Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

The Chamber opposition-voiced before the Board of Supervisors-faded in due course under these circumstances and the Board voted for the Haslett Warehouse to become part of the project. The State condemned the building and purchased it in 1962.

On April 6, 1961, a forty year lease between Beaches & Parks, and the San Francisco Port Authority was signed for the west side of the Hyde Street Pier.

Beaches & Parks desultorily looked into the conversion of the Haslett Warehouse into a Railroad Museum. The San Francisco Maritime Museum was no longer a consultant to Beaches & Parks, so the success that attended the restoration of the schooners and the design of the Victorian Park was absent. So was any "push" for action on the Railroad Museum. Subsequently, a portion of the Railroad collection planned for the building was withdrawn, although enough of the collection, plus actual portions of a vessel which called at San Francisco in 1849, exist to form an outstanding display.

In view of a lack of single direction, a "letter of intent" for a five year occupancy of the warehouse building was given to Haslett interests in 1966. However, the work that the San Francisco Maritime Museum has already done in the area called the attention of the old Ghirardelli chocolate factory to William Roth. Result-Ghirardelli Square. Leonard Martin took a cue from Ghirardelli and created The Cannery. The neighborhood-became the most celebrated urban waterfront development project in North America (according to The National Observer, the Dow-Jones newspaper).

At this juncture (spring, 1971) there is an increased need for the project to be completed and the Haslett building to be retained for public use and as a museum. The City has available to it exhibits of much greater significance than were on hand when the building was purchased for a museum. The building is separated by fire walls into the equivalent of three separate structures. San Francisco's fair share of State Park funds can be accumulated until a sufficient fund has been built to make a start on the first third of the building, then the second third, etc., until the City has completed this most eloquent of Maritime Historical Parks.

Most of the plan is already in existence the historic square rigger-the schooners-the Victorian Park-the history ferry boat, and a beginning in the pier. But the project is not yet done.

The support of Congress of Mr. Burton's bill and of the specific language to which I have referred, will make this Maritime Park a reality.

Thank you.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Robert Lilienthal, president, Presidio Heights Association of Neighbors.

On deck, Rebecca Evans.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT P. LILIENTHAL, PRESIDENT, PRESIDIO HEIGHTS ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORS

Mr. LILIENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, honorable members of the committee, Congressman Mailliard: The Presidio Heights Association of Neighbors includes over 600 families who live in an area adjacent to part of the southern boundary of the San Francisco Presidio. As president of the association, I should like to welcome you to our city and thank you for the opportunity to support the concept of a Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

Although I could ramble on for hours about the desirability of preserving open areas, I shall assume you will hear convincing arguments from others and I shall confine my words to rebut those few who profess to see no need to change the status quo in the methods of protecting the unused areas of the Presidio. They ignore history, to put it charitably, but we will be the ones to suffer by that lack of knowledge.

The association, my neighbors and the Presidio's, has always been interested in the preservation of the Presidio forests, open areas, and views. We feel they are uniquely magnificent. But we are most closely concerned with the protection of the many acres immediately east and west of Julius Kahn Playground-named for one of our former Congressmen-as well as the headlands and other undeveloped areas. The former have been under constant threat of development for over 20 years, as I shall detail shortly. These delightful forested areas seldom occur immediately adjacent to urban homes. They are enjoyed by joggers, Boy Scouts, barbecuers, nearby schools and nonstreet walkers. They provide the rare opportunity to escape city pressures by strolling 200 feet among the wild trees and shrubs. The psychological benefit of mingling with nature is of substantial value; through it we can soften the shocks of our daily lives. The congestion of the urban world is avoided. It is now declared national policy to retain valuable parklands, but it was not ever thus.

In 1949 my family and I built a house opposite the forests adjoining Julius Kahn Playground, a city facility on land leased from the Army. Since the next year, we and our neighbors, who particularly appreciate the values of the open spaces, have fought to preserve them. You might say we were so close to the forests we could see the

trees.

A few months after we moved in, a neighbor shocked me with this folio for Wherry Project Housing proposed by the Army. One of the sites, Site B, included the entire forest west of the playground. Look at the suggested designs: cheap barrack-looking apartments arranged in military phalanxes. The Corps of Engineers in distant Washington ignored the fact it would be built on a wooded hillside offering some of the most magnificent panoramas in the world. Maybe some of the bathrooms would have had views. In commenting on architecture, the proposal states on page 2: “*** more consideration will be given to the durability and room arrangement than to exterior refinements." Fortunately for the owners of adjacent homes, apartments were to be limited to eight stories, really sensitive and understanding treatment.

Now, what is the relevance of these words to the subject, you may be wondering. They are to contradict the major premise and argument that control of the Presidio should remain as it is because the Army has been such a great custodian. Mayor Alioto bases his whole case on this false assumption, either through ignorance or because his objectivity is obscured by a political debt. A newspaper editor strives to influence readers by this ridiculous claim of wise guardianship of the open spaces. They used to say, "Let's look at the record"; they now say, "Let's tell it like it is." Believe me, we have had to work to prevent loss of the Presidio open lands.

When the Army finally was compelled to abandon its proposed rape of the forest near El Polin, the Wherry housing location was switched quietly to the virgin hillsides above Baker Beach. Alarmed civilians forced construction away from the perimeter.

At the eastern edge, one arrogant commanding general erected a long, ugly wire fence to keep the city kids out of his flower beds.

In 1957, while I was serving on the city planning commission, it was discovered that the Army was processing plans for 303 Capehart Act homes on 143 acreas of the Presidio, including southern, forested areas.

You have the balance of my testimony. I hope you will realize that something must be done to protect the forested lands.

Thank you very much.

Mr. TAYLOR. Do you feel any more secure with regard to housing as a result of the agreement which the mayor said he had worked out with the Army?

Mr. LILIENTHAL. No, sir; I do not. If you look at the statement you will see that it was a statement-there was an agreement made with Gen. Robert Young which I was just about to read when I was on the commission. a very fine understanding general and the agreement was made then to submit all plans to the city. It was observed only in actual fact, not in the spirit, and I don't believe that it is of any value to have a present mayor make an agreement with a present general which is expected to extend to any length of time. When it gets to Washington, we lose it and all of a sudden the construction is there.

Mr. TAYLOR. Your point is, it is not binding on the future?
Mr. LILIENTHAL. It probably would not be.

(Prepared statement of Mr. Lilienthal follows:)

STATEMENT OF ROBERT P. LILIENTHAL, PRESIDENT, PRESIDIO HEIGHTS
ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORS

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: The Presidio Heights Association of Neighbors includes over 600 families who live in an area adjacent to part of the southern boundary of the San Francisco Presidio. As president of the association, I should like to welcome you to our city and thank you for the opportunity to support the concept of a Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Although I could ramble on for hours about the desirability of preserving open areas, I shall assume you will hear convincing arguments from others and I shall confine my words to rebut those few who profess to see no need to change the status quo in the methods of protecting the unused areas of the Presidio. They ignore history, to put it charitably, but we will be the ones to suffer by that lack of knowledge.

The association, my neighbors and the Presidio's, has always been interested in the preservation of the Presidio forests, open areas and views. We feel they are uniquely magnificent. But we are most closely concerned with protection of the many acres immediately east and west of Julius Kahn Playground (named for one of our former Congressmen), as well as the headlands and other undeveloped areas. The former have been under constant threat of development for over twenty years, as I shall detail shortly. These delightful, forested areas seldom occur immediately adjacent to urban homes. They are enjoyed by joggers, Boy Scouts, barbecuers, nearby schools, and non-street walkers. They provide the rare opportunity to escape city pressure by strolling 200 feet among the wild trees and shrubs. The psychological benefit of mingling with nature is of substantial value; through it we can soften the shocks of our daily lives. The congestion of the urban world is avoided. It is now declared national policy to retain such valuable parklands, but it was not even thus.

In 1949, my family and I built a house opposite the forests adjoining Julius Kahn Playground, a city facility on land leased from the Army. Since the next year, we and our neighbors, who particularly appreciate the values of the open spaces, have fought to preserve them. You might say we were "so close to the forest we COULD see the trees."

A few months after we moved in, a neighbor shocked me with his folio for Wherry Project Housing proposed by the Army. One of the sites, Site B, included the entire forest west of the playground. Look at the suggested designs: cheap barrack-looking apartments arranged in military phalanxes.

The Corps of Engineers in distant Washington ignored the fact it would be built on a wooded hillside offering some of the magnificent panoramas in the world. Maybe some of the bathrooms would have had views. In commenting on architecture, the proposal state (page 2), “... more consideration will be given to the durability and room arrangement than to exterior refinements." Fortunately for the owners of adjacent homes, apartments were to be limited to eight stories-really sensitive and understanding treatment.

Now, what is the relevance of these words to the subject, you may be wondering. They are to contradict the major premise and argument that control of the Presidio should remain as it is because the Army has been such a great custodian. Mayor Alioto bases his whole case on this false assumption, either through ignorance or because his objectivity is obscured by a political debt. A newspaper editor strives to influence readers by this ridiculous claim of wise guardianship of the open spaces. They used to say, "Let's look at the record;" they now say, "Let's tell it like it is." Believe me, we have had to work to prevent loss of the Presidio open lands.

When the Army finally was compelled to abandon its proposed rape of the forest near El Polin, the Wherry Housing location was switched quietly to the virgin hillsides above Baker Beach. Alarmed civilians nearby forced construction away from the perimeter.

At the eastern edge, one arrogant commanding general erected a long, ugly wire fence to keep the city kids out of his flower beds.

In 1957, while I was serving on the City Planning Commission, it was discovered that the Army was processing plans for 303 Capehart Act homes on 143 acres of the Presidio, including southern, forested areas.

Strenuous opposition was required to reduce the quantity and preserve some of the open areas. At that time, developers, construction unions, and politicians used the alarm as a wedge to force the Army to release some Presidio land for development. I supported the Army in its opposition to private sale, as did people all around the perimeter. General Robert Young, a most cooperative gentleman, promised at that time that the Presidio command would henceforth advise San Francisco of its plans and would cooperate openly.

In the 1960s, that agreement was observed by sending small-scale land maps to city staff, but the spirit of the agreement was totally lost. The San Francisco Planning Department had a massive change of personnel in 1965, and housing was built in the Presidio which detracted slightly from views toward the Golden Gate headlands. Army plan-maps appeared with sites for housing which would seriously harm the extraordinary headland panoramas. (the night-before-last I drove there just to enjoy the incredible view of the sunset beyond the Golden Gate. I was not the only one.) Mayor Alioto claims no more housing will be built, but generals and mayors are never permanent, like General Young.

In 1968, the circumstance occurred which was most instrumental in this concept of a Golden Gate National Recreation Area. It was discovered that our Board of Education was signing an agreement with the Army to provide the latter with two schools in the Presidio. One was near Lobos Creek, the other in the forest near El Polin, both perimeter sites upon which the Presidio command insisted. The "best available temporary structures" were promised! Asphalt roads, turnarounds and large parking areas would replace the trees at the El Polin site, but of course more trees would be replanted than were cut down, they promised. In fifteen years they might even be as tall as the buildings they would be up against. As for us, the agony and frustration of temporarily preventing desecration of this unique wild area, again, was traumatic. A group of young conservationists drew several hundred people of all ages to a neighborhood protest in a jammed auditorium. The general stubbornly fought to the bitter end for his school sites, and he was lauded when he left by our above-mentioned news editor for his success at conservation! The neighbors had lost all the major battles except the final one, but it took three years and lots of help from other people.

Then the reserve armory was built-on a barren site, it is true, but it appears to have shifted the Lobos Creek school, if built, to include some planted areas. The twenty-acre project of the Food and Drug Administration building was next discovered to be ready to go. It also would have been built on wooded land, the site undoubtedly sealed off by a wire fence, similar to the one along the southern edge of the golf course which now bars hikers from enjoying the area.

There has been cooperative commanders at the Presidio, but others have deemed it a private reserve, to be developed as they willed. So-called interference by civilians has been presented and ignored.

I hope the few examples demonstrate that the Army has NOT been a good conservator of open space, that the opposite is true, that the Army was PREVENTED from destroying parklike land on the perimeter only by the constant and desperate opposition of concerned civilians. Mayor Alioto's argument falls because his major premise is false. His agreement with the Army that they will discuss plans with him is merely a renewal of one made in 1957; his acceptance of their promise not to build more housing is naive in view of the past.

Let me mention another of our concerns, reinforcing our hopes for insuring permanent park space. The Army has had serious problems in protecting the Presidio from private development, and so have we. Starting in the early 1950s, certain construction interests and city officials conspired and lobbied to force the release of "unused" Presidio land. Mayors and Supervisors and an assessor pressured Congress and the Defense Department for over ten years to release these Federal lands for private development. Neighbors, conservationists, and planning groups fought desperately alongside the Army to prevent this political land grab. It took a long time before city policy could be changed. Many of us have fought too long, often desparingly, and always against the greed, deviousness, dissembling, and ignorance of some local officials. We're thankful that Washington is listening to people who are interested in the quality of life as well as the profits.

And believe me, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area is a project looking to that future. The Presidio Heights Association of Neighbors, for whom I am speaking, has not met to take an official position on any one Congressional bill nor voted whether it desires to have the Department of the Interior take title to certain Presidio lands. An obvious majority of our group, however, support the broad concept of a Golden Gate National Recreation Area. We specifiIcally want the open areas of the Presidio, especially those spaces west and east of Julius Kahn Playground, placed in a situation which will hold them perpetually for park and recreation use. We recognize the value of the Army to San Francisco and wish it to remain; but the headlands and beaches of the Presidio need official protection from the whims of some transient general or the Corps of Engineers.

The undeveloped areas of the Presidio which are easily accessible to the civilian population must be permanently free of the threat of ANY development. We leave the method to you, at this moment. We trust you will recognize the importance of preserving this unique wilderness, unique in that it is immediately adjacent to a crowded urban scene. If it were to be left out of the plan for preservation, it would become the target for all development.

In closing, I should like to quote a simple little sentence from the new Urban Design Study of the San Francisco Planning Department which is deep in meaning: "Creation of substantial new open space is both financially and physically difficult, and therefore existing open space has even greater public value as time goes by."

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for your attention and, we hope, support.

Mr. TAYLOR. Rebecca Evans, Sierra Club.
On deck, Mr. Block.

STATEMENT OF REBECCA EVANS, MEMBER, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, SAN FRANCISCO BAY CHAPTER, SIERRA CLUB

Miss EVANS. My name is Rebecca Evans. I am a member of the executive committee of the San Francisco Bay chapter, Sierra Club. We have 28,000 area members in four Bay area counties. Because of these members and because of our local concerns, we are concerned about their claims that the chapters and the board of directors have endorsed.

« AnteriorContinuar »