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. 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? ROBERT J. DOLAN, Clerk. JOSEPH L. ALIOTO, Mayor. Mr. SKUBITZ. Has the military done an acceptable job in patrolling 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 build on. Then they build and have to build the necessary housing and all the rest. Mr. CLAUSEN. We wouldn't let them. Mr. PELOSI. That is what we are concerned about. Mr. CLAUSEN. This is what Congressman Mailliard has been pointing out. Mr. PELOSI. That is commendable. Mr. SKUBITZ. Do I understand you to say that you are very appreciative of what the military has done but now you are ready to kiss them goodbye and turn the area over to the Interior; is that correct? Mr. PELOSI. No, I am not. I didn't say that. But I would say we have the highest regard for the good things they have done and thank them for it. Mr. ABOUREZK. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might direct a question? Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from South Dakota. Mr. ABOUREZK. Is that your conception of this thing that the Presidio be turned over to the Interior Department and taken out of the jurisdiction of the Army altogether? Mr. PELOSI. Those areas that are not at the present time under the use of the 6th Army for its immediate needs and purposes, yes. Mr. ABOUREZK. Okay. Say that the whole area were declared excess to military needs, which the military is doing a lot of nowadays. How would the people of your city here feel about moving the Army clear out and having the Park Service take over the entire Presidio area? Mr. PELOSI. I don't think that was ever considered at any time and I think the majority of the people look upon the Army as having been a good citizen and good neighbors and frankly helpful to the economy of our city. I don't think that ever crossed the mind of any member of our board. Mr. ABOUREZK. Thank you. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much. I might state now that we have come here from various parts of the Nation with an open mind. We are seeking information. And we are hoping that you can help us decide what is the proper action to be taken. I for one have been concerned as to whether or not the Interior Department will have sufficient personnel to police the area as well as the military is now doing. And I am anxious to get information on that point. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH L. ALIOTO, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. Mr. TAYLOR. We now have the mayor with us, Joseph L. Alioto. Mr. Mayor, we welcome you before our hearing. Mayor ALIOTO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do want to say preliminarily that I would like to lapse into my role as mayor instead of witness for just a moment and welcome you to San Francisco. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you. Mayor ALIOTO. We are very, very excited about this tremendous project that is being proposed. We are excited about the work being done by Congressman Mailliard, Congressman Burton, Senator Cranston and Senator Tunney. We think this is one of the really imaginative park concepts anywhere in the world, let alone just in this country, and all of us want to work very, very hard to see it achieved. In the process of seeing it achieved we don't want to lose some of the very, very fine things we already have. We do have a great park in the Presidio. There are 11 doors of that Presidio, 11 portals. There isn't a single guard standing at any one of those doors and all San Francisco uses it. They use it more than any other park because it is the safest park we have in this town. The other parks are not as bad as some of the things you have heard about the eastern parks-they really aren't in terms of control, particularly in the light of certain actions we have taken. But this is the safest park in town and it is one of the most spectacular parks in town. It has outlooks to the bay, for example, that our Golden Gate Park doesn't have, and in tandem, the Presidio and the Golden Gate Park give us as fine a park setup as any city has anywhere in this world. The folks in Vienna had a fellow named Strauss who wrote pretty waltzes but the Vienna Woods doesn't begin to compare either with Golden Gate Park or the Presidio and the thing about the Presidio is there are no rapes, no muggings, no murders, no aggravated assaults. And so we would like it that way. It is a park for San Franciscans and we would like it kept that way. Now, this whole concept is a very important concept and we very, very much want to cooperate to see this thing brought to fulfillment. The notion of the mayor's office is that since you are going to be making joint arrangements with State officials, with city officials, with private owners in order to get this comprehensive recreation area, there is no reason why there cannot be a joint arrangement between the Department of the Interior and the Department of the Army. And, Congressman Clausen, it is perfectly clear that the Interior is not going to be patrolling that park the way the Army is patrolling it now. That ought to be clear to everybody. And another thing that ought to be perfectly clear to everybody, right now as I have indicated no murders, no rapes, no aggravated assaults, none of these things, and not a single San Francisco policeman. And there are those of us who think that if this is turned over to the Interior Department, that one of the first requests we are going to get is to send 100 policemen over there. We think that might be the very first request we are going to get. So we have a wonderful park there right now. Now, it isn't a military establishment in the sense that some latterday military establishments are, you know, placed into a city. The Presidio and Mission Delores are our historical tandems. This is how the city started. The first two buildings in San Francisco were Mission Delores and the Presidio and the eminent Spanish explorers went over their little mountain you saw yesterday in your tour, as they looked down the first thing they saw were some Indians canoe |
