1977-03-01 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY - - - MARCH 1, 1977
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President Corica presiding. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Councilman Hurwitz and was followed by an Invocation delivered by the
Reverend Albert Larsen, Assistant Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church.
ROLL CALL:
The roll was called and Councilmen Beckam, Diament, Hurwitz, Sherratt and President Corica,
(5), were noted present. Absent: None.
MINUTES:
1. The minutes of the special meeting of the Board of Equalization held February 1, 1977, and
the regular meeting held February 15, 1977, were approved as submitted.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
2. From the Alameda County Admission Day Celebration Committee requesting an appropriation of
$100 or more, to assist in meeting costs of the official celebration of Admission Day.
The request was referred to the City Manager for review and consideration as part of the 1977-78
budget.
3. From Mrs. R.E. Nisewaner, 1048 Marianas Lane, concerning improvement of the waterfront
area adjoining the bridge near Peach Street.
President Corica reported the City had already purchased property immediately adjacent to the
westerly side of the Bay Farm Island Bridge as it connected to the main island of Alameda. He
stated it was planned to use this property as a bicycle staging area which would reserve this
area for recreational use, and to preserve the area as open space.
4. From Mrs. Dorothy C. Allen, 1020 Pacific Avenue, regarding the need for emergency housing
to be provided under the HCDA application for 1977-78.
President Corica noted the HCDA application had been discussed at the previous meeting and was
now being processed.
City Manager Goss stated that if the applicants submitted a successful proposal, there was a
possibility the program could be funded under CETA Title VI funds this year. He reported the
deadline within which to submit applications under that funding source had been held open for
community based organizations, however the application should be submitted within one week.
Councilman Sherratt suggested the applicants be advised tpursue this alternate source of funding,
and if this was not successful, that they reapply under next year's HCDA application.
Councilman Hurwitz asked if funding would be available under the Hotel and Motel tax. The City
Manager replied these funds were very limited.
5. From Ms. Susan Pellegrino, 1017 Ordway, Albany, concerning the demolition of the Alameda
High School buflding.
Councilman Hurwitz asked that a copy of the letter be forwarded to the Board of Education.
6. Petition signed by 123 residents requesting relief from the traffic conditions on streets
bounding Franklin Park.
President Corica reported the petitioners were concerned about traffic accidents which had occurred
in the area, and the safety of children crossing the streets to and from the park. He suggested
the matter be referred to the Traffic Advisory Review Committee for evaluation and report.
Mrs. Honora Murphy, 1421 San Antonio Avenue, spoke on behalf of the petitioners. She called
attention to the traffic hazard existing there San Jose Avenue and Morton street converged in a
curve, property damage suffered by residents in the immediate area caused by vehicle mishaps,
speeding cars, and the youthful pedestrian traffic to and from Franklin Park and Franklin School.
She asked that consideration be given to closing the two streets by barricade between the park
and the school during the school day; a stop sign be placed at the corner of Morton Street and
San Antonio Avenue; and that the problem of persons using the park during the late night hours
be addressed. She was supported in her statement by comments from the following persons: Mrs.
Beverly Druley, 1009 Morton Street; Mr. Lloyd Albright, 1812 Lincoln Avenue; Mr. Michael Martin
1412 San Jose Avenue, and Mr. Howard Caswell, 1424 San Jose Avenue.
Councilman Sherratt stated it was his understanding there was a curfew of 10:00 p.m. in all city
parks unless organized activities were taking place under supervision. He suggested the Police
and Recreation Departments meet with the petitioner % or their representative, to discuss the
concerns which had been expressed.
President Corica directed the petition be forwarded to the Traffic Advisory Committee for evaluation
and report as quicRly as possible.
2,98
7. From Mrs. R.E. Stone, 1623 High Street, requesting permission to address the City Council
on the subject of the Fernside Extension and Measure "E".
A verbatim transcript of Mrs. Stone's presentation and comments made by Mrs. Cheryl Farris,
Messrs. Joseph M. Sullivan and Paul Miesner and Councilm members is on file in the
official records of the City Clerk's office. This transcript is incorporated herein and made a
part hereof by reference.
HEARINGS:
8. In the Matter of the proposal to amend the Alameda Municipal Code by amending Sections
11-14B4(b)(3)(4) and 11-1489(a), and adding Section 12-2513, relating to the abatement and
removal of non-conforming signs.
The Clerk reported the Affidavit of Publication of the required Notice of Hearing was on file,
and noted two separate ordinances had been prepared for consideration,
President Corica explained the procedure to be followed and called upon the Planning Director
for an explanation of the action taken by the Planning Board.
Mr. Patterson reported the Planning Board, at its meeting held February 28, 1977, had
considered the ordinance amendments He stated that during the hearing there were many areas
of apparent misunderstanding between the city and the Chamber of Commerce. Given this area of
misunderstanding, the Board decided to forward to the City Council the amendments with no action
taken, due to the area of misunderstanding and insufficient time profided to fully investigate
the matter.
City Attorney Stroud noted that at the present time there were no regulations in the Code
pertaining to the area of signs, therefore he proposed adding Section 12-2513 and amending
Section 14B9(a), both related to construction standards. He reported that after a meeting with
representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, during which disagreement had been expressed over
a previously proposed one square foot to the linear foot approach, permitting a 25 square foot
sign to use 50 square feet of the total area permitted, the Chamber had withdrawn its support.
He stated that if the Council did not wish to adopt an ordinate at this time without the Chamber's
approval, he would recommend the first draft be adopted, changing the 25 square feet figure to
50 square feet, following which the Planning Board could restudy the one square foot to one
linear foot matter. He stated this would permit the construction of a projecting on-site sign,
all sides of which would be limited to 50 square feet, subject to approval of the Design Review
Board.
Mr. Patterson reported the Planning staff had done a survey of both the Webster Street and Park
Street business areas and had found that basically the frontages of businesses were rather small,
having 18 foot frontages for Park Street and 19 foot frontages for Webster Street. He said
they did not include within their survey some of the large parcels such as service stations,
automobile agencies, and used car lots. He noted the average sign in 1976 processed through
the staff of the Design Review Board was 29 square feet and the median sign was 25 square feet.
He said it should be understood the 50 square feet would be a maximum.
On the call for proponents, Mr. Edward Clark, 1422 Cottage Street. a member of the Board of
Trustees for the Chamber of Commerce, stated they had felt the 25 square foot construction
minimum was too small and might prejudice their case when they met with the Planning Department
in drawing up a final on-site sign ordinance, which might take anywhere from six months to
another year to complete. He said he was in favor of the ordinance as amended to 50 square feet.
Councilman Hurwitz asked why the Chamber felt there would be a problem with the 25 square foot
minimum since the average sign was only 29 square feet at this time. Mr. Clark stated they
were concerned should a larger business come into the city, possibly a department store in
the north shore development, where there would be a considerable amount of linear footage,
that they might desire a larger sign than 25 square feet in order to attract customers.
Mr. Andrew Pagano, President of the Chamber of Commerce, stated it was his understanding the
ordinance was to be of temporary nature until such time as a permanent one was established,
and to help the City of Alameda in its legal conflicts with the sign companies.
There followined a discussion of a previous proposal to limit sign sizes by the linear foot approach.
Mr. Harry Potter, Executive Vice President of the Chamber of Commerce, noted he had discussed the
amendments with the City Attorney; that the Chamber supported in principle the provisions of the
proposed amendments with the following comments regarding abatement: That Section 11-14B11, the
Abatement Schedule, as it applied to on-premise signs commence with the date the proposed
amendments were effective, that is, the earliest date of removal of any on-premise sign would be
at least five years from date of passage of the proposed amendment. He said they would give
them time to work out an on-premise sign ordinance.
Councilman Hurwitz asked if the proposed ordinance would affect existing signs within the next
five years. The City Attorney replied this would be a decision to be made by the City Council;
that he would not seek their removal without Council authorization, and as the ordinance presently
read this was the shortest period in the abatement schedule.
On the call for opponents, Mr. William Walker, 927 Central Avenue, objected to the adoption of
the ordinance. He alleged the business community had had no opportunity for input, and were not
aware a hearing was to be held on the subject. He was informed by President Corica that the
hearing had been advertised in the Times-Star and all legal requirements had been met. President
Corica suggested Mr. Walker contact the City Attorney for a full explanation of the context of
the ordinance.
Mr. Lewis Allen, 1533 Webster Street, requested an explanation of the maximum construction
standard which was provided by the City Attorney,
The hearing was declared closed.
Councilman Sherratt suggested the first draft of the ordinance, as recommended by the City
Attorney, be considered for introduction. City Attorney Stroud asked that the ordinance be
amended on its face by deleting the words "on-premise" from Section 11-14B4, subjections (3)
and (4), and by changing Section 11-14B9(a) to read "fifty (50) square feet"; and Section 23-2513
to read "fifty (50) square feet'.
Councilman Sherratt moved the first draft of the ordinance, as amended, be taken out of order.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and on voice vote carried unanimously.
The meeting proceeded to "Introduction of Ordinances".
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
9. Councilman Sherratt introduced the following ordinance, as amended, after which it would
be laid over under provision of law and the Charter:
"Ordinance No.
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Sections 11-14B4(b)(3)
and (4) and 11-1439(a) Thereof and by Adding Section 12-2513 Thereto,
Relating to Abatement and Removal of Nonconforming Signs,"
The motion was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
A ten-minute recess was called. Upon reconvening, the meeting returned to the regular order of
business.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
10. From the Historical Advisory Commission, signed by the Chairman, submitting recommendation
on the Historical Monument status of Alameda High School structures.
President Croica reported the Commission recommended approval of Historical Monument status cf
the Alameda High School bufidings, He noted there were both proponents and opponents on the issue
and asked if the Council would be interested in setting a hearing date on the matter.
After hearing from Mrs. Inez Kapellas, who spoke in favor of the recommendation; Mr. Daniel
Cummins, Attorney for the Alameda Unified School District; and Mr. William Hargraves, candidate
for election to the Board of Education, Councilman Beckam moved a hearing bet set for the
regular meeting of the City Council to be held on May 3, 1977. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Diament and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None.
11. From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, makino recommendation on Zone Change
Application $-77-3, to reclassify from "R-4", Rjghborhood Apartment District, to "C-1",
Neighborhood Commercial District, and "M-2-G", General Industrial, Government owned or controlled,
District, approximately 53 acres located northerlyof Singleton Avenue and westerly of the Alameda
Facility, Naval Supply Center.
The hearing date on this matter was set for March 15, 1977.
12. From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, submitting finding of General Plan conformance
and Class 12 categorical exemption status for disposition of former Post Office building located
at the northwest corner of Park and Central Avenues.
Councilman Beckam moved acceptance of the report. The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament
and carried unanimously on voice vote.
13. From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, submitting finding of General Plan conformance
for approximate 2.5 acre parcel located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Holly Street
and Oleander Street.
Councilman Beckam moved acceptance of the report. The motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt
and on voice vote carried unanimously.
14. From the City Manager recommending contract be awarded to M.F. Maher, Inc. for the project
of the construction of Arch Culverts at Pacific Avenue and Wood Street.
Councilman Hurwitz moved approval of the recommendation and award of the contract to M.F. Maher,
Co. The motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried unanimously on voice vote.
15. From the City Manager recommending a transfer of funds to the Police Secret Fund.
Councilman Diament moved acceptance of the report and approval of the recommendation, The motion was
seconded by Councilman Sherratt and on voice vote carried unanimously.
300
16. From the Assistant City Manager submitting report on bids for the former Post Office Building.
Councilman Hurwitz moved acceptance of the report and authorization be given to City staff to
negotiate the sale of the former Post Office building with interested parties. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried unanimously on voice vote.
17. From the City Attorney submitting concern on modification of the Joint Powers Agreement on
Solid Waste Management.
Councilman Beckam moved acceptance of the report and the resolution be taken out of order. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and on voice vote carried unanimously.
The meeting proceeded to "Resolutions".
RESOLUTIONS:
18. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Hurwitz who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8677
Approving Amendment to Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for
Solid Waste Management."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried on the
following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
The meeting returned to the regular order of business
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
19. From the City Manager recommending a one year extension of the bond for completion of water
drainage facilities for Smith-Rice Company in connection with Parcel Map 1821.
Councilman Beckam moved acceptance of the report and approval of a one-year extension of the above
described bond. The motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried unanimously on voice vote.
20. From the City Manager regarding Public Works, Title II, Anti-Recession Fiscal Aid Program.
Councilman Hurwitz moved acceptance of the report and approval of the expenditure for the cost of
repair of the car hoist at the Central Repair garage. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Sherratt and on voice vote carried unanimously.
21. From the City Manager regarding authorizing execution of a contract with Rudd Gast for
professional services during the construction Phase related to the Alameda Unified School District
Homes.
City Manager Goss reported the award of the contract would involve a maximum of $3900.00 expended
from HCDA funds.
Councilman Beckam moved the contract be awarded, as recommended, and the resolution be taken out of
order. The motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried unanimously on voice vote.
The meeting proceeded to "Resolutions".
RESOLUTIONS:
22. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Beckam who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8678
Authorizing Execution of Contract with Rudd Gast for Professional
Services During Construction Phase Related to AUSD Homes."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
The meeting returned to the regular order of business.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
23. Consideration of SB 4 (Rains) (Bottle Bill).
President Corica reported a request was made at the last Mayors' Conference that the Mayors
ascertain whether or not their individual Councils supported or opposed the proposed legislation.
He recalled that in July, 1976, the Alameda County Mayors Conference had gone on record as supporting
the pre-print of this Senate Bill on a 7 to 6 vote, of the 13 cities represented. He said it was
his understanding the City of Fremont was reconsidering their vote of support; that another vote
would be taken on March 2, 1977.
Mrs. Clara Dutra, 1704 Central Avenue, stated she had worked for the past 27 years at the glass
company. She called attention to a Senate Bill proposed by Senator Nejedly which, she said, would
attack the overall program of litter problems and not single out the glass and can companies. She
stated that when the Oregon litter bill went into tffect, it created a loss of 150 jobs in the
Portland area which have not been replaced to date, and similar job losses occurred in the Seattle area.
President Corica remarked the City Council had previously voted against the Rains' bill in
July, 1976, and he would suggest they do so again as circumstances had not changed. He stated
passage of the bill would have an economic impact on the area; that approximately 200 Alameda
residets would be out of a job if the bill became law. He asked if the Council saw any reason
to change their position at this time.
Councilman Hurwitz asked if the bill had been changed since the previous vote. President Corica
replied that it had not and was basically the same.
Mr. John Cashel of Kaiser Aluminum, Oakland, reported his industry would be similarly affected
by loss of jobs should the Rains' bill be passed. He said their payroll of approximately $38,000,000
in Alameda County would be placed in jeopardy. He stated they would look favorably upon the
positive approach to the problem being proposed by Senator Nejedly.
Miss Mocia Clark, Administrative Aide to Senator Rains, stated she was one of ten students working
with Senator Rains who strongly supported his bill. She said the bill merely required a refundable
deposit on containers. She said, further the bill would reduce expense to consumer and conserve
energy. She commented on a pilot project in Yosemite Park which she stated had proven successful.
She alleged the bill would not cause a loss of jobs but would create new jobs in the recycling
process.
Mr. Richard Cutter, Manager of the Owens-Illinois Glass Company, stated passage of the Rains' bill
would have a serious negative impact on his plant and in all probability they would be forced out
of business.
Following a short discussion, Councilman Diament moved the Council instruct President Corica to
vote against the Rains' bill at the Mayors' Conference. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Sherratt.
Councilman Beckam reported he had attended the July, 1976 meeting at which a very strong case
had been made for having returnable bottles than the throwaways. He stated the Oregon plan ended
up with more people with jobs handling the returns than there were people involved with
making the throwaways; that the economic loss did not show in Oregon, and it greatedly reduced
litt.er
On a call for the question, the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four.
Noes: Councilman Beckam, (1). Absent: None.
RESOLUTIONS:
24. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Beckam who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8679
Approving Conflict of Interest Codes for: Bureau of Electricity,
Library Board, Engineering Design Division, Office of the Treasurer,
Building Code Board of Appeals, Building Inspection Division,
Recreation and Parks Department, Golf Commission and Design Review
Board."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
25. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Beckam who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8680
Authorizing City Manager, Assistant City Manager and Assistant Director
of Office of Emergency Services, Alameda County, to Execute Applications
and Documents for Purpose of Obtaining Federal Financial Assistance Under
the Federal Mil Defense Act of 1950, as Amended,"
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
26. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Hurwitz who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8681
Authorizing City Manager, Assistant City Manager and Assistant Director
of Office of Emergency Services, Alameda County, to Sign For and Accept
Combination of Surplus Property Over and Under $2500."
The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
27. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Diament who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8682
Adopting Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans for Remodeling
of the Restrooms at McKinley Park, Calling for Bids and Directing City
Clerk to Advertise Same."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None, Absent: None.
28. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Beckam who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8683
Approving Change Order Respecting Construction of Police Station,
Architect's Project No. 75-17 dated February 17, 1977."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None, Absent: None.
The President declared the foregoing resolutions adopted.
ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE:
29. "Ordinance No. 1854,
New Series
An Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property Within
the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. (R76-19)".
Councilman Hurwitz moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Beckam and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five, Noes: None. Absent: None.
30. "Ordinance No. 1855,
New Series
Counci An Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property Within
the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. (R77-1)".
Councilman Beckam moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Diament, and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
31. "Ordinance No. 1856,
New Series
An Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property Within the
City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.S (R77-2)".
Councilman Beckam moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Hurwitz, and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
32. "Ordinance No. 1857,
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Sections 11-14B11 and
11-14812 Thereof Relating to Abatement and Removal of Nonconforming Signs."
Councilman Diament moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Sherratt, and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None,
BILLS:
33. An itemized List of Claims and Supplemental Listing of Claims against the City of Alameda
and the Departments thereof, in the total amount of $200,679.81 and $75,000, respectively, was
presented to the Council at this meeting.
The Lists were accompanied by certification from the City Manager that the claims shown were
correct.
Councilman Beckam moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims and Supplemental Listing of
Claims filed with the City Clerk on March 1, 1977, and presented to the City Council at this
meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried unanimously
on roll call vote.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL:
34. Mrs. Helen Freeman, 831 Laurel Street, spoke concerning the approximate 10.2 acres of City-
owned tidelands being used by Reclamation District 2105. She referred to a letter dated November 1,
1968 written by the City Engineer, and stated it was her Lief the Reclamation District was responsible
for the perimeter in the fill of Bay Farm Island, and the city should not let them use the property
without a lease.
Councilman Beckam suggested a copy of the letter be distributed to members of the City Council
and the City Attorney investigate the matter.
Mr. Charles Tillman also asked that the City Attorney follow through on Mrs. Freeman's request
regarding the responsibility for the perimeter of the Bay Farm Island fill area.
"�����
������
35. Councilman Sherratt moved the Council retire to executive session for discussion of pending
litigation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beckam and carried unanimously on roll call
VOte.
After a five-minute recess, the Council reconvened in the Conference Room of the City Hall. At
the conclusion of discussion, it was determined DO action would be taken at this time.
ADJOURNMENT:
36, There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned in respect
to the memory of Fire Captain RUSSELL H. BOWLER, to assemble in regular session on Tuesday,
March 15, 1977, at 7:30 o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted-'
ETHEL M. PITT
Verbatim transcript of portion of Minutes of Regular Meeting of City Council
held March 1, 1977.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
7. From Mrs. R. E. Stone, 1623 High Street, requesting permission to address the City
Council on the subject of the Fernside Extension and Measure "E".
"CUriCo:
Stone:
We're not going to have a hearing on this tonight but Mrs. Stone has asked
to address the Council about it.
I'm Amey Stone, 1623 High Street. We placed the Fernside Extension on the
ballot because to us it was put there out of sheer desperation, residents
of streets that are carrying the traffic, and in a sense of fairness to
the city, and it was done legally and we have tried to conduct the campaign
honorably. It is now jeopardized by false statements, untrue statements
which have been and are being circulated throughout this city, and this is
of some concern. It really reached such proportions that it's of concern.
There are two contradictory reports, one that says the -- inferring that
it will cost tax dollars totallying over a half million dollars. This
flyer which has no name, has no address, no telephone number, nothing, it
has now risen to one and a half million within the same campaign. Just
the same as the boulevard itself has gone from a city boulevard to a
thoroughfare, a highway, a freeway, and Mr. BeCka0/5 description of it at
candidates' night was "an expressway,"if you will. So that might give you
some conception of what we're battling. And t�� _ 6 hat it will be a
freeway or highway has been predicated upon cld^g�fiC and outside
traffic will flow through Alameda. To substantiate that claim there have
been several reports in the press quoting that BCDC, a reputable Bay Area
agency, has already designated Fernside Boulevard as a regional trans-
portation corridor. This is placed in the argument. I was aware that the
statement was in there although I wrote my letter to Mr. Roberts before the
Environmental Association filed their argument against Measure E with the
City Clerk. I have Mr. Roberts' reply, Roberts is Executive Director of the
BCDC. His statement - and I have read this letter several times, once in
Mr. Miesner's presence, and I had hoped that at least this statement would
have been withdrawn from the voter ballot pamphlet which is the place that
the voter has the inherent right to the truth, because in that you do sign
an affidavit that what you are submitting is the truth. It's Item No. 3 -
BCDC, the powerful Bay Regional Agency, has already listed the four-lane
Fernside Extension as a potential route for regional traffic from outside
of Alameda. My letter from Mr. Roberts, dated January 13, 1977: Dear Mrs.
Stone: In order to be specific in answering your questions, I will repeat
each question exactly as you wrote it and will write n0/ answer immediately
following. "Does BCDC have Fernside Boulevard listed as a potential route
for regional traffic from outside of Alameda? Answer: No. "Does BCDC
have the jurisdiction or authority to designate any city street as a trans-
portation corridor? Answer: No, furthermore, BCDC does not and never has
done so. "In your opinion would motorists from the southern part of the
county, Hayward, San Leandro, bound for Oakland or San Francisco travel
Doolittle Drive, across the Bay Farm Island Bridge, travel Fernside, the
High Street Bridge, enter Oakland and drive HIgh Street to reach the Nimitz
Freeway? Answer: I have no information upon which to form an opinion about
whether motorists might use this specific route you have described. I might
also add that there have been news releases that this agency did agree with
people who thought that this would happen. Question: Was Fernside Boule-
vard not discussed by Bay Area agencies in June, 1976 as a transportation
route in the context of present and future development of Bay Farm Island
and not as a regional traffic route? Answer: In June of 1975 I invited
staff representatives of a number of state, regional and local agencies
to attend an informal meeting to discuss present and future transportation
related issues in the vicinity of San Leandro Bay. I repeat and stress
the fact that the meeting was and informal and an unofficial discussion
for the purpose of exploring issues and possible solutions. No decisions
were made, no actions were taken regarding Fernside or any other facility
in any jurisdiction. An attempt was made by consensus to develop a list
Of major issues relating to transportation in the San Leandro Bay area,
issues which should be the subject of further studies for possible solution.
Fernside Extension was Simply listed by consensus as one of these i5sues.
No further action was taken or implied. DCDC's role was simply to host
C0r1Cu:
-2-
the meeting and take part in the diScussion. GCDC's representatives did
not raise the issue of Fernside and did not make the designation of it as
any kind of corridor.
Now, from the research that I have come up with and I have done, and which
has been considerable, most of the claims of regional traffic coming through
our city has been predicated upon this - this agency has been singled out
time and time again and this has been perpetrated upon the City of Alameda.
Now, I brought this to the attention of the District Attorney of the
CVUnty. It does not fall within his jurisdiction. It was also my
impression then and his, possibly, that the Secretary of State validated
the measures in the election - ballot measures. It seems its a bureaucratic
wall. The State Attorney General's office quite possibly will review it
but they would like one action taken first and all of the roads seem to lead
back to here - take it to your City Council and see what direction is given
there. So here l am. It is obviously a statement to be challenged.
Well, Mr3, Stone, the only thing that I can say is the ballot has been
printed, the ballot measures have been printed, and it's in there. You
have challenged it and you are challenging it here tonight - as far as its
validity - someone possibly is not telling the truth and I think that the
only way that I could see now, only one week away from the election, would
be if that letter that you received there from BCDC was to be made public
via the newspapers, that's about the only solution that I could think of.
Anybody on the Council have any ideas?
Sherratt: Mr. Mayor, let me go back and ask a question. From your presentation, what
you said was that you met with the County Counsel and they say there is
nothing they can do, they referred it back to the local government.
Stone: Yes.
Sherratt: So you're asking - what you're saying is, you're asking us to guide you if
you would like to challenge this particular argument?
Stone: Not necessarily, Mr. Sherratt, that, too. I've run into an absolute bureau-
cratic wall. The bus has to stop somewhere. The voters somewhere along
the line have the inherent right to the truth and it is in the pamphlet.
Sherratt: OK. My question maybe, Mr. Mayor, would be to Mr. Stroud because I don't
think that that would be a litigation case that we would take on but it
would be a referral possibly to the District Attorney, the local Deputy
District Attorney who has charge of -- if that's what she's trying to
pursue, I don't see that we can do that. What is your opinion?
Stroud: Well, when Earl Warren was the D.A. in this county 40 years ago, he ruled
that City Attorneys did not have any criminal jurisdictinn. If the D.A.
says he can't do criminal prosecutions, he's putting you on.
Stone: Did he call you, Mr. Stroud?
Stroud: No.
Corica: The only thing that I can see from talking with you, Mrs. Stone, is that
this would be something that you would have to pursue. I may be wrong,
but I think that you probably would have to be the one, your group, or
whoever, to see somebody, I don't know what you'd sue on except maybe
misrepresentation of a ballot measure. I fully understand what -- your
irritation that you feel that someone said something there that is absolutely
untrue and you have the facts or you have the response from that agency in
your hand. Again, I think that the only thing that actually we can do is
to try to hope that our news media will get this out to the public before
next TUe3day. From what you're saying, it probably will be refuted from
the other side.
Diament: Mr. Mayor. On the basis of what Mr. Stroud has said, is it up to the city
to request the District Attorney to take action?
Stroud: No. I get so frustrated at those people. When I want to enforce the
Zoning Ordinance, I file a civil action. It's impossible to get any
criminal action out of the District Attorney on a local matter unless its
(unintelligible\
Stone:
C0riCa:
Stone:
Now do you understand what I meant about a bureaucratic wall? l did try
to start this early before the ballot was printed and I kept running into
the very same thing, Unless one initiated a personal action, where does
it stop? It seems with all the systems, with organizations and agencies
going there should be someone that this would come within its jurisdiction.
We are not out to put anyone in 'ail, we are not out to get anyone fined,
we simply object to the people not having the truth and they are not getting
it. They have not gotten it from this Council table and they are not getting
it from the organization called the Alameda Environmental Association' It is
simply not the truth. It is the same principle as having remarks made to
the Council table that the Yacht Club - it would be necessary to have the
Yacht Club removed if the Fernside Extension went through and a member of
the audience corrected the Council person making that statement and then
it showed up in a "We, The People" column as a letter, and here we go with
the same round robin. In the meantime, as I've said, we've gone to consider-
able lengths to be fair, to be legal, and we would just like the people to
know the truth and it is now being jeopardized from the lack of it.
Well, l think, Mrs. Stone, that you are certainly trying to show your side
Of it and that you have the document there to defute it would would be
legitimate. If I might give you one parting word - I have found during the
last 4 years on this Council that the people of Alameda are highly intelligent,
they're not too easily fooled, they always know what's going on, and it is
usually reflected at the ballot box and I think that this is the way it will
be March 8th, I think that the citizens will make an intelligent decision
and if there is any hanky-panky that has been going on, I am sure that the
majority of the citizens, or the majority of the voters, will understand
and act accordingly.
Thank you. Well, there's just several things. My patience is totally
exasperated. The Goals Study brings in a finding -- the people who did
go down to work on the Goals Study, the Transportation Element, more than
One, more than a few, were told when they wished to discuss the Fernside
Extension that that was not a topic to be discussed, it was too far in the
future, or so forth. In fact we had one citizen who came to the Council
table and complained about that. Now, Mr. Stroud, with all due respect to
the complexities of the law, it just occurred to me that this is our city,
it's a city election, it is this Council that placed the Measure on the
ballot to begin with, that you might conceivably have some responsibilities
to us. Thank you for your time.
Stroud: This is the first time this has come to my attention. You could telephone
me, or send me a letter, or anything else.
Corica: Thank you very much, Mrs. Stone. Now we will move on to "Hearings".
Beckam: Mr. President, I think someone wishes to speak.
Farris: Mr. Mayor and Council members, my name is Cheryl Farris, I live at 3054
Fernside Boulevard in Alameda on the corner of Cornell and Fernside. I'm
on the other side of Fernside. Not that it makes any difference. As a
private citizen I'm deeply concerned with a lot of clouding issues around
the Fernside Extension. I concur with Mrs. Stone in her exasperation and
I can say I sympathize with the people on High Street and on Otis, and on
Broadway, and on Fernside. We lived on Otis Drive for two years and they
tried to widen it to six lanes and cut off those front lawns. When she
talks about sheer desperation, I understand that but I also believe that
any time that any issue turns neighbor against neighbor, or neighborhood
against neighborhood, or people against people, that that's very bad
business and somehow we need to get to the real issue which is we have a
traffic problem which needs to be solved. I agree with what you say --
the voters here are intelligent. I think that what has happened in one
sense is good in that people are getting involved, people who didn't care
before are beginning to care all over the city, I'm not a Traffic Engineer
I don't know what the answers are, but I have faith in the people of
Alameda and I think at this time instead of arguing back and forth and
rebutting one another, we need to get some answers from some experts about
what's best for all of us in our city, for all of the people, for the
people on High Street, for the people on Morton, the Other problem that
Corica:
_4-
we heard, and I believe we can do it. I don't think it's going to take
ten years because there's enough people involved now who are willing to
work on this and who cure. We live in Alameda because we like the quality
of life. I've seen traffic come in. I was raised here, I love this city
and I know the people on both sides of this issue love the city, they're
equally committed, but I think we've got to turn all of this energy into
the right direction and as long as we're fighting with one another we're
not going to accomplish the best interests of the city.
Well, let me make this comment though. Anytime that you have an issue of
such magnitude where somebody feels so strongly they're going to go out
and get a certain percent of the voters to sign a petition to put it on the
ballot, I think that's a very democratic way to do it and it certainly has
been done. As far as what you're saying, as far as everybody who lives in
Alameda appreciates what we have in Alameda, I think that we have the finest
city in the state, we do have our problems like every other city and traffic
happens to be one of our problems. Unfortunately we on the Council are
caught between the rock and the hard place because of this fact and that is
this - this is the way that it comes across to me. On one hand we have
people on Fernside Boulevard who are saying to the Council, protect my
neighborhood, protect my way of life - which is correct, it's our duty to
do that. On the other hand we have people on High Street that say help, we
are drowning. So, if you talk about dil8mnaS, this is it. I think that we
do have a responsibility certainly to try to protect any neighborhood, we
also have a duty to see about keeping an area from being swamped where it's
not livedble. I have heard people say that people On High Street, maybe if
they don't like it, they should move which I think is a terrible answer.
We are involved and we get telephone calls and we have people visiting us
and coming in with their problems and that is what we're here for, so let's
see if we can solve it in some way. I don't think that we have a way right
now, in all honesty, of solving our traffic problems as far as getting
people off of the Island. I think that there may be a way of solving a
problem of one street by relieving High Street to a certain extent,
certainly we're not going to relieve it altogether. I don't know. The
voters are going to decide that March 8th, however l think that it must be
honestly weighed as to where we're at. When we say that were talking about
long range alternatives and within ten years, I certainly do not see any
alternative within ten yearS. We have petitioned our legislators, we have
sent letters to our Assemblymen, to our State Senators as far as the 66th
Avenue crossing, and I think unless we're trying to kid each other that
that is further away than ten years downstream. If somebody on this Council
thinks it's closer than that, I wish that they would speak up now and let us
hear about it.
Beckam: l think there are two things that are closer than that right now, Mr.
President. On the way home tonight at about 6 o'clock I picked up the
Environmental Analysis of Alternative Traffic Routes in the High Street
corridor in the City of Alameda which I understand is now available to the
public. This is my copy, I haven't read it yet and I would like to keep
it so I can read it, but I would request the Times Star to make that report
public. Secondly, so far as planning in the San Leandro Bay Area, I under-
stand there's a meeting at RTC next week to get that on the road. I think
Mr. Hanna probably either has or will be receiving an invitation to that
meeting. So the planning of the problem of all the agencies affected by
San Leandro Bay will begin next week.
D]riCu:
Yes, I realize that and we also have been dealing with the East Bay Regional
Park District,who've gone on record as saying that they are going to oppose
the crossing across the San Leandro Channel, they would probably not oppose
a tube. They even - in one letter that we got, I think that you all got a
copy of it, they seem to say that a tube would be just as economical as a
bridge, a bridge I think everybody realizes is out of the picture. As far
as the report that we got tonight, ladies and gentlemen, we just got this
report today from our staff and it's the staff position on the HIgh Street
corridor, we had a meeting this afternoon at 4:30 with members of the
Fmrnside District and members of the HIgh Street District in these chambers,
they were given this document at exactly the same time so that nobody can
Say that we are giving anybody a break. We immediately called in the Times
Star and the Tribune has a copy, so we do have our staff's rep0rt. But
it's very nice to say that we should all get along and what have you, but
whenever you get anyone to go out and get signatures on a petition, there
Farris:
COriCd:
-5-
are hard feelings. I remember because l remember Measure A, we were a
part of that. And if you recall 1973, there were a few hard feelings over
Measure A, however something happened there that I think saved this city.
So this is the democratic way of doing things, I think that that's what
we're doing here. Some of the statements which have been made here, like
Mrs. Stone's statement where she actually has a document to refute some-
thing that challenges a ballot argument, I am sure that you could see that
that could irritate someone, I think it would irritate you.
Well, as I listened to her letter, and I have copies in front of me of
Argument Against Measure E and Vote Yes On E, and as I listen to the letter
I don't hear any inconsistency in what she says. What I'm hearing from
you, and I have been walking around knocking on people's doors throughout
the neighborhood saying, how do you feel about Measure E and why? Not
trying to convince them one way or the other, and what I've seen is a
hopelessness in people in their feelings that nothing can be done to solve
our problem, traffic is going to come regardless and we might as well dump
some of it On Fernside. What I'm suggesting is that maybe that's not the
best alternative, maybe it is, maybe that/3 right to put some of the traffic
on Fernside, but I see people getting off the Nimitz Freeway, I know friends
that get off the Nimitz Freeway, they get tired of crawling at 5 miles an
hour, and they come through the back roads, they cut through the streets
right now. We've seen a big increase in traffic in all of Alameda in the
last ten years, and so I'm saying that the people on High Street and on
Otis need r8lief. All right. I can say that I'd like some relief too,
but l can't see that this is going to solve the problem, and again that's
up to the voters. What I'm trying to talk about tonight is an Dttitude.
All right, an attitude that people have here in the city that nothing can
be done, and so I'm asking you tonight - I don't believe that, I don't
believe that were that helpless and that we can't say what kind of life
we want here, and as a group, as a city, we can't work on solving some of our
problems. And I think what Mrs. Stone did was right, it was right because
it was her way of saying help. And the people who are against all of this
are trying to say help, too. We're all saying the same thing and there's
got to be an answer but it has to be a well planned, well designed answer
that's not going to be at the expense of each other but for the good of all
and there cannot be everyone that can be happy in any controversy, but I'm
suggesting that maybe we can find a way to work this out together and to get
some experts working on it, I am sure you've had experts working on it, and
see if we can't come up with some feasible, reasonable, realistic solution
to the problems.
We are, we are exhausting ourselves trying to find out those solutions.
As I told you, we are trying to get legislation where we can get a crossing
across San Leandro Bay.
Farris: What can we do then to help you do that?
Corico:
Farris:
COrica:
You can write your legislators and tell them our concerns, you can do these
things nDw. The other side of it - you talked about Mrs. Stone. I think
Mrs. Stone was addressing something that is in that voter's pamphlet, that
addresses itself to BCDC which she says is not true. And that's one thing.
My concern is this, I think you will agree with me that traffic is of high
density on High Street, or will you not? And I think that what the High
Street residents are saying is what's going to happen when the 3200 homes
are built on Bay Farm Island, will we get 6,000 more cars that are going
to be coming in front of my house again, is this the only place that
they're going to go. Certainly I think that we can all realize their
concern as well as --
I'm concerned about those cars coming into Alameda, period, and finding a
route around Alameda so that none of us on any street in Alameda have to
deal with them.
All right, we have on our City Council a Traffic Engineer who works for
the county. I have not seen any comments or heard of any solutions from
our County Engineer. For the four years that we've been up here, we've
been stuck with this problem. Right? This problem just didn't come here
or just get here yesterday, its been with us for years. So, we've had
-6-
an expert on our Council for all these years but I haven't heard any
comments from our expert. We have asked at times and when we do ask him
he tells us that he gets paid $40 an hour for his advice.
Sherratt: Mr. Mayor, I think we're getting off the subject Mrs. Stone brought up.
I would like to say in defense of the Council, we did not put the arguments
On the ballot, either the pros or the cons or anything to do with this.
It was an initiative that was put on by the signatures and pros and cons
were written by the people who are interested in both sides, we did not have
any input, at least not to my knowledge, any of us on the arguments that are
OD the ballnt. And that was the original question I think Mrs. Stone brought
up, and I think were getting away from the subject.
Beckam: I think, if I may, may I answer another concern of your's. I pointed out
that this EIP, as it is called, by EnVico0 (Environmental Impact Planning
Corporation) is not the staff report as the Mayor indicated. It is the
consultant's report for the city. There is a staff report in the first few
pages preceding the technical report that does show the consultant's
evaluation of the current problem, and the meeting which I referred to with
MTC I believe is heading exactly where you would like, where I would like,
and where most of the people in this city I believe would like, for joint
planning. Now, East Bay Regional has said that they do not want a bridge.
I agree and I understand why, they don't want to see the East Bay environ-
mentally ruined but if we are not going to join in that planning because
someone else said we don't want a plan, then I think we are being very
short sighted, we should jump over that hurdle and join in the planning for
the betterment of the entire city. I most heartily agree with you, Mrs.
Farris.
C0ricd:
Farris:
Sullivan:
If T might comment or elaborate on Mr. Beckam's statements. As you know,
and probably the people in the audience know, that we have had, since the
Harbor Bay Isle and the Port of Oakland and the city lawsuits were settled,
we had a joint agreement and we set up a joint planning group which is made
Up of the City of Alameda, the City of Oakland, the Port of Oakland, and
Harbor Bay Isle Development. And we have been working on this problem, and
we have been addressing the problem of 56th Avenue, and we nave discussed it,
and we are trying jointly to get something done. So, something is being
done although sometimes it's not always publicized and anybody knows about
it. We are working on your behalf and I think that we are trying to do
what you're indicating we should do, its just that sometimes it don't sound
as dramatic as everybody might want them to s0und.
Well, maybe because so many people are interested in this particular
problem it could be addressed to the public by various methods. To get
back to Mrs. Stone's original statement. I agree with her that the public
needs to know the truth. Again, I've listened very carefully and I would
like to have a copy of her letter. I looked at those arguments and I
really didn't see from the minutes of the meeting of June 9th, which she
says was an informal meeting but they still kept minutes, the Fernside
Extension was listed as a possible major corridor along with many other
things, and I understand that's all the Environmental Association was
saying, that it was a possible, along with many others. So I don't see how
that is misleading the public. I would be very angry, l don't like lying
and I don't like misleading the public, and what I was trying to say here
tonight is we need to all know what's right for the City of Alameda and
work together to solve our problems. Thank you.
Joseph Sullivan, 3221 Liberty AVe0Ue, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council,
I believe Mrs. Stone has a valid complaint to make to this Council and I
think the Council should do something about it. We don't know who should,
the City Attorney has very plainly expressed his obligation, the County
Attorney isn't interested �'�e too busy in Sacramento. But this is a
city election. Mrs. 3tVn�VJU�nt�.,a to unquestionably show that somebody
is lying in an official vouched for and oath taking document and presumably
that information was available to the people when they made their statement.
Now, I think it shouldn't be just swept under the table, under the rug, I
think if you put it off to another meeting, even after the election, some-
thing should be done to show whether that is accurate or not. Now inasmuch
as the last speaker, the lovely little lady, has chosen to make this an
opportunity for clouding the issue on the forthcoming election, about people
against people and neighbor against neighbor, the neighbor against neighbor
-7-
is primarily Fernside against a lot of the rest of the city. Were not mad
at Fernside. Fernside's unhappy with everybody else with an E sign in front
of their lawn. Now, Mr. Mayor, you didn't interrupt the previous speaker
and I'll be brief. What I'm going to say, I'm going to make it real brief,
it's just as much out of order as the previous speaker was completely out
Of order. All she's asking for is more studies, that's what Mr. Miesner
and the Alameda Environmental Association is study, study, study, -- all
they want to do is get by this election, after that the extension of Fernside
is a dead issue, they know that. Now, as I say, this has been made a
propaganda forum for delay, to confuse people who weren't completely familiar
with the situation. But my primary reason for coming here is Mrs' Stone
made a valid COmplaiDt. It is your province to give it some more studies,
whether you ever do anything more about it please study it because she
insists and has documentary evidence to show that somebody is making a false
statement, whether they are maliciously done or not is something el3e.
Thank you.
Corica: Thank you, Mr. Sullivan.
Diament:
Mr. Mayor, I completely agree. We obviously can't solve that question
tonight but I think the question needs to be established is where the
responsibility lies for false statements and who is to be approached when
somebody considers that one is false, and I would ask you to ask the City
Attorney to establish that for us.
8eckam: I think, Mrs. Oiament, what you mean first is, if you wish to pursue the
due process of law that you must have a false statement with which to make
your charge.
Miesner:
My name is Paul Miesner, I live at 1013 Mound. Mr. Mayor and Councilman.
I want to correct you on one statement right off, Mr. Mayor, is that the
Alameda Environmental Association is not just the Fernside organization,
it's a city-wide organization. I want you to get that clear right away.
There have been some serious charges here tonight. I just want to say that
the Alameda Environmental Association stands by its statement about the
BCDC listing in its minutes of the meeting for the Fernside Extension as
a potential regional route. We welcome investigation and if Mrs. Stone
is asking the city to investigate that, I also ask the city and anybody
else in the state and county to take a look at two statements that Mrs.
Stone and her group made in the voting booklet that I have in my hand,
Argument In Favor Of Measure E. The first statement is,"construction
costs qualify for Gasoline Tax Funds and will not be an expense for Alameda
taxpayers." Gasoline Tax Funds are Alameda taxes. Every time you buy gas
in this city, you pay state and federal taxes. They are Alameda taxpayers'
funds. That's what gasoline taxes are. That is a false statement.
Another statement made, "The Fernside Extension has been a part of Alameda's
Master Plan for 20 years." That is a false statement. It is a misleading
statement to the voters of Alameda. The City of Alameda, and the taxpayers
of Alameda, paid 150,000 on a 1908 General Plan - Master Plan for this
City' Nowhere in the Circulation Element of that Master Plan was the
Fernside Extension even mentioned by name. So I hope that, and we want an
investigation and we want those questions looked into as well. We welcome
an investigation, we stand by our statements. Thank you.
Sherratt: Mr. Mayor, I sympathize with both sides of the issue but this is not a
court of law nor can we make these judgment decisions on who is right and
who is wrong with the arguments that are in the voter pamphlets. And maybe
I'm going to carry Mr5. Di0ment/s question a step further and go back to
Mr. Stroud and ask him a question. Would this not be some sort of a
private legal suit to be carried initially by those either pro or con if
they feel that there has been material that is not in good faith or is it
kind of like a suit for defamation of character or something like that?
And wouldn't that be the initial step for these people that have complaints
to pursue and then to be carried on by the DA if --
Stroud: Well, the remedies involved are found in the Elections Code and there may
be three or four. I have not read it. I can say quite bluntly that we
can all spin our wheels when we get into who is telling the truth and who
is not telling the truth. And if the District Attorney doesn't want to
take it, it's because he's had long experience with these matters. The
-O-
First Amendment, if were trying the case, is not going to permit vigilantes
to start (??) each other about what they suid. We're all entitled to
our own opinion and I know how BCDC operates, God knows I spent 3 months
in court with the Port of Oakland quoting BCDC documents until they ran
out of our ears about corridors and routes and regional responsibilities
and what we would have to do would be to go through every document BCDC
ever put out, and with all the Crazy maps they put in, and I wouldn't be
a bit surprised if you found what looked Alameda as a highway now, even
though that may not be what it says. They have regional powers over there
that turn documents out like a xerox machine. We can go along investigating
these things for six months and end up having a difference of opinion, and
every time you have an initiative, whether it is a statewide issue on the
Farm Labor Board, or whatever it is, you get these charges back and forth,
it never fails any time there is any kind of a controversial issue. And
I don't know who the responsibility is, I'll have to do some research on
it, but I can tell you that you'd have to start hitting m2 with a club
before I start filing any actions because l know it isn't legal.
Corica: Mrs. Stone. I hope were not going to turn this thing into a hearing.
Stone:
No, I don't want to turn this into a public hearing, but please extend me
the courtesy of leeting me reply to Mr. Miesner's two statements. We have
no desire to misrepresent anything and l would like to ask the City Engineer
a question or you may do so for me. I would like to know if the Fernside
Extension qualifies for Gasoline Tax Funds and if that would be its financing
agent?
Hanna: Yes, it does qualify for Gasoline Taxes.
Stone:
So, it is financed by Gasoline Tax Funds and is not an additional tax to the
citizens of Alameda and I stand by my statement. And inasmuch as the
General Plan was again challenged, I would like to qualify that as well.
This is not new, that the Fernside Extension being in the General Plan was
challenged but I would like to put it to rest, because we did research it
and we did make the statement and I do like to make statements that are
true and do not misrepresent anything. That item was based upon Paragraph 4
in Mr. Patters0n'5 report which was presented to you in January, 1875- It
was questioned at that time by Councilman Beckam and it was my understanding,
inasmuch as he injected into the meeting a minimum of 3 times, and my
personal notes said 5, stating that inasmuch as he saw no reference to the
Fernside Extension in the 1968 General Plan it was his impression that it
was not necessary to refer the Fernside Extension to the Planning Board for
public hearings as called, that the Council had the prerogative of the
d8Ci51OD. It was at that time that Mr. Goss leaned forward, it was one of
the few courtesies that we were extended that evening, he asked Mr. Patterson
to come to the microphone and cite these references in the General Plan,
which he did for the second time and I will read them to you again. "The
rationale i5 based on the fact that the Fernside Extension to Otis Drive
was included in the 1947 Master Plan of the shoreline development and the
Master Plan proposed by Mr. Campbell for the City of Alameda in 1957, in
1961 Alameda Traffic Plan by Wilbur Smith, and in Horizon Element of the
current General Plan developed by B. M. Bingham in 1968. Resolution No. 6733
of June 19, 1965 fixed the alignment and cross section of the Fernside
Extension after full public hearings before the Planning Board." I presume
if this had not been in the Plan in 1968, we would not be discussing the
Fernside Extension tonight. And I would like to add that it is my opinion
that any one person or any one group that would take liberties with the
General Plan of the city is one person and one group to be most carefully
watched.
Corica: Thank you, Mrs. Stone. I think that we have had enough time on this
particular item and will move on to Hearings.