Fort Point

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Fort Point National Historic Site Golden Gate National Recreation Area Abbreviated Fort Point Historic Structure Report Abbreviated Fort Point Historic Structure Report Fort Point National Historic Site Golden Gate National Recreation Area Fort Mason, Building 201 San Francisco, California Produced by the Cultural Resources & Museum Management Division Golden Gate National Recreation Area National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, DC September 2006 Front cover photo: A view of Fort Point, circa 1869. Credit: Fort Point NHS Collection, Golden Gate National Recreation Area. inside front page photo: View of Fort Point, circa 1869. Credit: National Archives, Record Group 77 Back cover photo: This photo, dated 1910, shows the Fort Point lighthouse keeper’s residences located at the south of the fort. Credit: Fort Point NHS Collection, Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Contents Introduction ............................................................................................... 8 Developmental History ........................................................................... 14 Fort Point: Sentry at Golden Gate ............................................. 14 Chronology of Fort Point Development & Use ......................... 28 1776-1852: Castillo de San Joaquin ................................... 28 1853-1860: Initial Construction ........................................ 30 1861-1868: The Civil War & the First Garrison.................... 35 1868-1906: Dire Straights ................................................. 37 1907-1930: Detention Barracks WWI, Army Use ............... 45 1931-1940: Golden Gate Bridge Construction .................. 49 1941-1945: World War II ................................................... 54 1946-1970: The Move Toward Preservation: Establishment of the Fort Point Museum Association .............................. 55 1970-1998: National Park Service Stewardship................... 57 Physical Description .................................................................... 74 Conditions Assessment and Material Investigations .............. 100 Treatment & Work Recommendations ................................................. 122 Evaluation of Restoration Work to Date ................................ 122 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards ........................................124 Requirement for Treatments & Use (Outline) ..........................125 Treatment Recommendations (Outline) ...................................125 Bibliography ........................................................................................... 126 Glossary .................................................................................................. 130 Appendices A: Floor Plans..................................................................... 133 Appendices B: List of Fort Point Documents ........................................151 Appendices C: Supplemental Record of Work Performed ................. 152 Left: Photo of Fort Point during winter of 2000. Photo circa 2000. Credit: Su Chu-Way, Golden Gate National Recreation Area. 7 Fort Point Historic Structures Report Introduction Fort Point became part of the National Park Service in 1970 and has been administered by Golden Gate National Recreation Area since that park was created in 1972. Since then, the National Park Service has conducted significant research on the Fort in order make the best building rehabilitation decisions. This Abbreviated Fort Point Historic Structure Report is a synthesis of most of the research conducted to-date and makes references to other related reports and studies. The appendices also contain floor plans and a list of Fort Point documents. However, this Abbreviated Fort Point Historic Structure Report does not contain a completed Treatment Recommendations section that is one of the critical components of a standard historic structure report; hence the title “Abbreviated” Fort Point Historic Structure Report. The historic preservation consultants Carey & Co. wrote an outline for this section which provides guidance for future work. It is the National Park Service’s hope that the treatment recommendations work will be conducted by a historical architect in the near future. Preparation At Carey & Co. (460 Bush Street, San Francisco, CA 415-773-0773), individuals included Alice Carey, Principal; Nancy Goldenberg, Project Manager; and Heidi Stosick. American War, and World War II. The fort is now recognized as one of the best-preserved “Third System” forts in the United States. Originally built to protect the entrance to San Francisco Bay during the Gold Rush, Fort Point was garrisoned throughout the Civil War in anticipation of enemy attack either by Confederate naval forces or by Confederate insurgents living in California. In 1863, the U.S. Lighthouse Board erected a hexagonal iron lighthouse on the fort’s roof (“barbette”) to mark the southern boundary of the harbor entrance. San Francisco was never attacked, and Fort Point never saw battle, and three years after the war ended the army withdrew the garrison and began removing the obsolete cannon. The fort entered a period of underutilization for several decades, during which it was used sporadically as barracks, classroom site, warehouse and automotive workshop. Newer gun batteries constructed of earth and concrete were erected on the hillsides overlooking the fort, and in 1882 the Army formally named the masonry fort and its exterior batteries “Fort Winfield Scott.” In the 1930s, the fort was initially scheduled for demolition to make way for the Golden Gate Bridge, but instead was saved by the bridge’s chief engineer who recognized its unique historic and architectural values. At Architectural Resources Group (Pier 9, The Embarcadero, San Francisco, CA 415-421-1680), During construction of the Golden Gate Bridge, individuals included Davis Wessel, Principal; “old Fort Point” as it had come to be known held Glenn David Mathews, Project Architect; Ricarda office spaces, workshops, a cafeteria, and other conCepeda, Project Manager & Historic Preserva- struction-related activities. Following the outbreak tion Specialist; and Christina Wallace, Technical of World War II, the fort once again became a key Editing. element in the Harbor Defenses of San Francisco when the Coast Artillery erected a battery of rapidAt the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, National Park Service (Bldg 201, Fort Mason, San fire guns on the barbette tier as protection against Francisco, CA 415-561-4700), individuals included Japanese attack. In 1959, a group of retired military Jane Lehman, Historical Architect; Kristin Baron, officers and civilian engineers formed the Fort Point Architectural Historian; Paul Scolari, Historian; Museum Association to lobby for its preservation as Theresa Griggs, Fort Point Supervisor; Maureen a Historic Site. That effort culminated on October Rogers, Park Ranger; Susan Ewing Haley, Park 16, 1970 with the creation of Fort Point National Archivist; Mary Gentry, Archivist Technician, Historic Site. George Su, Media Specialist; and John Martini, The building’s official name and number is Fort Curator of Military History. Point National Historic Site, Presidio of San Francisco Building #999. Executive Summary Fort Point in the Presidio of San Francisco is a Relevant Documents National Register property that contributes to The following is a list of research conducted on Fort the Presidio of San Francisco National Historic Point. All of the following documents are included in Landmark. The fort and the surrounding 29 acres the Abbreviated Fort Point Historic Structure Report today comprise Fort Point National Historic Site, except for the 1973 Historic Data Section. a unit of the National Park Service. 1973: Historic Data Section, Fort Point Left: Contemporary view of Fort Point interior. Photo circa 2000. Credit: Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy. Fort Point is a classic brick and granite 19th-century American coastal fort, and the only one of its style constructed west of the Mississippi River. The fort and its exterior batteries were key elements of the harbor defenses of San Francisco during the American Civil War, the Spanish Historic Structure Report; National Park Service In 1973, the National Park Service wrote the Historic Data Section for the Fort Point HSR. This report, written by Edwin C. Bearss, focused mainly on the initial construction for the Fort. The report does not contain an Architectural Data Section, National Park Service 8 which would have graphically outlined the developmental history of the fort, or analyzed existing conditions, and made any recommendations for treatment. While this document is valuable, it is focused largely on the minute details of the construction process and represents only a small part of what comprises of a whole HSR. The Bearss document is referenced but not included in the Abbreviated Fort Point Historic Structure Report. Currently, the 1973 Historic Data Section is not in public circulation, but the hope is that the document will be available on the Golden Gate National Recreation Area’s website in the near future. 1991: Fort Point; Sentry at the Golden Gate; John Martini In 1991, John Martini wrote Fort Point; Sentry at the Golden Gate for the Golden Gate National Park Association. This booklet was designed to introduce visitors to Fort Point and provides useful historical background. The document has been adapted for the Abbreviated Fort Point Historic Structure Report and used as the narrative part of the Developmental History. 1997: Outline Historic Structures Report; Carey & Co. In October of 1997, the National Park Service contracted with Carey & Co. to create an Outline Historic Structure Report to update the existing 1973 Fort Point HSR. The goal of this Outline Historic Structure Report was to serve as a design for completing a full Historic Structure Report. Their document featured an in-depth “Chronology of Development and Use”, as well as an assessment of restoration work to-date and an examination of the Fort for physical evidences of change. The “Chronology of Development and Use” listed projects by date in chronological order. For ease of use, Carey & Co. organized the material into chapters by historical period. These periods are for the most part defined by major events or changes in use or management that resulted in physical alterations to the fort. • 1776-1852: Castillo de San Joaquin • 1853-1861: Initial Construction • 1862-1868: The Civil War and the First Garrison • 1868-1906: Dire Straights • 1907-1930: Detention Barracks, WWI, Army Use • 1931-1940: Golden Gate Bridge Construction • 1941-1945: WWII • 1946-1970: The Move Toward Preservation: Establishment of the Fort Point Museum Association • 1971-1998: National Park Service Stewardship 9 Fort Point Historic Structures Report The “Chronology of Development and Use”, focusing on the construction history of the fort, chronicles the history of Fort Point from the first Spanish fort through the present. Measured drawings and a glossary were also prepared as part of this contract. Carey & Co. updated the 1973 HSR with post-1973 building projects. They also added relevant material from local archives that were probably not available when the earlier document was prepared and placed everything into a clear, easy-to-use format. Carey & Co. conducted research at several local repositories containing primary research materials. Their research is referenced in the annotated bibliography at the end of this document. Research was conducted at the following archives: • The Park Archives and Records Center of Golden Gate National Recreation Area. • The Pacific Sierra Branch of the National Archives Administration (San Bruno). • The San Francisco History Room of the San Francisco Public Library. • The Fort Point National Historic Site Administrative Office. • The J. Porter Shaw Library of the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park. • The California Historical Society. Carey & Co. also interviewed the following individuals who had long-term familiarity with the Fort: John Martini, former Curator of Military History, Golden Gate; Maureen Rogers, Park Ranger, Golden Gate; Ric Borjes, former Historical Architect and Chief, Branch of Cultural Resources, Golden Gate; Charles Schultheis, former Maintenance Buildings and Utilities, Golden Gate; Rich Weideman, former South District Chief Interpretive Ranger, Golden Gate. January 2005: Conditions Assessment and Materials Investigation; Architectural Resources Group (ARG) The purpose of the Architectural Resources Group investigation was to evaluate the nature, cause and extent of water intrusion and general material deterioration in areas excluded from recent rehabilitation projects. The recommendations included in their report are guidelines for the repair of the most critically deteriorated materials and areas; they are not construction documents. These are recommendations that may be incorporated into preventative maintenance and general housekeeping plans for Fort Point. Statement of Significance engineers constructed more than thirty brick and Fort Point has stood guard at the narrows of the masonry forts in the Third System style between Golden Gate for nearly 150 years. It has been 1820 and 1870, but of this number only Fort Point called “the pride of the Pacific,” “the Gibraltar was built in the West. More importantly, the fort of the West Coast,” and “one of the most perfect represents the culmination of the Third System models of masonry in America.” When construc- designs and incorporates design features pertion began during the height of the California fected over the preceding decades. Because Fort gold rush, Fort Point was planned as the most Point never saw battle, and because it was never formidable deterrence America could offer to extensively rebuilt like so many other forts, it a naval attack on California. Although its guns remains virtually unchanged from its Civil War never fired a shot in anger, the “Fort at Fort Point” appearance. Also, due to the mild San Francisco as it was originally named has witnessed Civil climate, the fort has been spared the destructive War, obsolescence, earthquake, bridge construc- forces of hurricanes and “freeze-thaw” cycles tion, reuse for World War II, and preservation as that have reduced many other forts to near ruins. a National Historic Site. Historians recognize Fort Point as one of the bestFort Point was built between 1853 and 1861 by the preserved Third System forts in the country. U.S. Army Engineers as part of a defense system of forts planned for the protection of San Francisco Bay. Designed at the height of the gold rush, the fort and its companion fortifications would protect the Bay’s important commercial and military installations against foreign attack. The fort was built in the Army’s traditional “Third System” style of military architecture (a standard adopted in the 1820s), and would be the only fortification of this impressive design constructed west of the Mississippi River. This fact bears testimony to the importance the military gave San Francisco and the gold fields during the 1850s. Although the fort never saw battle, it has tremendous significance due to its military history, its architecture, and its association with maritime history. Fort Point has significance under National Register Criteria A and C for its association with the Civil War and World War II; construction of the Golden Gate Bridge; maritime history; and its important architectural features. The fort meets Criterion A, “the broad patterns of our history,” for its role in military history as a defensive fortification that was continually manned during the American Civil War. Its hasty completion on the eve of the war and its armed presence throughout the Civil War reflect the importance given by the government to protecting San Francisco and its important harbor. The fort has further military significance due to its important associations with World War II when the army gave the old structure a renewed defensive role as the site of anti-torpedo boat defenses mounted on the fort’s roof to against possible Japanese attack. The fort also has significance under this criterion due to its association with the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge in the 1930s, an undertaking of overwhelming engineering and sociological importance during the Great Depression. Finally, the fort’s lighthouse gives it association with the patterns of maritime history in the United States for its role guiding ships through the hazardous Golden Gate straits. Fort Point meets Criterion C, “distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction” because of its architectural style and construction techniques. The United States Army Civil War Period, 1861-1868 Fort Point was originally designed to serve as one of a trio of forts located on San Francisco Bay under a plan devised by the U.S. Army Engineers in 1850 at the height of the California Gold Rush. (The other two forts were to be located on Alcatraz Island and Lime Point. Alcatraz was eventually fortified, albeit in a radically different style from Fort Point, but the Lime Point fort was never built.) Work began on Fort Point in 1853 and continued through the outbreak of Civil War in early 1861. Planned to mount 141 cannon in its interior and exterior batteries, Fort Point was the ultimate expression of an American “Third System” fortification, so-named because it was part of the third system of permanent fortifications constructed by the young United States. The original threat for which the fort was built was a possible attack by Great Britain, which maintained a large naval base in British Columbia. However, when war came to California the threat would come from within our nation, not from a foreign power, and Fort Point was rushed to completion at the start of the American Civil War. Troops were actually ordered into the fort before its cannon were even mounted to make sure that local Confederate supporters did not seize the empty fort. When the soldiers did begin installing the guns shortly afterwards, they positioned many weapons to face south to defend against possible land attack rather against a naval assault. Throughout the war, Union artillerymen garrisoned the fort and readied its dozens of smoothbore cannon in anticipation of enemy attack—either by Confederate warships or by Confederate insurgents living in California. At its height of readiness in 1865, Fort Point mounted 55 cannon ranging in size from 24-lb. howitzers up through 10-inch caliber Columbian cannon. More than 500 enlisted men, officers, and civilians lived within the fort’s casemated living quarter rooms or in nearby wooden barracks. Beginning in 1855, a temporary wooden lighthouse had been built on the seawall adjacent to the fort to mark the southern boundary of the harbor entrance. In 1864, a hexagonal iron lighthouse was erected on the fort’s roof (“barbette”) that stood clear of the fort’s cannon. The tower’s FresnelNational Park Service 10 pattern lens was eventually augmented by a fog bell hung from the fort’s exterior wall. Manned by civilian keepers who lived on the hillside south of the fort, the Fort Point Light Station would lead countless ships through the Golden Gate straits for the next 70 years. southern anchorage. The second tier gun rooms served as a cafeteria for bridge workers, and the fort was soon enveloped in a maze of wooden scaffolding as the huge steel arch was erected over the barbette tier. Although the main casemated portion of Fort The fort’s career as an active harbor defense post Point was spared during construction, some of lasted only seven years. Battles waged during the outworks of the fort had to be demolished the Civil War demonstrated the vulnerability of to make way for the southern bridge anchorage, masonry forts such as Fort Point to long-range including a small counterscarp gallery that had artillery attack. Instead of providing robust protected the fort’s southern face and a sepadefense against enemy bombardment, their thick rate ten-gun battery located on the hill south of masonry walls had actually proven to offer scant the fort. The Fort Point Lighthouse was also to resistance to modern rifled artillery fire. (Fort become a victim of the bridge. By late 1934 the Pulaski in Georgia fell to rifled artillery fire in bridge’s rising steelwork and concrete caissons 30 hours.) Military planners feared that in this had obscured the light’s beam. It was replaced new era of warfare, Fort Point’s towering walls that year with new light at the base of the bridge’s would only provide attractive targets to an attack- south tower. ing enemy. Following the war, Fort Point entered The Golden Gate Bridge’s grand dedication took a period of decline until its troops were totally place in May of 1937. For the next few years the withdrawn in 1868. Next came a decades-long fort was nearly forgotten, overshadowed by the period of intermittent abandonment and reuse soaring new steel bridge overhead. that lasted until the 1930s. During this period World War II, 1942-1945 the fort sporadically served as a barracks, artilThe outbreak of World War II brought a massive lery training site, temporary quarters for military increase in military activity around the Bay. Ironifamilies, a school for motor vehicles mechanics, cally, in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, old Fort and even a never-completed military prison. Point would once again become a key element in Golden Gate Bridge Construction, 1933-1937 the Harbor Defenses of San Francisco. In the 1920s, plans were developed to construct In response to the fear that Japanese submarines a breath-taking new bridge that would span the might try to enter the harbor, the Navy strung a straits of the Golden Gate. Designed to connect steel net across the Golden Gate in early 1942. the City of San Francisco with the sparsely-popuDefense of this net became the responsibility of lated rural counties to the north, voters hoped its the U.S. Army. To help both protect this net and presence would spur commercial development to guard against a possible attack by swift motornorth of the Gate. The new bridge would be an torpedo boats, the Army removed four 3-inch engineering achievement in many ways, but most caliber Anti-Motor Torpedo Boat (AMTB) guns impressively, it would be the longest single-span from Fort Baker in Marin County and remounted suspension bridge in the world when completed. them on the barbette tier of Fort Point. Named When work actually began in 1933, at the depths “Battery Point” in honor of the fort, two of the of the Great Depression, the bridge’s construcguns were positioned facing west to protect the tion would also represent a leap of faith in the mine fields outside the Golden Gate while the economic future of America. other two guns faced into the Bay to defend the But there was a problem with the planned Golden anti-submarine net. Gate Bridge: Fort Point stood precisely where the In addition to the AMTB guns, the fort’s barsouthern anchorage of the new bridge was to be conbette also mounted a 60-inch searchlight used for structed. The fort, it seemed, would have to go. illuminating targets at night, and a pair of range Before construction began, though, Chief Engi- finding stations used in aiming the big coastal neer Joseph Strauss toured the empty fort and guns mounted at the Presidio. changed his mind – and also his design. In a 1937 The AMTB guns were manned by about 100 solmemorandum to the bridge’s Board of Directors, diers from Battery N of the 6th U.S. Coast ArtilStrauss wrote: “While the old fort has no military lery Regiment, who took up residence in the value now, it remains nevertheless a fine exambarracks rooms originally built for Civil War-era ple of the mason’s art. Many urged the razing of troops. Stationed several thousand miles from the this venerable structure to make way for modern major theaters of combat, the men spent their days progress. In the writer’s view it should be prein a routine of drills, artillery practice, inspecserved and restored as a national monument…” tions, sentry duty, and maintenance chores. The Consequently, Strauss designed a steel arch in lower levels of the fort were soon refurbished the southern anchorage to span the old fort. Fort for a variety of war-time uses: barracks spaces, Point would be overshadowed by the new bridge, administrative offices, a mess hall, recreation but it would be preserved. room, barber shop and even a post exchange for Work on the Golden Gate Bridge lasted from 1933 the new garrison. The first-floor rooms provided to 1937. Fort Point’s casemates made convenient storage space for camouflage materials used by work space for the hundreds of workers and Harbor Defense troops in disguising nearby gun artisans who soon swarmed around the bridge’s emplacements. 11 Fort Point Historic Structures Report By late 1944, however, the threat of Japanese attack had disappeared and the Fort Point troops were removed. Once again, the future of the fort was uncertain. Preservation of the Fort Following World War II, a movement took hold to protect and preserve Fort Point. This movement crystallized in 1959 when a group of retired military officers and civilian engineers banded together to form the Fort Point Museum Association. Operating with the blessing of the U.S. Army, the Association spent the next eleven years raising funds for the preservation of the fort and lobbying for its creation as a National Historic Site. In 1968, local congressmen introduced bills calling for the creation of Fort Point National Historic Site. Both bills passed the House and Senate. On October 16, 1970, the bill in its final form was signed into law by President Richard Nixon. Today, Fort Point National Historic Site is open to the public and administered by Golden Gate National Recreation Area, National Park Service. Fort Point stands today beneath the soaring Golden Gate Bridge as a monument to more than two centuries of military presence on San Francisco Bay. The fort also bears silent and eloquent testimony to the craftsmanship of the U.S. Army engineers who designed it and the stonemasons, carpenters, brick layers, mule skinners, and laborers who erected it. National Park Service 12 13 Fort Point Historic Structures Report Above: Contemporary view of Fort Point, circa 2000. Credit: Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy. Left: Contemporary view of Fort Point interior. Photo circa 2000. Credit: Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy. Developmental History Fort Point: Sentry at Golden Gate by John Martini Early History: 1776–1846 The site of Fort Point was originally a high prom- the San Francisco shore. They called themselves ontory known to 18th-century Spanish colonizers “Bear Flaggers” after their flag of revolution, and as “Punta del Cantil Blanco”- White Cliff Point. their goal was the liberation of California from Located at the narrowest part of the only entrance Mexican control. to San Francisco Bay, the point was an obvious Nosing their launch into a sheltered cove below location for a fort to keep out enemy ships. In 1794 the fort, the raiders scrambled up the hundredthe Spanish erected a tiny adobe gun battery atop foot hillside, swarmed into the crumbling Castillo Cantil Blanco as defense against possible British and spiked the cannon mounted within its walls. and Russian aggression. Christened “Castillo de The only tarnish on the victory was that the CasSan Joaquin,” the little fort and its handful of tillo had not been garrisoned for a dozen years. century-old bronze and iron guns soon fell victim “In the absence of a garrison with no powder,” to the harsh San Francisco climate. Adobe walls wrote one caustic historian, “it is not surprising melted in the rain, and lack of repair funds from that not one of the ten cannon offered the slightfar-off Madrid led to eventual ruin of the Castillo. est resistance.” Shortly after Mexico gained its independence United States military forces were shortly in confrom Spain in 1821, the fort was abandoned to trol of California. The growing American poputhe elements. lation gave local landmarks new names, and the The only invasion in San Francisco’s history old Castillo soon became known as “Fort Blanco.” occurred at the Castillo in 1846 during the short- The point upon which it sat was simply nicknamed lived “Bear Flag Revolt.” Early in the morning “Fort Point.” It was a name that would stick. of July 1, a rough-hewn group of Yankees, led by John Charles Fremont and Kit Carson began the long pull across the Bay from Sausalito to the ancient Spanish fort “Castillo de San Joaquin” on National Park Service 14 This view show the fort’s lighthouse and the lighthouse keepers residences located at the top of the hill, south of the fort. Photo circa 1910. Credit: Fort Point NHS Collection, Golden Gate National Recreation Area. A Fort to Guard the Golden Gate: 1848 - 1868 The California Gold Rush of 1848 took the United States by surprise. Not only was the wealth of the gold fields nearly incalculable, but ship traffic into San Francisco increased dramatically. Only a few ships a year had previously visited the port, but during 1849 alone, 770 vessels entered the Golden Gate. Commerce was booming, and docks, a Navy yard and other strategic harbor installations were under construction. The military suddenly found itself responsible for protecting the most valuable prize in North America: San Francisco Bay. backed up by smaller batteries on Angel Island, Yerba Buena Island, and Point San Jose on the northern San Francisco waterfront. Any ship making it through the crossfire at the Golden Gate would thus have to run a gauntlet of additional gun batteries no matter which course it chose through the Bay. Board members were very insistent that work begin immediately at Fort Point, where “the first work for the defense of the passage should be placed, and nothing should be allowed to interfere with bringing this battery as rapidly as possible to a state of efficiency.” They specified the fort should be “as powerful in its fire on the water as...the largest of our fortifications on the Atlantic,” and recommended mounting over 100 cannon of the largest caliber available. While the U.S. Army quickly realized that permanent defenses were needed, it would take time to plan and build major fortifications, or “works;’ to protect the Bay. The harbor needed immediate security, so in March 1849, six modern artillery pieces were temporarily mounted inside the remains of the old Castillo de San Joaquin. The The style of fort proposed by the engineers was a following year, a joint Army-Navy board con- massive, multi-storied masonry structure containvened to make recommendations for defending ing scores of smoothbore cannon. The guns would the entire Pacific coast. Their report, released be mounted both in enclosed “casemates” and on November 1, 1850, focused on San Francisco in open “barbette” batteries atop the fort’s roof. Bay and the Golden Gate channels as the keys to Within its five to seven foot thick walls would defense of the new state. The board recommended also be quarters for the officers and soldiers, store the construction of two major forts, one on either rooms, powder magazines, and enough water and shore of the Golden Gate’s straits formed by Fort provisions to withstand a six-month siege. Point and Lime Point. The proposed forts would provide a devastating crossfire where the channel Before work could begin on construction of measured little more than a mile wide, focusing the fort, the remains of the old Castillo and the the effect of several hundred cannon upon any heights of