Imágenes de páginas

I would like to summarize by saying we have some concerns with access impact, ingress within the recreation area but that is in the testimony, gentlemen.

I hope you will find time in a few spare moments to read the full testimony of the County of Marion. It is only two pages.

Again, thank you for the opportunity of being here and I hope that Congress, your committee, looks upon this request favorably. Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you.

We flew over a good part of your county yesterday.

Mr. ARRIGONI. I want to thank you again for last year, for your favorable consideration of our Point Reyes National Seashore. Thank you.

Mr. TAYLOR. Any questions?

The gentleman for California, Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Arrigoni, there is just one question as relates to the land area on Bolinas Bay. Do I understand you to say that there is a certain amount of land area for which all you would be asking for is access, tying that area to Point Reyes National Park or do you want to include the 10,000 or 11,000 acres between the top of the area and Bolinas Bay?

Mr. ARRIGONI. We want to include all of the acreage. We are asking that the Bolinas Lagoon be excluded from the proposed recreation area. We have been mandated by the State of California to present to the State legislature by, I believe it is May of next year, a master plan for the Bolinas Lagoon on which our staff has been working diligently for the last year. We feel that once our plan is completed, when the legislature after their public hearings as well as ours-we think we know what the people of Marin County want Bolinas Lagoon to be. Then we would ask the Federal Government at some further point in time to include this in the recreation area but not until we have completed what we think is our master planning of that area.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you.

Mr. ARRIGONI. Thank you, gentlemen.

(Prepared statement of Mr. Arrigoni follows:)


My name is Peter Arrigoni, Chairman of the Marin County Board of Supervisors. The Marin County Board of Supervisors, at its regularly held meeting of 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.


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 H.R. 9498. 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 H.R. 9498 is the inclusion of Olema Valley in the national recreation area. This inclusion provides for continuity of the new recreation area with the Pt. Reyes national seashore.


Based on a review of the bill, the following proposals are offered.


Whereas, the major concern of the County will be for handling the millions expected to enjoy the National Recreation Area and Pt. Reyes National Seashore, the surviving bill should include a section to study optimum access to the area. Major emphasis should be given to an integrated public transit system. The feasibility of a national parkway or similar scenic route should be carefully considered in order to accommodate the many visitors the area will attract without the destructive environmental impact that a freeway may



Whereas we favor public transit access to the National Recreation Area and adjoining parks, the surviving bill should also include a section calling for establishment of a controlled internal circulation system (utilizing minibuses or similar vehicles) to link trailheads and scenic areas in the National Recreation Area and the adjoining parks, while restricting internal auto travel and its associated environmental damage.


Whereas, recent studies by the County indicate that expanded visitor enterprise can be both environmentally and economically beneficial and that portions of the Olema Valley are well suited for such facilities, the surviving bill should be amended to provide for the lease of certain public lands within the National Recreation Area for operation as campgrounds and visitor facilities.


Whereas, pastoral activities presently contribute to the attractiveness of the area and are largely compatible with most recreation uses, the bill should include a section permitting controlied agricultural, grazing and related rural uses, wherever appropriate, through leaseback or other suitable arrangements.


Whereas, the preservation of the National Recreation Area (in addition to the Pt. Reyes National Seashore) is for the benefit of the entire Bay Area and the countless number of tourists from all parts of the United States that visit the Bay Area each year, and whereas its establishment will remove over 16,000 acres of privately-held lands from the tax rolls of Marin County and local districts responsible for education, a tangible need exists that the surviving bill include provisions first to provide temporary, equitable relief to the County and local tax districts adversely impacted by federal acquisition of this land. and second, that provision be made to insure that Marin County and its local tax districts are provided some tax relief in return for the tax base sacrificed by them in lending their support to the establishment of a National Recreation Area. Reference is made to the in lieu of tax relief provided by the Federal Government in establishing Grand Teton National Park.


The boundaries described in the surviving bill should be clarified and adjusted in the following areas:

1. Sufficient land area should be excluded from the Recreation Area to allow Stinson Beach to become a viable community.

2. In the Olema Valley, the designation of Highway #1 as the proposed boundary creates a narrow sliver of private holdings between Pt. Reyes National Seashore and the Recreation Area. The boundaries should be made coterminus with the Pt. Reyes Seashore boundary.

3. H.R. 9498 includes only a portion of the community of Olema due to reliance on Highway #1 and Sir Francis Drake as the boundary. The boundary should be clarified to either exclude or include the village intact. Either way,

Olema should be designated as an Historic District and zoned and protected accordingly.

4. The Bolinas Lagoon is currently being planned by the County as an ecological reserve. The bill should include land between Highway #1 and the Lagoon, but should leave the Lagoon proper under County jurisdiction at this time, under a cooperative management program.


Planning and management of this great area should be sensitive and responsive to the public need and viewpoint. To secure this, the bill should provide for a broadly representative citizens advisory committee, with a majority representation from Marin and San Francisco Counties to participate in the planning and management policy of the Recreation Area. The committee shall be appointed by the San Francisco and Marin County Board of Supervisors. The committee should have adequate resources and hold regular information meetings with citizen interest groups, and should publish and distribute its recommendations.

Mr. TAYLOR. Our next witness is Ronald Pelosi, member, San Francisco Board of Supervisors.


Mr. PELOSI. Chairman Taylor, members of the committee, Congressman Mailliard, in behalf of our city we are pleased to welcome you here and we are very happy that you would consider conducting this meeting in our city.

On February 19 of this year I asked our board of supervisors to have a public hearing in regard to San Francisco's formal position on the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The meeting was held and we were overwhelmed with the quantity and the quality of the testimony from all segments of our community. Many of them you will be hearing today.

On May 24 we passed a resolution by a vote of 7 to 3. There are 11 members of our board. One party was absent. By 7 to 3 as formally passed a resolution calling for the creation of the park and that has been placed in the record and you have it for your consideration.

Our resolution was a comprehensive one and frankly the reason that we feel so strongly about this area is the fact that within the last several years our board of supervisors has been fighting not foreign powers, if you will, not private interests as they have in Marin, but our own Federal Government. We have been deluged with plans for warehouses, archives. They want to put a missile base on Angel Island. And, finally, earlier this year we were told there was the distinct possibility of a Federal prison, and Congressman Mailliard acted immediately in that regard.

So it gives you some presentation of the fact that the people of San Francisco are most apprehensive about what next is going to happen to these public open spaces.

I think the only point of contention as far as our board is concerned is in the question of who shall maintain the Presidio of San Francisco. We are all very conscious of the magnificent job the Army has done over the years and we wish to compliment them for their attentiveness to the planting of trees and all the rest. But

within recent times there has been an acceleration of building activity which frankly causes us the gravest concern.

I will give you a small illustration. We wished to build a sewage treatment facility at the foot of Lyon Street on the Marina Green. We wanted to move it 50 feet to the west so it wouldn't block the view. We were told this was in conflict with the national defense.

This is a small example but it points out the difficulties when we have to deal with the military in an area such as this.

We think that the Army's fundamental mission is that of security of the Nation and national defense, whereas the Interior Department is charged with the responsibility of maintaining parks and open space.

We look upon the Golden Gate National Recreation Area as truly a national resource, unique in all the world, and I would point out that the taxpayers on San Francisco spend close to $6 million a year in maintaining parks. Therefore, if a portion of their burden were removed from their shoulders you would appreciate that they would look kindly toward it.

I am particularly impressed with the features of the bill which would require consultation with the planning commission both in San Francisco and Marin County and the board of supervisors in San Francisco and Marin County as well as BCDC, because it is only through this ongoing citizen participation that this park is going to be maintained, how it is going to be treated that the best use will ultimately come. We feel that the Department of the Interior through its National Park Service is ideally suited to maintain the educational programs and other things for which parks essentially are created.

I would say that to those of us born and raised in this city, as we look at the Presidio, we never thought if it as a park. We thought of it as a military base, frankly, and the MP's patrolled it and it was quite a game, of course, to escape their clutches over the years. But now these things have changed. So I would hope that this committee in taking the field trip that it took will not go away with the impression that the Presidio of San Francisco is one of the fine military institutions of the West but rather one of the great public parks that can be developed, can be developed intelligently and carefully, hopefully under the auspices of the Department of the Inte


All of our statements, by the way, are filed with your committee and we thank you very much for giving us this opportunity.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Pelosi.

Without objection your written statement will be made a part of the record at this point.

Hearing no objection, so ordered.

(The statement follows:)


In his 1971 State of the Union message, the President of the United States proposed a program, unprecedented in extent, "to expand the Nation's parks, recreation areas, and open spaces in a way that truly brings parks to the people where the people are".

For many years San Franciscans have felt frustration and concern about their beaches and coastline parks because of their poor maintenance, their mistreatment, and the threats of development.

San Francisco is the core city of an urban region of almost five million people, a region whose economy and population are in a stage of rapid growth. In the nine Bay Area counties, twenty-five square miles of open space are lost each year. As a consequence, the need to protect the unique variety of splendid vistas, shoreline cliffs and beaches, open space belts, natural flora and fauna, and historic and recreational lands is at a criticl point. This is why the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, a logical fulfilment of the President's proposal, is so important and so essential.

The concept of a National Recreation Area on both sides of the Golden Gate developed out of an interest on the part of a number of conservationists for preserving the headlands on the Marin side of the Gate, which were threatened with development. Meeting with limited success in Marin, these people organized themselves and began a concerted effort for creation of a Marin Headlands State Park.

In San Francisco there has been strong interest in preserving the Sutro Baths area as public open space, but the owners of the property have intentions of building housing along the slope above Seal Rocks. Fort Funston has periodically been in jeopardy of being developed with housing, although the Board of Supervisors has adopted a Resolution to preserve the Fort lands in their natural condition. Ocean Beach has not been cared for adequately because of City budget constraints.

If Congress acts to create the Golden Gate National Recreation Area with these areas included, the threat of housing development would be eliminated, and improved maintenance and care would no doubt be afforded out of Federal funds, rather than from the local property tax burden.

In addition to the areas mentioned above, other parks, beaches, and Federal military properties have been suggested for inclusion in the National Recreation Area. San Francisco spends about 5.8 million dollars annually on park maintenance, and the inclusion of such park areas as the Marina Green, Lincoln Park, Ocean Beach, and Fort Funston would relieve the City of an excessive burden for maintaining a park system which is enjoyed by visitors from throughout the world.

With proposals for the creation of a National Recreation Area being presented to Congress, it became apparent that San Francisco should throw its strongest support behind the GGNRA proposal and indicate as clearly as possible what areas within the City should be included. In February, I called for committee hearings to consider what City policy should be with respect to the GGNRA. Extensive testimony was heard by the State and National Affairs Committee of the Board on May 7, with strong support for the GGNRA coming from a variety of speakers representing a number of different groups and organizations. People for a Golden Gate National Recreation Area requested the Committee to adopt some strong legislation which I presented to the Committee and which was reported by the Committee to the full Board of Supervisors. On May 24, the Board adopted that legislation by a 7 to 3 vote.

The Resolution which was passed by the Board calls upon the President and the Congress to include within the GGNRA a continuous strip of land extending from Fort Funston to the San Francisco State Maritime Park, including the military properties of Forts Funston, Miley, and Mason, and certain portions of the Presidio. Several State- and City-owned parks are to be included, as well as the privately-owned parcels in the Sutro Baths and Cliff House area which have been under the threat of development for the past several years.

The only disputed aspect of this proposal involves the Presidio, to which the Army would like to retain full rights. The Resolution which the Board adopted calls for Fort Scott, the Lobos Creek Drainage Area, the 1000-man Army Reserve Center, the Wherry Housing, and a 35-yard wide beachfront strip on the northern and western perimeter of the Presidio to be included. All of these areas are currently at a low level of use and not necessary for the current level of administrative operations which have become the Presidio's principal function. Other agencies have been allowed to acquire lands as building sites, and housing units have more than tripled since 1950 to more than 1100, with an additional 546 units proposed in the Presidio's Master Plan.

While the City is grateful to the Army for maintaining the large open space areas of the Presidio and for making these available for public enjoyment, we do


« AnteriorContinuar »