August 7, 2000
| Tom Ammiano Board of Supervisors 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102 |
Gavin Newsom Board of Supervisors 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102 |
| Gerald Green Planning Department 1660 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94103 |
Mabel Teng Board of Supervisors 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102 |
| Anita Theoharis Planning Commission 45 Pizarro Way San Francisco, CA 94112 |
Leland Yee Board of Supervisors 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102 |
| Mark Leno Board of Supervisors 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102 |
Re: Fort Funston Closures
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am writing to advise you that the City and County of San Francisco has a direct interest in the current controversy at Fort Funston. This interest arises out of (1) an Agreement dated April 29, 1975 between the City and County of San Francisco and the United States of America, (2) the San Francisco Charter, and (3) the deed transferring Fort Funston and other City parks from San Francisco to the United States. The City and County's direct interest in this controversy compels your intervention immediately, including pursuing the City's reversionary interest in Fort Funston.
Facts Surrounding Current Controversy
Briefly, the National Park Service closed a large portion of Fort Funston in 1995 to remove all or most of the existing plant life, plant "native" vegetation, and develop wildlife habitat. No prior notice was given and no public input was solicited prior to this closure. Park users objected strenuously to no avail. In response, Brian O'Neill, the General Superintendent of Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), and the District Ranger assured park users that there would be no further closures.
In March 2000, contrary to the 1995 assurances, the Park Service closed another very popular part of Fort Funston, again to change the vegetation and develop wildlife habitat. Combined with the 1995 closures, more than 20 percent of Fort Funston has been closed to park users. A group of park users filed a lawsuit in federal court to challenge the new closure. I represent these park users.
In a preliminary ruling, the federal judge concluded that the Park Service probably violated a federal regulation by not soliciting public input prior to the March closure. The Park Service now has published this closure in the Federal Register and is soliciting public comment until September 18, 2000.
Park users contend, among other things, that the closures are in direct contravention of the aforementioned Agreement between San Francisco and the United States, San Francisco's Charter, and the deed transferring Fort Funston to the United States. A brief history of the transfer of certain San Francisco City parks explains our position. Supporting documents are attached.
History of Transfer of City Parks to National Park Service
San Francisco acquired Fort Funston in 1962 to satisfy partially an extreme need for open recreational space. In a document entitled, "The Proposal to Acquire Fort Funston As a Recreation Area (FF0543-FF0546), it was noted that San Francisco had about one-half of the minimum open space recommended by the National Recreation Association.
This dire need for open recreation space also was recognized by Congress when GGNRA was created in 1972. The first mandate in the statute which created GGNRA (16 USC 460bb) was that GGNRA "provide for maintenance of needed recreational open space."
The legislative history (House Report 92-1391) noted that the population density of San Francisco was 16,500 per square mile, compared with 5,000 per square mile for Los Angeles. The House Report provided, "While it is some comfort and compensation to live in a city as interesting, clean, and attractive as San Francisco, it must be noted that the opportunities for outdoor recreation in broad open spaces are severely limited." The new legislation "will not add significantly to the open lands in the city, but it will ensure its continuity as open space for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations of city dwellers (emphasis added)."
Joe Alioto was Mayor of San Francisco when GGNRA was created. Although he was enthusiastic about a national recreation area, he was concerned about giving up control of Fort Funston and other City parks. Mayor Alioto's concern was noted in a letter to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors in which he stated, "I believe strongly that the City must clearly state its desire to retain control over City park properties."
The City's concern over losing control over its parks was incorporated into an agreement entered into on April 29, 1975 between the City and County of San Francisco and the United States. (FF0666-FF0670) (A letter from the General Superintendent of GGNRA to the General Manager of the Recreation and Parks Department described the Agreement as "a fundamental guide for our future relations." That Agreement at paragraph 2 requires the General Superintendent of GGNRA to "notify and consult with the Department of City Planning" on all proposed construction plans or "substantial alteration of the natural environment" of the parks transferred. (FF0667)
The City's concern that its City parks be maintained and operated as open recreational areas was reflected in section 7.403.1 of the City Charter. (FF0645-FF0646) Section 7.403.1 authorized the transfer of certain City parks, including Fort Funston, to the National Park Service. The deeds, however, were to contain the restriction that these parks Abe reserved by the National Park Service . . . in perpetuity for recreation or park purposes with a right of reversion upon breach of said restriction." In conformance with the City Charter, the deed transferring Fort Funston and other City parks to the United States contains the following reversionary clause:
To hold only so long as said real property is reserved and used for recreation or park purposes . . . . (FF0690)
Argument
We believe that the closures in 1995 and 2000 violate the April 29, 1975 Agreement, Section 7.403.1 of the City Charter, and the deed transferring Fort Funston and other City parks. More than 20 percent of Fort Funston is now off-limits to the public. Plant life on this closed land has been or is being completed transformed in an effort to develop wildlife habitat. Surely, this is a substantial alteration of the natural environment at Fort Funston. Although the Park Service contends that these closures are necessary to protect bank swallows, the amount of land closed is not necessary for bank swallow protection and the bank swallows have vacated completely the cliffs along the lands closed in 1995.
We also believe that closure of a large portion of Fort Funston to develop wildlife habitat is not a "recreation or park purpose." The need for open recreational space has only increased with the ever-increasing population of San Francisco and the Bay Area since 1972. The recreational needs of the increased population cannot be met when more than 20 percent of the park is being closed.
Conclusion
Early in this controversy, park users requested the intervention of City officials. We have received no assistance. The Park Service has abandoned its 1975 Agreement with the City. The restrictions in the deed and Charter have been violated. City officials now must get involved. If you fail to do so, residents of San Francisco will continue to lose the use of this valuable park which was entrusted to the federal government by the City and County of San Francisco.
Your immediate attention this matter is appreciated. Please call me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Lydia Boesch
Enclosures (6)
To
First Section of Fort Funston Forum