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 rior. 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:) STATEMENT OF RONALD PELOSI, SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 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 want to assure the continued open space character of these lands and their improvement for purposes of recreation and historic interest. Under the Department of the Interior, we have such guarantees. 78-016-72-3 H.R. 9498, offered by Congressman Philip Burton, substantially incorporates the parcels included in the Resolution passed by the Board of Supervisors as part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Congressman Burton's bill includes the Presidio Golf Course, which was not included in the Board's Resolution, and omits the City-owned parcels known as Fort Miley, Sutro Heights Park, Seal Rocks, and Fort Funston, as well as the Cliff House area, a private parcel, all of which were included also in the Board's Resolution. I am confident that these omissions are mere oversights and can be corrected. They are important parcels and should be included. In the case of the Cliff House, it is desirable that this landmark property be preserved for use, perhaps, as Recreation Area administrative offices as well as for continued use as a restaurant and visitor facility. But it should be included within the Recreation Area to avoid further development capitalizing upon Federal action. These coastline areas which we are asking to be included in the GGNRA offer a unique variety of natural, historic, scenic, and recreational lands in both public and private ownership which should be preserved for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations of Bay Area residents. I look forward to the day when the Golden Gate National Recreation Area is a reality, when we have a well-maintained and attractive beachfront area with a variety of public facilities which the City does not now have the money to provide, where there will be constant attention to public use and preservation of natural features. The natural splendor of our own beachfront, if we would look at it with fresh vision, is as magnificent and as valuable as any natural area in the world. The Recreation Area is an exciting opportunity to preserve the scenic shoreline and headlands for generations of Americans. I trust that this Committee will recommend to the Congress action which is in accord with the Board Resolution of May 24. In great measure, Congressman Burton's bill conforms to those provisions and should be enacted with minor amendment. RESOLUTION NO. [File No. 141-71] MEMORIALIZING THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO ESTABLISH GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA Whereas, The President of the United States, in his 1971 State of the Union Message, 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"; and Whereas, The Congress of the United States is considering legislation for the creation of a Golden Gate National Recreation Area in the San Francisco Bay Area which would create a recreation and open space system under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior; and Whereas, The Department of the Interior, in accord with the President's "Parks to the People" program, and as a consequence of the interest of the Congress, is currently studying the desirability and composition of a Golden Gate National Recreation Area and will be reporting its findings in the near future; and Whereas, Because San Francisco is the core city of an urban region of almost five million people, a region whose economy and population are in stage of rapid growth, and because the nine Bay Area counties are losing 25 square miles of open space each year, 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 critical point; and Whereas, The coastline areas offer a unique variety of natural, historic, scenic and recreational lands in both public and private ownership which should be preserved for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations of Bay Area residents; and Whereas, It is of particular interest to the People of San Francisco which lands within the boundaries of the City and County of San Francisco shall be included in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area; and Whereas, It has been proposed that those parts of Federal military lands not needed for defense purposes be included as part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, a major national park of 10,000 acres proposed for the headlands of the Golden Gate; now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the People of the City and County of San Francisco hereby call upon the President and the Congress of the United States to establish the Golden Gate National Recreation Area along the headlands of the Golden Gate preserve these lands for public use in perpetuity; and, be it Further resolved, That the People of the City and County of San Francisco hereby call upon the President and the Congress of the United States to include within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area a continuous strip of land extending from Fort Funston to the San Francisco State Maritime Park, including the following City-owned parcels: Fort Funston, Ocean Beach, Seal Rocks, Sutro Heights Park, Lincoln Park, Fort Miley, the Marina Green, and Aquatic Park; the following State-owned parcels: Seal Rocks Beach State Park, Phelan Beach State Park, Bakers Beach State Park, and the San Francisco Maritime State Historic Park; and the following privately-owned parcels: the Sutro Baths and Cliff House area; and, be it Further resolved, That the necessary action taken by the President and the Congress of the United States to transfer from the Department of Defense or the General Services Administration the following parcels: Fort Funston, Fort Miley, Fort Mason and those portions of the Presidio of San Francisco delineated on map marked "Exhibit A", copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors in File No. 141-71, and outlined below, without changes in any existing rights-of-way or easements that are necessary for the transportation of persons or materials to or from the Presidio: (a) A beachfront strip of land averaging 350 yards in width on the northern and western perimeter of the Presidio, bounded by San Francisco Bay on the north, Lyon Street on the east, Doyle Drive, and U.S. Highway 101 to the point due north of the northwest corner of the San Francisco National Cemetery; thence along Lincoln Boulevard to its intersection with El Camino Del Mar and the northern boundary of Baker Beach State Park on the south, and the Pacific Ocean on the west; (b) Fort Scott; (c) The Lobos Creek drainage area, the 1000-man Army Reserve Center, the Wherry Housing and a triangle of land between the beachfront area and the Fort Scott area, bounded on the north by Kobbe Avenue between Lincoln Boulevard and Washington Boulevard, on the east by Washington Boulevard to its western intersection with Compton Road, thence due south to the northern boundary of the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital; thence along the boundary of said hospital to its intersection with Fifteenth Avenue and the southern boundary of the Presidio; on the south by the southern boundary of the Presidio; and on the west by Lincoln Boulevard. Any military housing or installation within the boundaries described in this subsection that is considered vital to the needs of the United States is hereby excluded; and, be it Further resolved, That appropriate action be taken such that future construction upon that portion of the Presidio of San Francisco remaining under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense shall not alter significantly the open space and greenbelt that now exist; and, be it Further resolved, That copies of this resolution be directed to his Honor, the Mayor, for transmission to the Legislative Representative in Washington for presentation to the President of the United States and to the United States Senators and Congressmen. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco at its meeting of May 24, 1971. Approved: Mr. TAYLOR. Any questions of this witness? The gentleman from Kansas has a question. ROBERT J. DOLAN, Clerk. JOSEPH L. ALIOTO, Mayor. Mr. SKUBITZ. Has the military done an acceptable job in patrol ling and policing the area? Mr. PELOSI. I don't think there is any question about that. They have; yes, sir. Mr. SKUBITZ. Is the relationship between the community and the officials an acceptable relationship? Mr. PELOSI. I think it is an excellent relationship. Mr. SKUBITZ. Do you feel that the Department of the Interior would do a better job in taking care of the area than Mr. PELOSI. Could they do a better job? Mr. SKUBITZ. Will they? Do you think they will do a better job? Mr. PELOSI. Well, the point we are trying to make is that that area under the jurisdiction of the Army ought to remain under the Army. We have no intention whatsoever taking that away from them. We are talking about the great undeveloped lands that properly should fall under the hands of the agency, the department of Government that is responsible for that kind of activity. Mr. SKUBITZ. Let's turn to the beach area. Is it available to the public? Mr. PELOSI. No, it is not. It depends on what beach area you are talking about. Crissy Field, for example, you are talking aboutyou have to define it because there is a very broad expanse from the county line. Mr. SKUBITZ. The Baker Beach area, is that available to the public today? Mr. PELOSI. Yes. There are, Congressman, areas on both sides that are, but it is a question of what future building plans might be contemplated and it is our feeling that if the Interior has jurisdiction, then the military would not be in a position to build. If the contrary were true, if the military, the Defense Department, had the jurisdiction, they would do what they wish. Mr. SKUBITZ. I understand, but let's stay with the beach area at this moment. It is my understanding the military patrols this area day and night. Is it your understanding, that the Interior Department would do the same? Mr. PELOSI. I am not that familiar with whether or not they have night patrols. All I know, operating Lassen National Park or Muir Woods or any other areas, we have never received any complaints saying the area wasn't properly maintained. Mr. CLAUSEN. I see a little bit of contradiction in your comments. First of all, the point you have made I believe Congressman Mailliard has already addressed himself to that particular point. I know he has discussed it with the Department of Defense. It is my understanding that Mayor Alioto has discussed this matter and is working on an agreement, and from what I have been able to observe, quite frankly, to fly over this area, there are two areas that have had great conservation records and that is the Golden Gate Park, thanks to the people of the city of San Francisco, and the Presidio, and we saw some pictures yesterday that clearly demonstrated what the Army has done in adding to the beauty of this particular area and we wouldn't have had it had they not had a conservation program. Mr. PELOSI. You are quite right and I think that is why all of us are deeply appreciative of what they have done. Let's assume the Congress wanted to embark on a research program of some kind and they looked at that expanse of the Presidio and said, very well, here are 47 acres we think we would like to |