent construction of a federal paper storage warehouse in this very area. And now there is talk of high-rise apartments, additions, annexes, and only the empire builders know what else.
This is a federal question, not only because the bulk of the area proposed is federally owned and is federally threatened, but because federal resources, know-how and clout are needed.
The State of California and my City and its citizens have gone just about as far as they can on their own toward finishing this precious piece of the pattern for a better national life.
I have every confidence that you and your committee will take up this challenge and carry it on from here. You will earn our unending gratitude and the blessings of those who follow in our footsteps.
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 9, 1971
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY FEBRUARY 4, 1971
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-1971 REGULAR SESSION
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 3
Introduced by Assemblymen McCarthy, Foran, Burton, [and Brown] Brown, Bagley, and the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources and Conservation (Assemblymen Z'berg (Chairman), Dent, Barnes, Belotti, Chacon, Davis, Dunlap, Keysor, LaCoste, Sieroty, Thomas, and Warren)
(Coauthor: Senator Behr)
January 11, 1971
REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION Assembly Joint Resolution No. 3-Relative to the creation of a Golden Gate National Recreation Area
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AJR 3, as amended, McCarthy (W.R.T.C.). Golden Gate recreational area. Memorializes President and Congress to establish a Golden Gate National Recreation Area to include portions of Fort Baker, Fort Barry, Fort Cronkhite, Fort Mason, Fort Miley, Fort Scott, Fort Funston, and the San Francisco Presidio not essential for the national defense and other parcels of land owned by various federal agencies, the state, the City of San Francisco, and private parties. Fiscal Committee-No.
Whereas, Much of the natural beauty and charm of the San Francisco Bay area is a result of the relatively undeveloped state of federal lands located on both sides of the Golden Gate and in Fort Baker, Fort Barry, Fort Cronkhite, Fort Mason, Fort Miley, Fort Scott, Fort Funston, and the San Francisco Presidio ; and
Whereas, These federal lands provide significant open-space areas within the otherwise congested urban San Francisco Bay area; and
Whereas, There are numerous projects proposed or planned for these federal lands which would be disastrous to the public interest in retaining open-space lands in urban areas; and
Whereas, Due to expected increases in urban population within the San Francisco Bay area the public need for urban open-space lands will significantly increase with the passage of time; and
Whereas, It has been proposed that Fort Baker, Fort Barry, Fort Cronkhite, Fort Mason, Fort Miley, Fort Scott, Fort Funston, and much of the San Francisco Presidio be included in a Golden Gate National Recreation Area which would retain the natural open-space character of such federal lands; and
Whereas, There are many parcels of land owned by various federal agencies, the State of California, the City of San Francisco, and private parties, whose inclusion in this project would create a Golden Gate National Recreation Area of approximately 10,000 acres as the best possible use of such land; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, by the Assembly and Senate of the State of California, jointly, That the Legislature of the State of California respectfully memorializes the President and Congress of the United States to establish a Golden Gate National Recreation Area, to include those portions of Fort Baker, Fort Barry, Fort Cronkhite, Fort Mason, Fort Miley, Fort Scott, Fort Funston, and the Presidio not essential for the national defense; and be it further
Resolved, That those additional parcels of federal, state, city and private land which would create an outstanding national recreation area of more than 10,000 acres be included in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area; and be it further
Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and to each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States.
Mr. TAYLOR. Our next witnesses, L. H. Barr, and Peter R. Arrigoni, of the Marin County Board of Supervisors.
STATEMENT OF PETER R. ARRIGONI, MARIN COUNTY, CALIF., BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Mr. ARRIGONI. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good morning and welcome again to the Bay Area.
Mr. TAYLOR. Just let me state that the members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors will be next and we would like for them to move up.
Mr. ARRIGONI. It is nice to be recognized before San Francisco.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Peter Arrigoni, the vice chairman of the Marin County Board of Supervisors.
Mr. TAYLOR. Is Mr. Barr here?
Mr. ARRIGONI. He is not here.
Mr. TAYLOR. Let me say that unless there is an objection, copies of all prepared statements of the witnesses called will be placed in the record. Then the witnesses can read as much of their statements as they see fit or they can summarize them. We are hoping that on the average the time taken by witnesses will not be more than about 211⁄2 minutes. We may have to set an absolute cutoff time of about 3 minutes a little later. My experience has been that short, to-the-point statements are usually more effective than long, drawn-out state
Pardon me for taking your time.
Mr. ARRIGONI. Mr. Chairman, that is the intent of our board. The statement will be short. I know you have a long agenda. May I continue?
Mr. Chairman, the Marin County Board of Supervisors at its regular meeting last Tuesday, August 3, 1971, authorized me to present the following report of the Marin County Planning Commission as amended and approved by the board of supervisors.
The Marin County Board of Supervisors endorses the concept of a national recreation area on both sides of the Golden Gate and is in substantial agreement with House Resolution 9498 and House Resolution 10220. The preliminary countywide general plan now being reviewed calls for a coastal recreation corridor including a Golden Gate National Recreation Area extending to Bolinas Lagoon. The major difference between the county plan and House Resolution 9498 and House Resolution 10220 is the inclusion of the Olema Valley in the national recreation area. This inclusion provides for the continuity of the new recreation area with the Point Reyes National Seashore.
Gentlemen. I want to also add that our technical staff, our planning, our public works people and our board of supervisors will offer our time and assistance at your request in order to accommodate any planning or planning review process in Marin County.