An important consideration in planning for recreation and open space in the To conclude, the need for additional recreational facilities and permanent The Association of Bay Area governments would urge this Committee's sup- Source: Bay Area Transportation Study Commission, Land Use Inventory, 1965. Mr. TAYLOR. Honorable Grace McCarthy, mayor, Pacifica, California. On deck, Mr. Mendelsohn. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GRACE MCCARTHY, MAYOR, CITY OF PACIFICA, CALIF. Mayor MCCARTHY. I am Mrs. McCarthy and I am very appreciative of this opportunity. I show my appreciation in condensing into a very few words a suggestion we feel is very important. As mayor of the city of Pacifica, a community of almost 40.000 residents on the San Mateo County coast immediately south of here, I would like to express the strong endorsement of my council for the concept of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. It is most fortunate that it is not too late to do such planning in the immediate vicinity of a densely populated urban area. Our city is one of the parties in a joint powers agreement working for a Skyline scenic recreation route from the Golden Gate Bridge southward. It is contemplated that in our community this will go alongside the national historic site from which San Francisco Bay was discovered by the Portola expedition in 1769. Legal action has just been concluded to acquire 18.8 acres in its natural state at the discover site. It has great historic significance closely tied to San Francisco and the Golden Gate. Besides this, it commands a beautiful sweeping view on all sides: bay, ocean and mountains including Mt. Tamalpais, Mt. Diablo and the Montara Mountains, from Pedro Point to Pt. Reyes. We recommend that you consider this readymade addition to the west coast Parks-to-the-People idea under consideration today. And since we didn't suggest it in time for you to look yesterday, I have included some pictures with my report and I hope you will come back and take a firsthand view. Thank you. Mr. TAYLOR. Well, thank you very much. (The pictures have been placed in the file of the Committee.) Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Robert H. Mendelsohn, member, board of supervisors, city and county of San Francisco. On deck, Mr. Egger. STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. MENDELSOHN, MEMBER, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. Mr. MENDELSOHN. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am sorry I missed my turn. I will attempt to get done within 21 minutes. My name is Robert H. Mendelsohn. I am a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, a representative from the Association of Bay Area Governments to San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and president of the Peninsula Division of the League of California Cities. I add these other points not to impress you but to simply point out my credentials in terms of talking about a regional matter. I am pleased to come before you today to indicate my unequivocal support for the creation of a Golden Gate National Recreation Area as large as you can make it, at least 27,000 acres. As a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, I strongly favored and voted for a resolution which was passed by the board memorializing the President and the Congress to establish a Golden Gate National Recreation Area. In addition, my association with the regional organizations I mentioned has prompted me to look at such proposals as this from more than a provincial point of view. The nine-county bay area has nearly 5 million people today and it is estimated that before the year 2000 our population will have doubled. The future of the bay area environment will be determined in great measure by the way in which we treat the available supply of land. If we are to continue to experience the quality of life for which the bay area is renowned, the quality of life that is one of the major reasons why we have chosen to live, work, and play here, the quality of life that has brought tourists by the thousands to our region, we must act now to preserve our dwindling supply of open space. Open space is sorely needed now more than 10 years ago in order that 10 years from now there will still be some breathing space for people in this area. It is at an enormous premium and must be preserved at any cost. Once it is gone it can never be recovered. We have other areas to develop. We do not need to encroach on the unique green and open space which, when part of a Golden Gate National Recreation Area, will create a green necklace around the Golden Gate. While maintaining our quality of life and providing for the recreational needs of and enjoyment of natural scenic beauty by bay area residents and visitors, the preservation of this open space will also control urban sprawl and help to concentrate urban development in a more efficient and economic manner. It is obvious that the responsibility for a task as major as the preservation, coordination and administration of publicly and privately owned lands from Fort Funston, along the San Francisco shoreline, and on up into Marin, lies with the Federal Government, and it should be under the stewardship of that Federal agency which can best maintain that open space. The Department of the Interior is the Department that is most experienced in maintaining green space, and it seems that Interior's overall involvement is an absolute necessity. The major point, however, is not which agency has jurisdiction over which land; rather, it is that the citizens of the bay area be guaranteed that these lands will be preserved in perpetuity. I am personally convinced that prior to the 1950's it was the Army ownership of the Presidio lands that kept them from development when perhaps local administrations in San Francisco were of different minds and when the preservation of open space was not so important. With orchards and rolling green hills and valleys in surrounding counties, the Presidio's greenery did not hold the significance it does today. We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the Army for its role in keeping the Presidio a beautiful and open spot that we all have enjoyed. Unfortunately, at the same time that open space throughout the bay area was being eaten by the bulldozer, there arose increasing pressures on the Army to develop Presidio lands. In recent years San Franciscans, particularly those residing along the borders of the Presidio, have had to maintain constant vigilance to ensure that this precious spot will not become a sea of buildings. Piecemeal chipping away at this priceless open space has begun and we must not allow it to continue for ourselves or for our children. Other testimony has indicated the various specific development proposals. The public has a right to expect that the Federal Government will protect these lands which become more valuable as the bay area's population increases. Gentlemen, the rest of my statement is before you and although it is a great deal of debtless prose, I won't burden you any further with it, having heard the bell ring. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much, Mr. Mendelsohn. Mr. MENDELSOHN. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, I thank you. STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. MENDELSOHN, MEMBER, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, my name is Robert H. Mendelsohn. I am a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, a representative from the Association of Bay Area Governments to the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and President of the Peninsula Division of the League of California Cities. I am pleased to come before you today to indicate my unequivocal support for the creation of a Golden Gate National Recreation Area. As a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, I strongly favored and voted for a resolution, which was passed by the Board, memorializing the President and the Congress to establish a Golden Gate National Recreation Area. In addition, my association with the regional organizations I mentioned has prompted me to look at such proposals as this from more than a provincial point of view. The nine-county Bay Area has nearly five million people today, and it is estimated that before the year 2000 our population will have doubled. The future of the Bay Area Environment will be determined in great measure by the way in which we treat the available supply of land. If we are to continue to experience the quality of life for which the Bay Area is renowned the quality of life that is one of the major reasons why we have chosen to live, work and play here, the quality of life that has brought tourists by the thousands to our region-we must act now to preserve our dwindling supply of open space. Open space is sorely needed, now more than 10 years ago, in order that ten years from now there will still be some breathing space for people in this area. It is at an enormous premium and must be preserved at any cost. Once it is gone, it can never be recovered. We have other areas to develop. We do not need to encroach on the unique green and open space which, when part of a Golden Gate National Recreation Area, will create a green necklace around the Golden Gate. While maintaining our quality of life and providing for the recreational needs of and enjoyment of natural scenic beauty by Bay Area residents and visitors, the preservation of this open space will also control urban sprawl and help to concentrate urban development in a more efficient and economic man ner. It is obvious that the responsibility for a task as major as the preservation, coordination, and administration of publicly and privately owned lands from Fort Funston, along the San Francisco shoreline, and on up into Marin lies with the Federal Government, and it should be under the stewardship of that Federal agency which can best maintain that open space. The Department of Interior is the department that is most experienced in maintaining green space, and it seems that Interior's overall involvement is an absolute necessity. The major point, however, is not which agency has jurisdiction over which land. Rather, it is that the citizens of the Bay Area be guaranteed that these lands will be preserved in perpetuity. I am personally convinced that prior to the 1950's, it was the Army ownership of the Presidio lands that kept them from development when, perhaps, local administrations in San Francisco were of different minds and when the preservation of open space was not so important. With orchards and rolling green hills and valleys in surrounding counties, the Presidio's greenery did not hold the significance it does today. We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the Army for its role in keeping the Presidio a beautiful and open spot that we all have enjoyed. Unfortunately, at the same time that open space throughout the Bay Area was being eaten by the bulldozer, there arose increasing pressures on the Army to develop Presidio lands. In recent years San Franciscans, particularly those residing along the borders of the Presidio, have had to maintain constant vigilance to ensure that this precious spot will not become a sea of buildings. Piecemeal chipping away at this priceless open space has begun, and we must not allow it to continue for ourselves or for our children. The public has a right to expect that the Federal Government will protect these lands, which become more valuable as the Bay Area's population increases. I do not see the relationship between the Department of Defense, the Department of Interior and the people of the Bay Area as an adversary relationship. Rather than conflict, there should be a common interest in achieving the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in the best way we can. Although I am here to point out the urgency of our need for a Golden Gate National Recreation Area rather than to comment on the similarities and dissimilarities of the bills before you, I feel that I must call to your attention some excellent points included in H.R. 9498, introduced by Congressman Burton, that, in my opinion, are most significant. It appears that H.R. 9498, through its explicit and detailed plans for the acquisition and retention of lands, provides for many more guarantees for the people of the Bay Area. It calls for the preparation of a land and water use management plan and specifies that in the preparation of this plan, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors of Marin and San Francisco Counties, as well as the Bay Conservation and Development Commission shall be consulted and that public hearings shall be conducted. The movement for a Golden Gate National Recreation Area has been a people's movement, and it should continue as such. We have a right to expect that the Federal Government will respond forcefully and expeditiously to our need. I trust that the various elected officials who have labored so diligently on this matter will work together with the Administration to produce a green and continuing park surrounding the Golden Gate. Mr. TAYLOR. The next witness, Mr. Albert R. St. Cyr, city manager, city of Sausalito. STATEMENT OF ALBERT R. ST. CYR, CITY MANAGER, CITY OF SAUSALITO, CALIF., AS PRESENTED BY ERIC BORT Mr. BORT. Mr. Chairman, I am Eric Bort, appearing on behalf of Mr. St. Cyr who could not be here this morning. The city of Sausalito as you may be aware is the Gateway of the Golden Gate, a little village of 6,000 people nestled along the shores of the bay, the hills behind and military bases along the shores of the Golden Gate itself. The city of Sausalito is extremely concerned relative to the proposed establishment of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The city council of Sausalito has adopted a resolution urging and endorsing the establishment of this recreational area. We are aware that the private lands to the sides of Sausalito are pending urbanization. Should this occur, the fabric of our community will never be quite the same as it is today and the tail will soon wag the dog. |
