ITED STATES OF AMERICA

JUN 17 '40

PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS-No. 6

WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 1940

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS,

Washington, D. C. (The committee met, at 10:30 a. m., pursuant to notice, Hon. Eugene B. Crowe, presiding, for consideration of H. R. 9063, which is as follows:)

[H. R. 9063, 76th Cong., 3d sess.]

A BILL Authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer certain property in San Francisco, California, to the city and county of San Francisco for street purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to transfer to the city and county of San Francisco, California, all the right, title, and interest of the United States in and to that portion of the Mint property in the city of San Francisco which is now used for street purposes, particularly described as follows:

Commencing at a point on the northwesterly line of Mission Street, distant thereon two hundred and seventy-five feet southwesterly from the southwesterly line of Fifth Street, and running thence at right angles northwesterly two hundred and seventy-five feet; thence at right angles northeasterly two hundred and seventy-five feet to a point on the southwesterly line of Fifth Street, distant thereon two hundred and seventy-five feet northwesterly from the northwesterly line of Mission Street; thence at right angles southeasterly, along said southwesterly line of Fifth Street, fifty-four feet; thence at right angles southwesterly two hundred and fifteen feet; thence at right angles southeasterly two hundred and twenty-one feet to the northwesterly line of Mission Street; thence at right angles southwesterly, along said northwesterly line, sixty feet to the point of commencement; being a portion of 100 Vara Block 380.

Mr. CROWE. Unless there is objection, we will proceed to the consideration of H. R. 9063, which is introduced by Congressman, Havenner. We will now have a statement from Mr. Havenner.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANCK R. HAVENNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. HAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, the old United States mint in San Francisco is about to be abandoned and disposed of by the Government. The Government has built a new building in San Francisco which has been in occupancy for several years, and the old building has been temporarily used as a storage place for silver. Pending the completion of a new appraisers' building, which is expected to be authorized in the next deficiency appropriation bill, it will probably be used for a year or so to house temporarily Government agencies which will be moved out of the old appraisers' building. After that it is expected that the Government will dispose of the property.

For many years the city of San Francisco has used as a public street a portion of the property owned by the Government, part of the old mint site, on two sides of the mint building. We will say this is

235750-40

1

the building here, this square [indicating]. This side of the building is used as a street, and this side of the building is used as a street, both connected with regularly dedicated streets on the surrounding block. On this corner here [indicating] is the principal downtown fire house of San Francisco, known as the mint fire station. These two pieces of property have been used as a public street for many years, and there are located on them a number of business establishments. So, when the city of San Francisco was informed that the Government intended to dispose of this property, it made application the the Government to quit-claim the property-give the city a deed to it—so that this property could be used permanently for public street purposes.

I went down to the public buildings administration with the city attorney of San Francisco about a couple of months ago, and was informed by the officials there that they believed this property could be deed to San Francisco under existing law without any special legislation. Proceeding on that theory, and on that information, the board of supervisors, which is the legislative body of San Francisco, made formal application to the commissioner of public buildings to deed this property.

Subsequently the commissioner determined that the Government could not deed the property under existing law, and I believe that he has advised this committee of that fact and stated in his report on my bill that the Department had no objection to the enactment of the legislation, and in fact was willing to deed this property to the city and county of San Francisco.

Mr. CROWE. You have read this bill. I will read it for the record. [Reading:]

H. R. 9063, a bill authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer certain property in San Francisco, California, to the city and county of San Francisco for street purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to transfer to the city and county of San Francisco, California, all the right, title, and interest of the United States in and to that portion of the Mint property in the city of San Francisco which is now used for street purposes, particularly described as follows:

Commencing at a point on the northwesterly line of Mission Street, distant thereon two hundred and seventy-five feet southwesterly from the southwesterly line of Fifth Street, and running thence at right angles northwesterly two hundred and seventy-five feet; thence at right angles northeasterly two hundred and seventy-five feet to a point on the sout westerly line of Fifth Street, distant thereon two hundred and seventy-five feet northwesterly from the northwesterly line of Mission Street; thence at right angles southeasterly, along said southwesterly line of Fifth Street, fifty-four feet; thence at right angles southeasterly two hundred and twenty-one feet to the northwesterly line of Mission Street; thence at right angles southwesterly, along said northwesterly line, sixty feet to the point of commencement; being a portion of 100 Vara Block 380.

Now we have here a report from the Federal Works Agency, which I will read:

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your communication of March 26, 1940, enclosing copy of H. R. 9063, entitled "A bill authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer certain property in San Francisco, California, to the city and county of San Francisco for street purposes," and requesting the views of this Agency with respect thereto.

The proposed legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer to the city and county of San Francisco, Calif., all the right, title, and interest of the United States in and to that portion of the Government Mint property in the city of San Francisco, Calif., which is now used for street purposes, particularly described as follows:

"Commencing at a point on the northwesterly line of Mission Street, distant thereon two hundred and seventy-five feet southwesterly from the southwesterly line of Fifth Street, and running thence at right angles northwesterly two hundred and seventy-five feet; thence at right angles northeasterly two hundred and seventy-five feet to a point on the southwesterly line of Fifth Street, distant thereon two hundred and seventy-five feet northwesterly from the northwesterly line of Mission Street; thence at right angles southeasterly, along said southwesterly line of Fifth Street, fifty-four feet; thence at right angles southwesterly two hundred and fifteen feet; thence at right angles southeasterly two hundred and twenty-one feet to the northwesterly line of Mission Street; thence at right angles southwesterly, along said northwesterly line, sixty feet to the point of commencement; being a portion of 100 Vara Block 380.'

The records of this Agency disclose that the original San Francisco Mint site was acquired from Eugene and Margaret A. Kelly, by deed dated January 31, 1867, with dimensions of 275 feet in length and 275 feet in width. It further appears that a part of the said mint property, which is now being sought by the city and county of San Francisco, has been used, maintained, and kept in repair by the said city and county as a public street formerly known and designated as Mint Avenue, and now called, in part, Mint Street, and, in part, Jessie Street. On July 1, 1873, the Government permitted owners of property adjoining the mint lot to front their buildings to the mint upon the condition that they lay suitable curbing and sidewalks.

This permission was to terminate at the Government's election. On September 6, 1913, the Government revoked this permit and granted a revocable license to the city of San Francisco to use, for street purposes only, that portion of the mint property now involved and which was then known as Mint Avenue. With the exception of a revocable license dated February 2, 1925, to the board of fire commissioners to reduce to a 6-foot depth the sidewalk opposite the fire station located on the westerly side of Mint Avenue, for a distance of 45 feet 3 inches along the easterly side of Mint Avenue opposite the fire station, the property has been used, maintained, and kept in repair by the city and county of San Francisco as a public street under the original revocable license dated September 6, 1913.

The Government has now abandoned the use of the said property as a mint and is about to sell or otherwise dispose of the same. On or about May 1, 1940,the Department of Public Works for the city and county of San Francisco made application to this agency for the deeding of the property, formerly known as Mint Avenue, to the city and county of San Francisco for the general use of the public for street purposes. In view of the fact that the involved property has been used for several years by the city and county of San Francisco for street purposes and apparently does not compose a part of "any duly authorized, comprehensive street-widening program," it is believed that the said application of the department of public works for the said city and county does not come within the purview of the act of August 26, 1935 (U. S. C., title 40, sec. 345b), as amended. Accordingly, this Agency is disposed to favor the passage of the proposed legislation.

However, in view of the Reorganization Plan No. I, under the Reorganization Act of 1939, it is suggested that the proposed bill be amended so as to authorize and direct the Administrator of the Federal Works Agency to make the transfer to the city and county of San Francisco. Since the bill is not definite as to the mode of conveyance, it is also suggested that it be amended to provide for a transfer by quitclaim deed. The description of the property contained in the proposed bill has been checked with a plat of the property, approved January 20, 1936, submitted by the Department of Public Works for the city and county of San Francisco, and is found to be consistent with the plat with the exception that the description contained in the bill states that the property is a portion of "100 Vara Block 380," whereas on the said plat it is indicated that the property is or constitutes a part of "100 Vara Lot No. 198." The records of this Agency show that the latter designation conforms to that contained in the original deed of conveyance.

There is attached hereto a list of all pertinent papers transmitted herewith. This Agency has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report to your committee.

Sincerely,

ALAN JOHNSTONE,
General Counsel.

The letter is directed to the Honorable Fritz G. Lanham, chairman, Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, House of Representatives.

In the caption of the bill following the words "Authorizing the”, strike out the words "Secretary of the Treasury" and insert in lieu thereof the following: "Administrator of the Federal Works Agency." That, I suppose, Mr. Havenner, is because of the change in the reorganization?

Mr. HAVENNER. Yes; because of the reorganization.

Mr. CROWE. Administrator of the Federal Works Agency?
Mr. HAVENNER. Yes.

Mr. CROWE. Then on page 1, line 3, after the words "That the", strike out the words "Secretary of the Treasury" and insert in lieu thereof the following, "Administrator of the Federal Works Agency." Mr. HAVENNER. Yes.

Mr. CROWE. On page 1, line 5, after the word "California", insert the following, "by the usual quitclaim deed.”

Mr. HAVENNER. Yes.

Mr. CROWE. On page 2, line 14, after the word "Vara", strike out the word "block" and the numerals "380" and insert in lieu thereof the word "lot" and the numerals "198". I suppose that is a correction, is it not, Mr. Havenner?

Mr. HAVENNER. They apparently think that the official description sent here by the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco was in error. I see that right here. This is the ordinance adopted in San Francisco, and they used this formal language. It is merely a matter of technical description. I will wire out there and try to get the accurate information immediately, and if your committee sees fit to recommend the passage of this bill, I have no doubt we could amend it on the floor if this original language is correct. I suggest that you adopt the amendments recommended by the Federal Works Agency, and if there is an error in that I will find out officially from San Francisco. Mr. CROWE. Then reamend it on the floor if this Agency is in error?

Mr. HAVENNER. Yes.

Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Chairman, I move that we adopt the amendments as recommended by the Federal Works Agency as read by the chairman.

Mr. KILBURN. I second the motion.

Mr. CROWE. Is there anything to be said on the motion? Mr. Smith got in a little late. If there are any questions you want to ask about it we shall be glad to answer them.

Mr. McGREGOR. It is simply a matter of clarification as recommended by the Federal Works Agency.

Mr. KILBURN. The attorney for the Federal Works Agency and the attorney for San Francisco have passed on it.

Mr. HAVENNER. Yes.

Mrs. MCMILLAN. But it has to be in the bill.

Mr. KILBURN. Yes; but if both of those attorneys approved the description that would be the description.

The CHAIRMAN. We have to follow them. I think we will be perfectly safe in accepting these amendments.

Mr. HAVENNER. I think so.

Mrs. MCMILLAN. Which description would you put in the last line on page 2, the one written in the bill as read?

Mr. CROWE. It should read, "being a portion of 100 Vara lot 198." You change the word "block" to "lot" and "380" to "198."