Neighborhood Services and Parks Committee
Tuesday, May 1, 2001
City Hall, Rm. 263
City and County of San Francisco
Neighborhood Services and Parks Committee
Tuesday, May 1, 2001
City Hall, Rm. 263
Members:
Supervisors Leland Yee, Tony Hall & Gerardo Sandoval
This hearing is to consider the National Park Service's closure of open space at Fort Funston, which has resulted in a reduction in land available for dogwalking and other recreational use by residents.
I called this hearing not so much that we can draw any conclusions at this particular time, but rather to get an update from the City Attorney as to her progress in dealing with the GGNRA. Let me provide some prefacing remarks.
The City and County of San Francisco at one time owned the property on Fort Funston, and through the generosity of the people of San Francisco, the City and County of San Francisco did in fact transfer that property over to the GGNRA, not only for its safekeeping, but for its continual use, recreational use, for all individuals. It is a tremendous disappointment and sadness on my part, and, I'm sure, of many other individuals, that the GGNRA have unilaterally taken action on these acres without the consultation nor the support of the City and County of San Francisco. As they are continuing to fence off certain properties, certain acreage out there, they are in essence denying the recreational use of these properties for many individuals, particularly residents of San Francisco. When the City and County of San Francisco conveyed the property over to the federal government, it was with the express intent that they would in fact keep it for recreational use. So, I think that with the lack of consultation and with the decreasing of recreational use of those particular properties, the Board of Supervisors -- they're extremely concerned about the eventuality of Fort Funston. As a result there have been a number of motions that have been passed by the full board. I think that in several resolutions, we have basically said to the GGNRA that, ‘if you are not going to honor the original intent of the conveyance of that property, then we will, in fact, seek appropriate measures and appropriate means of returning that property back to the City and County of San Francisco, to the people of San Francisco.
So, it is with that intent that the Board of Supervisors asked the City Attorney to begin the discussion with the GGNRA about those particular matters and what this hearing is about is to provide, I think, all of us, with some update as to where we're at. And so, with that, City Attorney, if you could simply talk to us about where you're at relative to the process, in your discussion with the GGNRA. Now, I do want to say that I know that you do not wish to reveal , I think, some of the discussions that are ongoing, and I don't want you to do that, but to the extent that you can at least apprise us as to where we're at in the process, I'd appreciate that.
I'd like to make just one remark before we hear from the City Attorney. I'd like to express my thanks to Supervisor Yee for carrying the ball on this issue. This is something that could have very easily gotten lost in the last couple of months of confusion, and the hysteria and emotion that seemed to arise with this issue. But the fact is that he did not let the thing die, and that's why we're having the hearing today, and I totally support your efforts on this and I appreciate it.
Thank you very much. Ms. Morley?
Good afternoon, supervisors; Mariam Morley from the City Attorney's office.
Supervisor Yee has asked the City Attorney's office to begin negotiations with the GGNRA, to discuss amending the 1975 agreement that the City entered with the National Park Service in contemplation of significant portions of City property being transferred to the federal government for inclusion in the GGNRA. And that agreement does require the National Park Service to consult with the City on planning issues. Supervisor Yee is asking us to negotiate an amendment to that agreement which would explicitly require that the GGNRA consult with the City on all planning issues, and that would include not just land use, planning, not just construction planning, but all the recreational use issues at the GGNRA, so that, before there are any changes in the way that land is used there, any construction there, or any changes to the recreational uses that could take place at the GGNRA, that they consult with the City and listen to our advice.
And, failure to achieve some amicable conclusion to that discussion, that the recourse that we do have is the reversionary clause within the agreement that transferred the land to the federal government?
We have advised the board that the deed does include a reversionary clause.
Do you want to just speak about that reversionary clause?
What it requires is that the land be used for "park or recreational purposes", and that, if it isn't, that the land revert to The City.
OK, all right. And, you're proceeding with the discussion with the federal government?
Yes. We have -- I have, talked to them by telephone, we have written to them, also, to apprise them of just what the City wants. We've sent them a copy of Supervisor Yee's request and discussed it with them, and on Thursday I will meet, along with Supervisor Yee's aide, with the counsel for the GGNRA about the legal issues, particularly about what they see are the legal issues involved and whether they see any legal impediments; we want to know what they think those are and we want to be able to evaluate them. And then, we plan to meet shortly thereafter with our clients, including the Superintendent of the GGNRA and City officials that wish to be present.
Do you have a sense of what your timeline of these discussions might be?
I have hope that we would have a clear idea by the end of May as to whether or not we're going to be able -- whether we're making progress, or whether we're not going to be able to reach agreement, and to report to you about what that progress is, or where we are at that point.
OK, all right. Thank you very, very much.
You're welcome.
Supervisor Hall.
If I may -- Has there been any history of non-consulting on behalf of the GGNRA; have there been problems with non-consulting in the past?
I don't think that the GGNRA sees its duty to consult in the same way that the City does, might be one issue here. As far as I know, there was no consultation with the City about the GGNRA's plans to close portions of Fort Funston and, as I'm sure you know, those closures have been very controversial.
In every one of our agreements, though, it's clearly delineated that they have a responsibility to consult with the City and County of San Francisco, am I wrong on that?
There really -- I only know about one agreement, which is their 1975 agreement, and that does set forth a duty to consult on planning issues and construction issues at Fort Funston.
And, recreational issues?
It doesn't state recreational issues, and the GGNRA has responded to a previous letter from the City Attorney's office and let us know that they don't see their -- I don't think – in that letter they let us know that they did not see their consultation obligations as being that broad.
I think that's one of the things I'd really emphasize in your negotiating with them and I think that that's written in there.
... It seems to me rather odd that if we are to convey property over to the federal government for recreational purposes, that if they somehow are going to contravene the purpose of that conveyance, or the basis of that conveyance, that they would not seek some type of consultation with the City and County of San Francisco for that purpose. For all I know, they may go and build a launch pad to the moon, and they probably wouldn't even think that that's a problem. That is a problem that I have with the federal government; you know, they want us to be good neighbors, but then yet, they don't want to then be good neighbors to us, and I think that it is that kind of arrogance on the part of the federal government that is a tremendous problem. This is not their land; it used to be our land, we gave it to them, in terms of trying to share that land for the future generation, and clearly it was for a recreational purpose.
We clearly understand what you've been saying about that agreement and what the amendment should entail... and we will make sure that we include that point.
All right. Thank you very, very much. Are there any public comments on this particular item? Those individuals who want to speak, please come up, and you have two minutes.
My name is Vicki Tiernan, and, first, I, perhaps I'm speaking for hundreds and probably thousands of citizens in saying how sincerely grateful we are to you, Supervisor Yee, for supporting us on this issue. I think you saw from the very beginning that it was about more than just dogs; it was about fairness, and it was about keeping agreements, as Supervisor Hall just referred.
I think reasonable people tend to assume that reason will prevail, and many of us are beginning to feel that we can no longer expect reasonable action on the part of the Park Service. This is not just an opinion -- if you read the court documents in the Fort Funston case, and they're available at Fort Funston Forum.com, they speak volumes of the lengths to which the Park Service went to exclude public comment on the closures. They had to be taken to court to even go into public comment, and when they allowed public comment there was overwhelming opposition to the closures, and they went ahead with the closures, anyway, without even a nod to compromise.
Further evidence of the Park Service's move away
from recreational uses is evidence, I think - excuse me, I'm not feeling very
well, I'm going to have to let other people speak and maybe I'll continue in
a moment. Thank you.
Renée Pittin. I'd like to speak to you about rights and promises, and start with a quote from the Colorado Attorney General's office, which said, "Governments do not give people rights. The people give government power in order to protect their pre-existing rights." Government loses its legitimacy when it fails to fulfill its obligations, and the GGNRA is not fulfilling its obligations to the people of San Francisco.
In 1973, they promised that the present use of the recreational area would be maintained. They broke that promise.
In 1995, they promised there would be no more fences. They broke that promise.
In 1995, they said there was no intent to eliminate off-leash dog walking. They broke that promise.
The GGNRA even promised to be a recreation area; it's in their name. And they're breaking that promise, too -- they call themselves Golden Gate Parks now, it's in their new signs.
The GGNRA is engaged in dissembling and deceit. The "Dogs on Leash" signs went up, and we're told, "Washington made us do it!" We're even told, "Oh, they weren't intended to go up yet, our maintenance people made a mistake."
We're not taken in by this; we're outraged. In fact, even the federal courts found that they had rammed through the closure of that ten acre area, or, perhaps 'bulldozing' would be the appropriate term, because the bulldozer is the tool of choice for the GGNRA.
I'd like to finally say that, in the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, it appears that the City -- our Supervisors -- are not even represented among the stakeholders. Supervisor Yee, who's been instrumental in demanding that the GGNRA be accountable for its actions, is not included as a stakeholder. Nor are any of our supervisors, who are in fact the people that represent us in this city.
If we are not vigilant, San Francisco and the Bay Area may find that we have lost our land, and all our rights in it.
Thank you. Anne Farrow, Co-Chair of San Francisco Dog Owners Group. In January, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a unanimous resolution, asking the National Park Service to delay action on twelve acres of land at Fort Funston that was to be closed, until they met with the City. Closure occurred without giving notice to the City, without any discussion with the City, and certainly not with any permission from the City.
At the January 23rd Golden Gate National Recreation Area Advisory Commission meeting, the Commission recommended to the Park Service, and the Park Service appeared to agree, that no changes in the off-leash policy would occur for at least 120 days, during which stakeholders would meet. To our knowledge, there have been no meetings which include the City, though both the dog groups and, we believe, the environmental groups, have met with the Park Service. Apparently, the Park Service has the City Park and Recreation Department on their list, though this really is a land use and a planning issue as much as a recreation issue (I believe that Renée alluded to that.) The City must be actively involved in this Advanced Notice of Public Rulemaking that is now being proposed. When the City voters agreed to turn over the recreational lands to the federal government, it was with the understanding that the City would be forever involved in the planning. We need to be sure that's followed through.
In early March and April, signs went up at both Fort Funston and Ocean Beach, saying that pets must be on a leash. The Park Service says there'll be no change in enforcement. It's contrary to the agreement that the Advisory Commission made with the City and with the 1200 people that were there that night. Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, my name is Roulhac Garn and this is my third appearance to say that I'm disgusted with the Park Service and the way they're treating the Board of Supervisors and the citizens of San Francisco, and I would encourage you to cut as short as possible the negotiation process with them, because they've lied to you just as they've lied to all of us. Thank you.
My name is Robin Buckley, and I'm a fourth-generation native San Franciscan, and I was here for the '75 Pet Policy, and I'm really upset about what they're doing to Fort Funston, they're ripping out all the vegetation that was there, that's been there for as long as I can remember, and they're putting in other things. You know, they're trying to say that it's a problem with dogs, and dog owners, and I'm really upset about this issue; I can hardly go out there anymore without getting my blood pressure up. I want to thank you, Mr. Yee, for everything that you've done for us, and I appreciate the supervisors, everything that they've done, but the federal government is walking all over us, they don't want to listen to the City, and I'm very proud to be a San Franciscan and I just hope we can do something about this.
My name is Anne Alden, and I'm a therapist and a clinical psychology doctoral student, and I want to speak against the closures.
It's a beautiful park, and it should be accessible to San Francisco citizens, and for years and years it's provided recreation that contributes to the psychological and physical health of people and their dogs.
Lastly, I just want to express gratitude that you've been so tenacious in bringing this issue forward and are continuing to do so. Thank you.
Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Ruth Gravanis, and I want to remind you, as I think you already know, that many organizations in San Francisco very strongly support the protection, enhancement, restoration of endangered, rare, sensitive species, and that many groups support the job that the GGNRA is doing at Fort Funston. They are not perfect; they've made a lot of mistakes, they have shown some arrogance, they should have consulted with the City -- but they were not required to do so. That agreement is very, very often misstated; it did not say 'any planning decisions at all' they had to consult -- any major construction, which does not include fences.
The City's own Master Plan, general plan, in the area that specifically deals with Fort Funston, makes it very clear that the first priority for Fort Funston is the protection of our natural resources. That's in our San Francisco Master Plan; we should be very pleased that the GGNRA is behaving in a way that is consistent with our Master Plan.
Also, the Sustainability Plan for San Francisco, which the Board of Supervisors adopted, calls for the protection, enhancement, restoration of the indigenous biodiversity in this city. The GGNRA's doing the best they can to carry out that mandate, as well.
The GGNRA's not perfect, but they are doing a good job. Stewardship, and protection of sensitive habitat, are considered park and recreational uses; there is no violation of the '75 agreement there, so I urge you to acknowledge the job the GGNRA is doing. Thank you.
I'd like to speak in favor of the GGNRA's actions to protect wildlife in the parks. I think that the job they're doing is difficult, especially with the … circumstance surrounding this issue. I think that they need to be worked with in the things they're trying to do, the plants they're trying to protect and restore, are beyond value, and that we should be proud that they're doing what they're doing. [Portions difficult to understand]
Good afternoon, Supervisors, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Richard Schulke and I am the previous chair of the Animal Control and Welfare Commission for the City and County of San Francisco. I have spoken on this issue for years now. However, I really still truly believe it's something that we can work out, all the stakeholders together, whether you represent dog-off-leash, environmental groups, whatever stakeholders, it really behooves us, if we want to keep this area, and keep it for all, that we have to find out a way to work it out together.
However, I would have to say, I have been consistently disappointed with the GGNRA's policy of not being a good neighbor to San Francisco. And I really, really, truly believe: they also have to want to participate in this process, and if they do not show a true, genuine willingness for all to sit down and find a way that we can work this out, then maybe it is perhaps time that we take that land back for San Francisco. I thank you.
Supervisors, I'm Arthur Feinstein, I'm the Executive Director of the Golden Gate Audubon Society, and we've been hearing today that the GGNRA activities have deprived us of recreational opportunities -- I'm here representing quite a few people who actually enjoy the recreational opportunities that GGNRA is providing. There are thousands of hours of volunteer work that have gone into the restoration of those plants there, which is a recreational opportunity. My members would be birding there, but many are uncomfortable because of the unleashed dogs and don't go there. Because of the closures, now there's another section of the community -- a large one -- not just birders, but the people who want to go out to the beach and have a pleasant time, and those of them who are not fearful of dogs on-leash, etc., who can't go there, who now can, 'cause after all, recreational opportunities include enjoying open spaces, enjoying the beauty of nature, enjoying the birds, that's a major recreational activity in the country; in fact, birdwatching is the fastest [sic] recreational activity in the nation.
So, what I, as previous speakers, none of us defends GGNRA's actions in the way they've done it -- the process. What they are doing is something that is good for the City, to provide these kinds of recreational opportunities that almost no other city enjoys, is a wonderful thing. And so, we urge you to look beyond the process and look at the end result and realize that what's happening at Fort Funston is really a wonderful thing for the City, with a revitalized habitat for wild things, that people can go and enjoy. It's really quite a benefit to us all. Thank you very much.
Thank you. I'm Will Anzenberger, Director of Law and Advocacy at the San Francisco SPCA; again want to commend Supervisor Yee for the hard work he has done on this issue. I think it is a help to separate the process from the result; the ends don't justify the means necessarily. I think that is part of the problem that we and other organizations have had, and hopefully the ANPR will satisfy that at some point, whether it's going to be public comment or is going to be a process by which, you know, a justifiable result will come. However, this process has had leakage, and that is the issue that you've been dealing with, is: people are on notice of what is going on -- all of a sudden, we're told one thing, and another occurs. And so, in the end, I think, until that occurs, I think we need to work towards some sort of idea that you're going to be more involved, or the Board of Supervisors is going to be more involved in this. I don't get the sense that they want you involved, and that has to change because just the very stakeholders that are currently on notice about the ANPR isn't enough, and so I thank you for your work on this behalf.
Hi, Supervisors, I'm Linda Hunter from the Neighborhood Parks Council. Many citizens in San Francisco consider walking a dog their recreation of choice. And, as someone at the Council who's been at the vortex of this, which may be the most contentious issue in our city's parks, and who's strived to find diplomatic solutions to accommodate dogs and their humans and other park users, I find it appalling that the National Park Service has shut off a major venue for recreational dog walking.
When these extensive areas are shut off to dogs, the impact on neighborhood parks is enormous, and I urge the Board of Supervisors to ask the National Park Service to reconsider their position on off-leash dogs at Fort Funston. Thank you.
Hi, I'm Denise Selleck, and I'm a fourth-generation San Franciscan, and a native Sunset District resident, so I'm very appreciative of all your help on this matter. I wanted to talk about a couple of different things.
One, putting in all the native plants, they're tearing out the beautiful ice plant, which is not native, but is very pretty, and the Army planted it for a reason. The reason is that sand blows. And I'm afraid that this is going to start impacting the City, as sand starts blowing over onto Lake Merced Boulevard as already we've had trouble with Great Highway, things like that. So that is a point for the City to consider.
And also, I want you to look into Ocean Beach. Everyone's talking about Fort Funston, which is very important, but the signs are now up at Ocean Beach, dogs should be on leash there, they say: I was involved back in 1996 when they put the whole Snowy Plover policy out. They took away off-leash privileges for two miles on the beach because of this bird, despite the fact that the dogs are only one part of the problem down there -- I think it was less than one percent -- kites, police motorcycles going on the beach, fires, homeless, all that's still going on there. So, I would really urge you to look at that Plover policy, and see if they've done a -- they were supposed to come up with an update, and I don't think they ever have. So please consider that, and thanks a lot for your help.
John Keating, I'm a Sunset resident, I want to again thank Leland Yee, and I also want to thank Tony Hall, for your actions in this, making sure that the people are protected. There are thousands of people out in the Sunset District who are passionate about keeping the recreational interest. I'm, in addition to being interested in dog issues, I'm a birdwatcher. I frequently go out to Fort Funston with my binoculars and enjoy watching the bank swallows, and the ravens and kestrels who are now feeding on the bank swallows.
What I want to point out to Mr. Feinstein, and I don't know if he's still here, I applaud the effort of the Audubon Society, but I don't believe that what they are doing has the hearts and minds of the majority of their membership, for the very reason that the Audubon Society is in the anomalous position of seeking to restrain an environmental impact statement. They don't want the planning process to go forward and the environmental analysis to be done. There is a question about whether the changes that are being made are actually damaging to the environment.
Mr. Feinstein said that birders can now go out to Fort Funston. Well, I'm a birder, I can't go out to those areas, nor the other bird areas, because they're completely fenced off. There's no new access at Fort Funston, because of the fences.
I want to say one point about the City Attorney's analysis. I understand that they're focusing on the contractual issues, and the reversion issue. There is also a federal administrative law remedy, which requires local government consultation in response to local government request, and I can give you that information also. Thank you.
I'm Leslie Kornblatt and I want to first say, thank you very much for standing behind the dogwalkers on this issue. As it has been said, a lot of pressure is being put on our local parks, there's a lot of dogs in this city, wanted, and, on the larger picture, unwanted, you have the SF SPCA and Animal Care and Control overridden with unwanted animals while budgets are still being cut for these programs. The City has traditionally been very, very animal-friendly in general, and we can't push it away or burn our candle from both sides: take away money from City programs that help sponsor adoption of unwanted animals, and then take away places for people who adopt them to run their dogs. Thank you.
Good afternoon, my name's Andrea O'Leary, and not so long ago, a six year old and I built a sand castle, but when a dog peed and stamped on it, he destroyed the adventure and the hope of a kid princess, who now says that the only place for a kid to have _________[sound system malfunction]. A lot of kids worry, a lot of them in my neighborhood worry, that they have to come up with solutions to this dog problem, because the dogs are having more fun than they are, and birds don't have a chance.
Let's dispel the notion that dogs will be swarming on neighborhood parks if this habitat is protected. They already have. Most, other than Fort Funston, they're already in our neighborhood parks. And many of us who do want to go to Fort Funston, hope to catch a moment of recreational tranquility, without assault by off-leash dogs, and a glimpse of wildness in its natural habitat. We have neither the money nor the expertise to maintain and sustain national parks and natural habitats for our future. We don’t; let's face it.
Instead of splitting hairs on what degree of destruction is acceptable on our beaches, help us to promote the intelligent, uniform, comprehensive, sustainable and enforceable policies where you do have jurisdiction: inland, and where we desperately need your wisdom to solve the more pressing dog and environmental problems in our neighborhood parks. We have been pitted, one neighbor against the other, for too long. Please, leave management of the federal properties to the federal government, and stop redefining recreation to exclude passive use and observation of nature as recreation. Thank you.
I promise to be very brief. My name is Bill Wilson, and I just had several questions that I wanted to ask, because it seems to me that, when we speak of arrogance, when we speak of building launching pads to space on the land, that we sort of, haven't done really, the leadership kind of things that we need, to take the emotionalism out of this. My question merely is: where are we going to come up with the money to maintain the parks that are now maintained by the City, if we add Fort Funston and the Golden Gate Recreational Area, to that burden?
If we had in the budgets, excess for the last few years, then maybe we could talk about expanding it. But I don't think those excesses in the budgets have been there, so my only question is: before we throw the baby out with the bath water, maybe we need to take this time and step back and say, "What is important" Recreation does not just mean walking dogs, and I think that we need to know that that land is protected not for what we want to do with it today, but what we want to with it generations from now, so that my grandchildren's grandchildren will have a place to go -- and that's: where is the money going to come from, and how are we going to achieve that. Thank you.
Thank you. With my last thirty seconds, what I was trying to say is that I think that the Park Service's moving away from recreational needs is evidenced in the fact that they have consistently made statements to the press recently, using the term, "Golden Gate National Parks". The official name of the area is "Golden Gate National Recreation Area," and I think that speaks volumes.
And the posting of the leash signs, which was apparently
done without consultation with anyone, has caused immense outrage and distrust
within the community. Advisory Commission member Doug Nadeau said that it's
"a huge slap in the face" to the dog community. It's a huge slap in
the face to the San Francisco community. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Hearing no other public comment, public comment is closed, and what I'd like to do is to have this item continued. Madam City Attorney, you indicated that you'll probably have some indication of the status of your discussion in the end of May? All right, Madam Clerk, why don't we continue this item to the meeting at the end of May -- what date might that be?
Supervisor, our next meeting would be the 15th of May. The following one would be in June, would be the first Tuesday in June, June 5th.
Then why don't we continue this item to June 5th. All right? Thank you very, very much. Thank you all for your presence here.
Transcribed by Vicki Tiernan & Michael B. Goldstein
April 30, 2001
Mike Doane
1786 36th Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94122
Supervisor Leland Yee
City Hall, Rm. 244
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: Fort Funston
Dear Supervisor Yee:
As a long time resident of District 4, I would like to commend you for standing by the Fort Funston Dog Walkers Association (FFDWA) and supporting dog owners in our fight against the dictatorial style of the National Park Service (NPS).
At the January 23rd NPS public hearing, the NPS promised the citizens of San Francisco, you and your colleagues that no action would be taken for 120 days and engage in constructive dialog with the city of San Francisco. Just recently, new deceptive “on-leash” signs were put up throughout the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), including Fort Funston. The NPS past and recent actions clearly show that they cannot be trusted. They are liars!
My family and I are very angry and outraged. We have been responsible and peaceful at all demonstrations. We believe in non-violence but it is getting increasingly difficult to hold back. The NPS has alienated the people they are suppose to serve and are forcing environmentally conscious, peaceful citizens to become radicals.
I cannot attend tomorrow’s Fort Funston hearing at City Hall but would like this letter to represent my views. My family, our dog, and I thank you again for your time and continued unwavering support.
Sincerely,
Mike Doane
lucys_ticks@msn.com