« AnteriorContinuar »
Mayor ALIOTO. Very close. I would say, as a matter of fact, I have discussed the matter with the Congressman and I doubt that there is any substantial difference at all between the Congressman's views and ours and we very much appreciate the tremendous effort that the Congressman has made in connection with this matter, and particularly the very close rapport the Congressman has had with the Department of Defense over the years that we have worked out this fine relationship with the Presidio.
I think the Congressman has played a more integral role in working out this fine relationship than anybody else and we are very grateful for it.
Mr. CLAUSEN. I am going to go over here to the map just for a second because there is a matter that is of great interest and concern to me and I am bringing this up because of what we observed in New York at the Gateway National Recreation Area in New York and its similarity.
Incidentally, there is going to be a very substantial amount of recreation in that entire Bay Area, not only in New York but also out here. They have Floyd Bennett Field in New York and Mayor Lindsay talked to me and others on the committee about the idea of a joint use of the facility itself.
Now, the reason I am concerned about that is for the first time in this very innovative, creative idea of having a massive recreation area serving literally millions of people, you are going to have a safety factor as it relates to boating accidents and that sort of thing. And as a result, this entire area here is going to be not only utilized but I think there is going to be a need for the Coast Guard or those people who are going to be coordinating the safety programs and it does seem to me that we can have the best of all worlds if we coordinate something in the form of a joint use of at least the airstrip portion.
Now, there has been some consideration as far as a STOL port of a very limited or restricted nature. You have a potential of accidents. As we flew over the area yesterday, the number of sailboats that were out throughout the entire bay, it does seem to me that we are going to have to give a tremendous amount of consideration to the utilization of that kind of a facility and I am talking in terms of a helipad, or a light type of aircraft that might relocate people or take people to serve the military's requirements logistically, to go to Travis, wherever their military installations in the area are concerned, and I am wondering what your thoughts might be.
We see it as a coordinated effort between recreation and utilization of that particular facility.
Mayor ALIOTO. Let me say first of all that I see no reason why the present Army needs with respect to Crissy Field cannot be served by properly allocating the territory around the Crissy Field area. I really think that. I personally would have some difficulty, frankly, Congressman. about expanding the air uses of Crissy Field to a STOL port. We think we can do that better on our waterfront. And there are some discussions going on right now about using the waterfront piers below Fisherman's Wharf for such purposes or even south of the Federal Building. But I would have a serious question about expanding those uses although existing Army uses,
and they are relatively limited as you know, existing Army uses it seems to me can be accommodated. But in any of these things we are going to have joint arrangements, for the safety factors. The Coast Guard obviously is going to be involved and I don't see any big deal very frankly about joint arrangements.
At the present time there is a joint arrangement between the Army and the city with respect to Julius Kahn Playground. I just use that as an example, and other joint arrangements could very well be made by practical men.
Mr. CLAUSEN. I just wanted to clarify that because in the New York area they give similar consideration to an access into that area for the Coast Guard utilization. They are actually going to use it as a general aviation type airport but I don't think it would serve the purpose here.
Mayor ALIOTO. As a matter of fact, however, for example, Crissy Field has been used by our police helicopters and other helicopters who are on observation, rather, on missions of mercy in some situations. So it has been used and we ought to be able to work out some practical arrangements on that matter.
Mr. CLAUSEN. That is precisely the reason I raised the question.
Mr. TAYLOR. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. You have been very helpful.
Mayor ALIOTO. May I say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that we very, very much appreciate the work of this committee because of this really imaginative thing that has us very much excited here, and we are pleased that the administration has taken this particular tack on it. We congratulate it and we particularly want to congratulate Congressman Mailliard, Congressman Burton and Senators Cranston and Tunney for the role they are playing in bringing this about. Thank you very much.
Mr. TAYLOR. We thank you for the fine hospitality which you personally and the people in your city have presented to us since we came here.
Mayor ALIOTO. We are pleased to do it, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. TAYLOR. Now, let me state that we have listened to the mayor in full because he is the key witness. He speaks for the people of San Francisco. Again, I say that we have a time problem. I don't want to be in a hurry. I wish we could listen to every witness just as long as we listened to the mayor, but we have 110 witnesses and you can figure it out for yourself.
If we have any time at all for questions it will average about 2.5 minutes per witness.
Unless we set a time limit for testimony of those who speak first, those who are further down on the list won't be reached at all.
All statements will go in the record in full. This means that many of the statements that are longer will need to be summarized or you will need to select the parts which you think you prefer to read.
Let me just give you a suggestion as to how you can be most helpful. You realize that we are here because we believe in the importance of national parks. You don't have to convince us of that. We are here because we realize the importance of urban-type parks. We realize that San Francisco is a major urban area. So you don't have to convince us of that. But we do need information as to the type of
park desired, the area that should be included, and the area that should be excluded, how it should be developed and how it should be managed. And, if possible, if you can give us information that we have not already received from some other witness, then it will be helpful.
So in the absence of objection from other members of the committee, all witnesses who testify will be limited to 3 minutes, and a timer will be kept and a signal will be given when the 3 minutes are up.
Now, even this afternoon we may have to limit it further unless it develops that many of the witnesses do not use their full amount of time.
The committee members will be brief in their comments and occasional questions in order to let the witnesses do the talking.
Now, let me state I hope that all witnesses or as many as possible will stay through the entire hearing. If you do, I think you will leave with a feeling in mind that every possible argument and every possible contention will have been presented and those of us on the committee judge by the weight of arguments and the logic of arguments, not by the length of the testimony of by the number of witnesses taking a certain position.
Our next witness is Mr. Roger Boas.
STATEMENT OF ROGER BOAS, MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.
Mr. Boas. Mr. Chairman, members of this distinguished committee and Congressman Mailliard, my testimony has been put into the record and I would like to say just a few comments in short.
First, we do appreciate your coming all the way out here and spending the time to see this area and it means a great deal to all of us in the northern California bay area. The recent poll you may have seen taken by Mervin Field for the California poll shows that Californians now for the first time are starting to leave the State. There is immigration rather than migration, and their reason is it is no longer as happy a place-smog, cars, crowds, all bad developments. Therefore I heartily endorse this proposal that you are weighing today as a step in the counterdirection, to maintain some lands that we still have that are very lovely.
In the matter of the question of the Defense Department versus the Interior Department that the committee has raised, let me say that the Army has had, of course, a wonderful tradition here in San Francisco and we have always been happy to have them in our area and they have been great supporters of our community. But in the past few years, as Congressman Mailliard and other California Representatives can attest, we have had plenty of trouble with them. For example, they wanted to build a school in an area that everyone, including our planning department, thought was the most beautiful area we had and we had to fight it all the way to Washington, D.C., with some of our most distinguished citizens leading the fight to get it stopped.
Then they wanted to build an office building for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on Army property. Then we had
another fight to get that stopped-we hope, permanently. And there has been some question, certainly by our own city planners, as to the way they have handled their housing plans.
So I would say in short regarding this question of Defense versus Interior that we certainly hope and expect that the present military installations will remain and continue to flourish, but that the areas now not being used by the military, the beaches and the woods and the other areas that are not developed, we don't want them developed, and it would be my own opinion I think along the lines of those suggested by the distinguished Congressman from South Dakota, that we would be better off having those areas, the nonmilitary areas, as well as the areas that run across in the Marin County, being handled and administered by the Department of the Interior. I must say, too, that I feel the Department of the Interior has done an excellent job in handling most of its national parks, is not all. This park ranger system may be shorthanded, they may need more park rangers, but I don't think that any San Franciscan or Marin Countyite would be unhappy with the Interior Department administering all but those current military installations.
There has been a great feeling out here that the citizens can be of help to this committee and to the ongoing administration of the park, and I would hope that the committee will provide for continuous citizen participation. You have heard, for example, today that the Bolinas Lagoon, which is a very lovely area, the Marin County Board of Supervisors would like to see it not being run by the park administration but run by some ecological organization. I support that. There are representatives here of the great bird preserve over there, the Audubon Society. This, too, would like to run their own. affairs. And I think the mayor's suggestion that Alcatraz Island might go into this area and be administered hopefully by the Department of the Interior is one which I would support. I oppose the idea of commercializing it and I think that it could be made into a great resource for us all.
Again, may I add my thanks and welcome to San Francisco to you. Mr. Chairman, and your colleagues.
Mr. TAYLOR. Well, thank you, Mr. Boas.
Do you basically agree with the position that the mayor has taken on the proposal?
Mr. Boss. Well, as a great friend and supporter of Mayor Alioto, I agree with him almost all of the time except I think I would feel better if this new area were being handled by Interior rather than the Army. I put it to you this way, Congressman Taylor: "If I want to fight a war I go to the Defense Department. If I want a park and recreation area. I think it should be the Department of the Interior who should be responsible."
Mr. TAYLOR. Well, people can be friends and still differ on issues. I think as Walter Lippman said, when all think alike, none think much.
Well, thank you very much.
Mr. BoAs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
(Prepared Statement of Mr. Boas follows:)
STATEMENT Of Roger Boas, MEMBER, Board of SUPERVISORS,
I heartily endorse the proposed Golden Gate National Recreation Area. I can think of few steps that would have as lasting and beneficial impact on the entire San Francisco Bay area.
This area is fortunate to still have a great deal of beautiful and accessible open space. This is certainly one of the reasons so many people move here each year. And as our population grows and our cities become more crowded, the need to preserve these undeveloped areas becomes greater than ever.
We must act now to set aside these lands. We must have the courage to take this bold and dramatic step.
But nothing I could say here today would speak as eloquently of the need for this parkland as a trip through the land we are talking about. I hope you gentlemen get the chance to visit the woodlands of the Presidio, the bluffs of the Marin headlands, and the meadows of the Olema Valley.
Visit these lands, and I am sure you will say with us, that these are special places; places where man's heavy path must be restrained.
But it is not enough to sit here and say "Preserve these lands." How we go about protecting this great natural resource is a question that must be answered if the National Recreation Area is to become a reality.
In the case of the Presidio, for example, there are some people who feel the military has done a good job of taking care of this land in the past, and that the land ought to remain under the Army's jurisdiction. Now, it may be that the Army has done a good job in the past, but it is the future we must be concerned with today.
As a businessman, I know that there are certain things that my company is equipped to do, and other things that are beyond our capabilities and skills. Protecting and preserving open space is not the Army's job. If we want this land protected, then we should transfer it to the Department of the Interior, the government agency specializing in this field.
Just as we wouldn't ask the Department of the Interior to fight a war, let's not ask the Army to preserve our parks.
Therefore, I support Congressman Philip Burton's bill. I do not agree with those who say the Department of the Interior and the Army should negotiate the fate of this valuable land. Do we want this land set aside for a recreational area or not? This is a key decision vital to the entire project. Let's not pass the buck and leave the future of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area to indepartmental politics.
No, gentlemen, the time has come to take a stand. to take a stand in favor of preserving this land. Anything less than that is unacceptable.
Another key question is how shall people reach this wonderful parkland? Frankly, I am very wary of any plans for new roadway construction, particularly along the Highway 1 corridor north of the Golden Gate.
I do realize that some of the existing roads in the area may need some improvements to handle the present load of peak weekend traffic. However, it has been our experience that new freeways and parkways draw additional traffic into an area, with all the noise, air pollution and environmental disruption that cars bring with them.
It would be a disaster to set up this marvelous recreation area and then destroy it with roads and cars and all the other evils we are trying to protect this land against. This land is valuable because it is in a natural state, and I think we must leave it that way.
Therefore, I hope that any bill you approve includes a requirement for a detailed transportation plan for the area, with careful consideration given to public transportation and all other alternatives to freeway construction.
And that, gentlemen, is all I have to say. We must move with boldness, or else the Bay area will choke on its own growth. The people of San Francisco and Marin want this land set aside for them and their children. The next move is up to you.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Robert Gonzales, member, San Francisco Board of Supervisors; and on deck will be Mr. Dillon.