Page images

Besides the power plants now available, the city has under construction the Hetch Hetchy project, with a 60,000 horsepower plant, 140 miles distant, which can in the future be ultimately, as demand and expediency require, extended to 200,000 horsepower. It is estimated that ultimately over 5,000,000 hydroelectric horsepower can be economically developed from the streams in the northern half of California.


The present needs of the city are 52,000,000 gallons daily, of which 10,000,000 can be obtained from wells and 42,000,000 gallons from a private company, the Spring Valley Water Co., which supplies the city. The water company has been for three years building a dam 200 feet high on Calaveras Creek, which it claims will increase the present supply from this source 30,000,000 gallons daily. This structure will be completed next year. It is now built to a height of 130 feet, and has been actively prosecuted, so that inside of a year it will be finished.

The city has issued bonds for $45,000,000 to build a municipal water supply, the Hetch Hetchy project, in addition About $2,000,000 of this has already been expended in purchasing lands and rights of way, and $2,000,000 in building a construction railway 68 miles long, and other preliminaries necessary to actually prosecute the work. That railway line runs from the easterly edge of the San Joaquin Valley into the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The first installation of 60,000,000 gallons daily will be brought into the city inside of seven years, and the source and water rights are capable of developing ultimately 400,000,000 gallons daily, and some of the main conduits are now designed of that capacity. Where we are making tunnels we construct them of a size to carry the ultimate capacity, but where we are making pipe lines we use a smaller diameter, so as not to invest too prematurely a large capital investment. So our first pipe lines will be of 60,000,000 gallons capacity, but the project in its entirety will be capable of supplying 4,000,000 people with an adequate supply of water.

The present supply is not objectionably hard, having only 100° of hardness, compared with 20° for the future Sierra waters.

While two years' reserve supply is maintained in the storage reservoirs of the present company, about 20 miles distant from the city, a large distributing reservoir, the University Mount, with 37,000,000 gallons daily capacity, is one 24 miles distant from the present Hunters Point docks, and at comparatively small expense a large pipe could be connected up inside of three months with that property. That reservoir is 163 feet above sea level.

The city's project contemplates another large reservoir in the vicinity of University Mount. It would be practical, without building expensive steel tanks, to find land at proper altitudes in the vicinity in the future for adequate distributing reservoirs. Supposing you should acquire some of the upland and some of the foreshore, it would be possible to get adequate sites, so as to furnish an adequate fire protection, and also for domestic uses for all activities inside the yard.

In addition to these two sources of water supply the city has invested $6,000,000 in building 72 miles of high pressure (300 pounds to the inch) fire-fighting system inside the congested section of the city. And over and beyond the two 5,000,000 gallon gravity supply reservoirs at 758 feet in elevation at Twin Peaks, there are two independent pumping stations at Fort Mason and at Second and Townsend Streets, always under steam to pump salt water in case of emergency into this system. It is conceded to be the best system built anywhere, as the pipe is extremely thick, well laid, and has an entire leakage of only 65,000 gallons daily in the entire distance, which is less than one-tenth of that of the city of New York, which has 140 miles of similar system. :

Mr. Dwyer stated that Californians are not prone to exaggerate. We are not, but modestly claim that this is one of the best systems in the world for a fire-fighting system. Both of the pumping stations are on bed rock, in different sections of the city, and so we will not only be able to take care of earthquake calamities, but also of enemy or other calamities.

The dry docks and marine railways are shown on the accompanying maps.

Mr. Dwyer and the real estate board representatives touched somewhat on the railway and switching conditions in the northern part of the city. This line here [indicating upon the map] shows the main line of the Southern Pacific Co. to San Jose, and this other line shows the main line of the Santa Fe and Southern Pacific, a joint switching line, right in near the northerly portion of Hunters Point and Islais Creek Channel. And it would be very easy to lay a switch from those lines right out to the point, as they are very near at hand. In addition to those two railways another transcontinental system, the Western Pacific, has its terminals here and the Ocean

cents per

Shore Line, which hoops up and down along the shore for 46 miles, also has a switching connection. So that practically four railways are under the control of this location.

I have prepared for you, gentlemen, five exhibits, which contain in a more detailed manner descriptions of the topography, currents, anchorages, power and light, fuel, dry docks, floating docks, marine railways, and water supply. The exhibits contain also charts showing part of the Coast Survey chart in this vicinity, dock statistics, showing the cost of docks in all parts of the world, furnished to me by Mr. Holmes, water-supply system, detail sources of water supply, our proposed Hetch Hetchy water supply, and detailed railway, road, and improvement map of the Hunters Point section. They are all in full form, and I suppose you would like to have them delivered down at your quarters?

Admiral HELM. If you please; yes.

Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY. Personally, as an engineer, I have no hesitancy in saving that I believe this is the safest and best point for a naval base and dry dock. I thank you.

Admiral ROUSSEAU. Does that digest give the cost per thousand gallons of water at present?

Mr. ()'SHAUGHNESSY. No; it does not, but I can add that to it.

Admiral ROUSSEAU. I just wanted to know how much the Government is paying at present in the city for water.

Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY. Our average cost in San Francisco is about 21 thousand gallons. In Oakland, I believe, it is about 34 cents or 32 cents.

Admiral ROUSSEAU. Is that cost liable to be reduced any in San Francisco? Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY. It is liable to be diminished under our Hetch Hetchy grant, which we obtained from the Government in the Yosemite National Park. We are compelled to give the Government water at actual cost, and I think the Government charge for a large consumer will be possibly 12 or 15 cents. I think perhaps some of the railways and large consumers get prices of that kind.

Admiral ROUSSEAU. As a matter of city development, has the city any special interest or preference in regard to locating the portion of a naval base either north or south of Hunters Point, for the governmental use that you are speaking of?


Admiral ROUSSEAU. Assuming that only one side will be necessary—that it could be located either to the north or the south?

Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY. As a matter of city development, the city would prefer you to take the south side, because our commerce is pretty well cramped now, and we have a great part of our frontage already used, and if you take the north side it would put a gash in our development, whereas if you take the south side, it would be just as available for your purposes and you will have more room to develop your plans than on the north side. But, of course, if you should wish, you could take the north side or the south side, we will accept it with a great deal of satisfaction, though we would prefer to answer your question, that you take the south side.

Commander Hussey. From your observation as city engineer, which is the better protected side from the storms and weather?

Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY. I should say the south side.
Commander HUSSEY. What is the direction of the storms?

Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY. Our heaviest storms are the southeasters, but the wave fetch is not very heavy in the bay section, but, of course, with a larger body of water at the southeast, the wave fetch would be slightly larger from the southeast than from the northerly section. But sometimes we get a pretty stiff norther. I would say that that point of view there would hardly be a choice. Sometimes we get a stiff norther, but out heaviest storms are from the southeast.

Mr. DWYER. I think the city of San Francisco would insure the United States Government against damage by storm at about one-millionth of 1 per cent. There is no such thing as storms in San Francisco Bay.

Admiral HELM. Thak you very much.

Supervisor KORTICK. With your permission, Admiral Helm, I would now like to introduce to you. Mr. Howard C. Holmes, an engineer of the dry dock company at Hunters Point, who is to point out to you something of the advantage of that point. Mr. Holmes designed the dock that is now building at Hunters Point.



Mr. Chairman, and members of the commission, about a year and a half ago I made a report on a proposed improvement of the land belonging to the South San Francisco Dock Co., which is adjacent to the dry dock that is now being constructed at Hunters Point, as has been indicated to you, although the report was made before I became connected with this last contract, and I think if I read to you excerpts from that report, it would cover the discussion which has been assigned to me in this matter. I want to say in that connection, however, before I read to you (as I noticed what the city engineer said about the fault lines) that in regard to Dock No. 2, at Hunters Point, which was designed and built by me some 15 years ago, as follows: The day after the great earthquake a ship was docked at the Hunters Point Dry Dock No. 2, and the chimney is there to-day, the original chimney, about the only one of that height in San Francisco remaining from before the earthquake.

As to the map which I have just placed before you gentlemen, that which is colored green represents the property of the South San Francisco Dock Co.

This report is dated June 1, 1915, addressed to Mr. A. Schilling and others, San Francisco, Calif., and I read from it.

In suggesting the improvements to the property belonging to the South San Francisco Dock Co., adjacent to Hunters Point on the Bay of San Francisco, I have taken mostly into consideration its value in connection with the local and foreign shipping industries, and in the proposed development I have treated the whole proposition as a Government or corporation water terminal and shipyard with its various accesories.

The ideal available locations (for future development on the water front) on the San Francisco side of the bay, are undoubtedly south of the present passenger ferry

his is the unanimous opinion of seafaring and shipping men) for the reasons thāt, unlike the available water front at the North End, the shipping in this location is amply protected from the usual northwest summer winds and ocean ground swells; it is in closer proximity to the various railroad freight terminals; out of the fairway of the numerous and ever increasing passenger ferry and river boats, likewise the coastwise craft; and has a level haul from, and is nearer to the wholesale districts that handle the larger volume and heavier commodities.

The most valuable assests of any water-front property are their susceptibility of being easily developed for shipping purposes and their adaptability for bringing ship and car together.

And, by the way, these are the fairways of the various ferry steamers, and you see Hunters Point is entirely away from these.

The locality known as Hunters Point is without doubt recognized by all engineers conversant with the requirements of graving docks as the only one on the shores of San Francisco Bay that meets these requirements in every detail.

As an illustration: Dock No. 2 of the Union Iron Works Co. (which was designed and built by the writer) costs less and was built in a shorter space of time than any other known graving dock, is located at that point and the reasons for said economy of time and money are, first, the rock in this vicinity, which is green serpentine, is close to and at the surface. It forms an ideal foundation and is friable, easy to work, and when sealed with a veneer of concrete, is impervious to water.

I will say that for both of these docks it is merely a veneer of 15 inches of concrete over the rock, which is a green serpentine nonwater-bearing rock.

The mouth or entrance to the dock has fully 40 feet, and the wharf approaches on either side have from 50 to 60 feet of water at the mean low tide, and the constant scour of the tidal currents obviates the necessity of excessive dredging to maintain

In reviewing the property owned by the South San Francisco Dock Co., found that the longer frontage just south of the point had no direct access to the bay except over the intervening land belonging to others—and now I will put this map here for demonstrating purposes and as the commercial value of this land is dependent on its water frontage, I have suggested an open waterway, or wet dock, some 400 feet wide between the apron wharves and some 6,000 feet long, with a depth of 35 feet at mean low water.

I have also for like reasons treated the portion of the property north of the point proper and adjacent to India Basin in the same manner, making a wet dock in this location some 350 feet in width and 2,600 feet long.

The balance of the property I have utilized for graving docks, shipways, freight ferry slip, and their accessories.

After preparing sketches along these lines I have made water and land surveys sufficient to satisfy myself that these schemes were possible, i. e., whether the material at the wet-dock location was such that sufficient water could be obtained by dredging at a normal cost and at the location of the graving dock and shipways a proper foundation could be obtained at any reasonable depth. In other words, I was looking for rock or solid bottom at the dry dock and shipway sites and was avoiding it for ship channel or wet docks, with the following results:

At the site of both wet docks I found that 35 feet at mean low water was obtainable with an ordinary commercial dredger, either of the suction or clamshell type.

this depth.


In the case of the three proposed dry docks, I found that with a dock of sufficient depth to handle a vessel drawing 40 feet of water. I could obtain a bottom consisting either of hard pan, gravel, or rock, which would afford ample foundation for said dock without the use of piling, which piling (aside from the cost) is undesirable. One of the particular advantages of this location is the fact that it is unnecessary to use piling. Out of 18 graving docks belonging to the United States Navy, 13 have a pile foundation.

The cost of Dock No. 2 of the Union Iron Works (hereinbefore mentioned, which was built without piles) was less than half a million dollars, while Dock No. 2 at Mare Island Navy Yard (having exactly the same dimensions, but with a pile foundation) cost in excess of $1,600,000, and the latter took three times as long to build as the former.

These proposed improvements (as shown on the accompanying sketches) involve either the purchase-that, however, has no connection with this subject.

My scheme as a whole contemplates the following suggestions:

First, the construction of two wet docks, or blind channels-one to the south of Hunters Point proper, the other to the north thereof, respectively, 400 feet in width and 6,000 feet long, and 350 feet wide and 2,600 feet long, with a depth of 35 feet below mean low water--each having apron wharves and loose riprap rock retaining walls, collectively giving berth room for 26 vessels of the dimensions of the larger steamers of the Pacific Mail Steamship Co. (these said steamers being the largest that enter the port at the present time). This said berth room is equivalent to the facilities of from 10 to 13 of the longest piers at present constructed by the harbor commissioners on the water front.

It also contemplates the construction of three graving docks, each of different capacity to accommodate any vessel, steamer, battleship, or cruiser built or contemplated, each dock being larger than any at present constructed and equivalent to any anticipated by the United States Government; the building of a freight car ferry slip for the transfer of cars, and designed for the common use of all the various car floats and transfer barges belonging to the different railroad companies having freight terminal on the shores of the bay; the construction of shipbuilding ways with a capacity for constructing the largest craft, together with all the appurtenances of these latter structures, such as power houses, foundries, machine shops, moulding lofts, etc., and also rail connections with the various steam and electric railways with yard and sidetracks.

And I want to say, in connection with freight terminals, that two of the transconti. nental railroad lines land their freight and passengers by means of ferry terminals

. It is only of recent years that the Southern Pacific has come in directly to the peninsula by way of Dumbarton. . Consequently I maintain that a freight ferry slip could be established here, and then if you had a carload of freight coming from the East, instead of bringing it down to any of the State ferry slips and bringing it over the Belt Railroad and then out here to Hunters Point, necessitating an extra expense, you could bring your car by means of a local ferry slip to this point, and as transportation by water would be much cheaper than by rail there would be a saving. In other words, you would have two strings to your bow-you could either land it here by water or the other way. Ninety per cent of the exhibits brought to the Panama-Pacific Exposition were brought by car ferry, and this should be of great advantage.

Then I go on in the report to refer to maps which were furnished, and then there is the matter of cost data, which I do not think enters into it now. I think that is about the gist of it. But if you will indicate how many copies you would like of this report I will be glad to see that they are furnished you.

Admiral HELM. One for each.

Mr. Holmes. I will furnish you with them. This map which I now show you is more for the layman than for the engineer. In this diagram you will see a ship something like 70 or 80 feet beam and 400 or 500 feet long, and here is a ship entering, with one docked on either side. This shows the shipbuilding ways and also the graving docks. Over at this point is the power house. "Here are shown the various rail connections. This plan here shows two caissons to each dock, which I do not advocate myself, but my clients wanted it; these docks are about the size of the dock we are building at Hunters Point, which is 1,020 feet long, 150 feet wide at top, and 110 feet wide on the bottom, and has 40 feet of water over the sill at mean high water, accommodating any vessel that can pass through the locks of the Panama Canal.

I think that is all, gentlemen, except that I represent the people who own this property, and I will state also, as Mr. Buckbee has said, that there will be no hold-up on the property, the price will be satisfactory.

Admiral ROUSSEAU. No steps have been taken to carry out your plans at the present?

Mr. HOLMES. No. This was just merely suggestive as to how they should improve the property. But we are completing a dock at Hunters Point now.

[ocr errors]

Mr. DWYER. We would like to lay before the commission for its consideration a copy of the laws of the State affecting the harbor of San Francisco, and of the rules and regulations of the Board of State Harbor Commissioners, and also the last biennial report of the harbor commission, showing general harbor activities and projects and diagrams of the harbor. I have them in convenient form, and I will see that they are left at your hotel for your use.

Admiral HELM. Thank you very much.

Supervisor KORTICK. With your permission, Admiral Helm, as the last speaker on the nal program, I will present to you Mr. Robert Newton Lynch, vice president of the Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco.



Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, the field seems to have been so thoroughly covered by those who have preceded me that there is little that I can add. I want to state that the Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco has been and is cooperating with the

board of supervisors, and are thoroughly in accord with the views here expressed, that Hunters Point is the favorable site for the Pacific coast naval base.

I had the privilege of meeting informally with the commission in Washington, and I took occasion then to put before them the desirability of locating the naval base for the coast at San Francisco, and we have already filed with the commission a great deal of data that we have collected. We have also undertaken to answer any concrete questions on which the commission desires information in regard to Hunters Point or any other site on San Francisco Bay. There have been some industrial maps filed which may be of interest, and the questions that have been asked of us indicate that you are interested in the entire industrial situation in San Francisco. We have been making an industrial survey of the city proper, and, fortunately, that is just about completed. We have made very large and extensive maps of our entire industrial area, and they will be presented to you, and anything further that will be of advantage we will be glad to see that you have.

I took occasion while in Washington to assure the commission that the interest of commercial San Francisco was supremely and entirely in the question of the defense of the entire Pacific coast, and we would not care to intrude any purely selfish local interest in such a large and commanding question. And that is entirely our attitude. It seems to me that this hearing has presented the subject in all of its bearings to the commission and is an evidence to you of the entire cooperation of all interests in San Francisco in this matter.


(Submitted to Joint Congressional Committee on Naval Base by Civic League of Improvement Clubs and

Associations of San Francisco, November, 1920.] Referring to the attached report of the commercial development committee of the Central Bureau of San Francisco Organizations relating to the economic conditions which must be considered in selecting a site for a naval base (the same economic conditions apply to industry generally unless the peculiar character of the industry controls), the principal factors creating the economic condition are:

1. San Francisco (port) wharves and water front: (Natural deep water on the San Francisco_side of the bay is the compelling factor.),

2. San Francisco railroad terminal, which includes all of the territory within the boundary as depicted on Map IV (a), throughout which terminal a uniform charge for switching local carload traffic must prevail, and (b) throughout which terminal the same inbound and outbound freight rates apply.

These factors, (a) and (b), create the terminal, and are a guaranty against discrimination within the industrial district, precisely the same as a uniform street car fare guarantees nondiscrimination throughout a city, thus giving equal opportunity for development throughout the confines of the terminal or city, which encourages and fosters development.

3. Labor supply: San Francisco attracts surplus labor for the same reason that it attracts commerce--because of greater opportunity. Labor is approximately 25 per cent more efficient per year in San Francisco than in the East. (Actual statistics of industry with factories throughout the United States.)

« PreviousContinue »