2000-12-27 Special CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- - DECEMBER 27, 2000- -4:00 P.M.
Mayor Appezzato convened the Special Meeting at 4:56 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson,
Kerr and Mayor Appezzato - 5.
Absent: None.
enda Item:
(00 -705) Resolution No. 13301, "Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute the Fourth Amendment to the Measure B Funding Agreement by
and Between the City of Alameda, the Alameda County Transportation
Authority, the Port of Oakland and the City of Oakland for the
Cross Airport Roadway Project." Adopted.
A TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING IS HERETO ATTACHED AND MADE PART OF THE
OFFICIAL RECORD. (ATTACHMENT A)
Councilmember Johnson moved adoption of the Resolution.
Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson,
and Mayor Appezzato - 4. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the
Special Meeting at 5:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane B. Felsch, CMC
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 27, 2000
Verbatim Transcript of the December 27, 2000 Special Council
Meeting
Mayor Appezzato: I would like to convene the Special Meeting of the
City Council. Roll call please.
City Clerk: Councilmember Daysog.
Councilmember Daysog: Present.
City Clerk: Vice Mayor DeWitt.
Vice Mayor DeWitt: Here.
City Clerk: Councilmember Johnson.
Councilmember Johnson: Here.
City Clerk: Councilmember Kerr.
Councilmember Kerr: Here.
City Clerk: Mayor Appezzato.
Mayor Appezzato: Here.
City Clerk: Five present.
Mayor Appezzato: Public comment on the Agenda Item. We have two
speakers. Christine Monsen, Executive Director of the Alameda
County Transportation Authority (ACTA). Welcome and
congratulations on your contribution to Measure B -- the reissue
[passage] of Measure B, I should say. Thank you.
Christine Monsen, Executive Director, ACTA: Thank you for your
assistance and leadership in making sure that happened and all of
your hard work that the Council did in making sure that the second
time we were successful with 81.5% support. I want to thank you
today for calling this Special Meeting to discuss the proposed 4th
Amendment to the Measure B Funding Agreement and the 3rd Amendment
to the Measure B Project Implementation Agreement. I appreciate
the opportunity to provide comments today and to encourage the
Council to approve those Amendments. It will increase the Port's
[Port of Oakland] commitment to this Project - -the Airport Roadway
Project. It is a Project that we have all been working long and
hard over many years to deliver. It is a challenging Project and I
wish I could come here today and say this will solve all of the
problems on the Project. But I cannot say that. Every
1 Attachment A
construction project is a challenge to get through the completion
of the project. I want to formally state that I truly appreciate
your staff's diligence and active participation in watching out for
the City's interest, and actually the interest of the entire
County. I also want to appreciate the Port's staff for securing
the finding of "No Significant Impacts" by the end of the year. I
did not think that was possible. I truly did not think that was
possible. But sometimes when everyone works together, you get what
you need to get things done. I also want to recognize the
Council's willingness to step forward historically and make a
commitment to this Project with funding. You have done that. All
the funding partners have done that. We have all stretched farther
than we ever wanted to with this Project. I want to make it clear
that I understand, and ACTA understands, that the City has stepped
forward and put all of their cards on the table. If there are any
cost increases, I need to work with Chuck [Foster] to find a way of
filling those gaps. I understand that you have put all your
funding available for this Project on the table already, and I
appreciate that. I also want to reiterate ACTA's unwavering
support to complete the entire Project. It has three construction
components to it -- construction contracts to it - -but we truly view
it as one entire Project. We are committed to work with you, the
Port and the City of Oakland to make sure that the entire Project
is completed as it has been designed. So I want to offer that
commitment to you. I truly look forward to the day that we can all
celebrate the ribbon cutting on this Project. We will get there.
And so, I would just like to -- in closing, I would like to
encourage your approval of the Amendments.
Mayor Appezzato: Thanks, Christine. I think there are probably two
issues, one which we are not going to discuss today. But one is
this issue before us. And I think the word, if I am incorrect tell
me, the word used by our City Attorney was what we are really doing
today on the resolution is basically innocuous. It's just redoing
what we have previously approved, and can discuss that I am sure in
Closed Session. But more importantly, I think a lot of the concern
is the unknown; what is going to happen after this action tonight.
And you [Monsen] are correct. You know I think the three things
that concern me are: (1) that the Project go forward without the- -
in its original form, it not be tampered with, [and] that we go
forward without delay; (2) that people understand that there is no
other resources than what we have already voted to commit, and (3)
that we hope to work with you all to find those other financial
resources, if necessary. I think that is basically where we are
coming from. Any questions of Christine from the Council?
Vice Mayor DeWitt: I just want to say that Christine is very
optimistic. She comes in and she is looking forward to a ribbon
cutting and all kinds of good stuff. So that cheers me up because
2
this Project has been on the road, so to speak, for a number of
years
Mayor Appezzato: So she has got twenty (20) more years of Measure
B, and BART and ferries; and we get a little bit of that. So well
done, Christine. Thank you.
Christine Monsen: Thank you very much.
Mayor Appezzato: Zack Wasserman has a [speaker] slip in [and] is
here to answer questions. Zack is the Attorney for ACTA. Thank
you Zack. Chuck Foster, the Executive Director for the Port of
Oakland. Welcome, Charles Foster.
Chuck Foster, Executive Director, Port of Oakland: Good afternoon
Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council. Thank you for the
opportunity to address this item with you today; that is the joint
funding necessary for the Measure B Project which includes the
Roadway System from Interstate 880 to the Oakland Airport, across
the Airport to Harbor Bay Isle Parkway in Alameda. This has been a
very long protracted process -- getting to the place where we are
today. There seems to be a question in the minds of some of you,
or perhaps you have been led to believe, that the Port is not
committed to this Roadway Project. I want to affirm that the Port
is absolutely committed to the entire Roadway Project. If the Port
were not committed to the Project, number one, we would not have
convinced the FAA to permit a roadway across the Airport. You must
keep in mind that the FAA initially opposed this Roadway Project.
Since improvements were made with Federal funds and the Roadway
dissects the Aircraft Operating area, the Aircraft Operating Area
is under the Federal jurisdiction, as well as Port's jurisdiction;
and also subject to Federal Grant assurances. To further
demonstrate our commitment to the Project, the Port advanced the
City of Alameda $500, 000 at a discounted rate of 50, to be paid
back to the Port beginning Year 2011 through Year 2015. Again, I
think a demonstration of our commitment to the Project. And
thirdly, the Port committed $9.3 Million on September 5, 2000, for
this Project to go forward. So I think the Port has demonstrated
throughout, its commitment to the Project. I want to put all of
this in context. The Port's current debt is over $900 Million;
that's the debt that we carry today. We have Capital Projects that
must be completed at our Airport, Seaport, and a Commercial Real
Estate Development; and these projects are needed for our customers
and our tenants. When the Port agreed to commit the additional
$9.3 Million, which is borrowed money incidentally -- bond funding --
, it required the Port to re- prioritize its Project list and
eliminate some other badly needed projects. The Roadway Project is
important, very important, but it's not a revenue generator. There
3
is no direct return on this $9.3 Million investment. Our Revenue
Bonds, not Obligation Bonds, are Bonds serviced from revenues
generated from the Port's business activity. We are currently in
the midst of our financial analysis to ensure the Port maintains an
adequate coverage ratio and bond rating, as the Port commits to its
Capital Program. If the Port is borrowing money to ensure the
completion of its Roadway Project, we must have the flexibility
that is appropriate to allocate funds as we need through the
various segments of the Project. The Board of Port Commissioners
rely upon the Port's staff to make the best decisions on behalf of
the Board. The Board would be remiss in its fiduciary
responsibility if it allowed this to happen without Port's
engagement. So I just want to affirm the Port's interest and
commitment to the Project. We have demonstrated that throughout- -
our interest ensuring this Project went forward. On Thursday,
December 21, 2000, the FAA issued a Finding of No Significant
Impact for the Airport Development Program, which includes the
Roadway Project. This Federal action removes environmental
constraints on the Airport Development Program. The Port will
issue a Notice to Proceed with Gallagher & Burk on Contract A on
Thursday, December 28, 2000. Let me add that that segment of the
Project- -the excavation, the roadway component -- will start in
Alameda at the intersection of Harbor Bay Isle [Parkway] and the
new Roadway System. So the Port is committed to the entire
Project. I urge the City of Alameda to sign the Agreement because
I think it is a win -win for everybody engaged in this Project. The
Port is prepared to amend the Airport Roadway Agreement to state
that the Port's labor and overhead charges for Contract A - -and
that's the segment across to Alameda - -shall not exceed the amount
of $1,657,000 if any excess result in a total budget for the
Project exceeding the amount of the $114 Million. And the Port
also will agree to shift a total $75,000 from Contracts B and C,
combined, to Contract A. I have here our Project Manager, Frank
Lobodon. I would like for him to give a brief presentation to you
that helps you to perhaps understand how the funds are allocated
for this Project.
Mayor Appezzato: Thank you, Chuck. Two things. One concern we all
had was your commitment to the completion. I think you have
answered that. And it is on tape, so we will know. Just kidding.
Number two. One of the last paragraphs of the Resolution we are
going to sign [adopt], indicates that the City of Alameda is only
committing to what we have previously committed to -- the funding.
I think you understand both of those major issues, and those are my
two big concerns. So thank you.
Chuck Foster: I share your concerns. And as you can well imagine,
with our financial situation. We have equal concerns. But somehow
we are going to make this Project happen.
11
Mayor Appezzato: We are going to make it happen. I am not sure we
could get three votes to exceed what we have already committed.
Thank you very much.
Councilmember Kerr: I have a question [of Chuck Foster]. Thank you
for your presentation. I do understand that you have many things
that produce revenue; and, of course, it is natural that you would
want to put your money into those Projects. Alameda, of course,
also has limited funds being a small city with a big Base
conversion. The cost overruns -- the cost of this Project keeps
going up and up; and the Contractor, according to staff, came in
with a bid that is $5 Million lower than the Engineering Estimates.
So it is probable that it might continue to go up. So what do you
see? Because we are out of money. And if it goes up again, where
do you see any additional money being produced? Would you take it
from your $8.9 million that you are getting from the property that
you own [and] that you are being bought out? You know, it is
contributed property.
Chuck Foster: I think that it is critical that we move with the
Notice to Proceed that protects both of us -- all of us. Because if
there is a need to renegotiate a Contract with the current
Contractor, there will be an escalation. So [number] one, we need
to protect those Bids that exist in hand today. I think we must
look at the entire Project, in some sense, value engineering, or
whatever else that we can do. I do not think that we also give up
on the notion of other funds. I think we should all continue to
look for funding from ACTA and other agencies, if possible, to
support this Program. I just do not give up. I think we need to
work on it. I think we need to keep the Project on course. I know
I cannot answer your question entirely.
Councilmember Kerr: No, because I understand your funding
limitations. And, of course, we have serious ones. And with the
Project's history is the costs just keep going up and up and up.
It is not unlikely that the construction might halt somewhere along
the way without a connection between Harbor Bay Parkway and the
Airport. What happens then?
Chuck Foster: Okay. Number one. I do not envision the Project
halting. Let me ask Frank Lobodon to give you a presentation and
show the allocation of dollars. If you still have questions, we
will come back and perhaps work through that part with you.
Councilmember Kerr. Okay. Thank you.
Mayor Appezzato: Let me ask you this: if we do not approve this
tonight, escalation will definitely occur?
5
Chuck Foster: Any way you cut it. If you do not approve the
action, undoubtedly, there is no question that there will be
additional costs. No question that our State funding will be in
jeopardy. There are $5 Million State dollars that I believe are
committed to the Project, [and] will be in jeopardy. So we are
faced with those issues as well.
Mayor Appezzato: There may be escalation after the first of the
year, but we are not sure.
Chuck Foster: That is correct.
Mayor Appezzato: Thank you. Go ahead. But we are also sure that
we do not have any more money to put in if there is escalation.
Frank Lobodon, Project Manager: Good afternoon. I am Frank
Lobodon. I am a Civil Engineer and Project Manager on staff with
the Port of Oakland. I trust that you all have before you the
December 19 Budget. I am concentrating on the portion for Contract
A. And I just have some annotations that point to the six (6)
Changes that were made between December 12th and December 19th.
And what I thought might be helpful is if I walked through those
six (6) Changes, and you can see the overall effect. The first
Change pertains to capping Port in -house labor charges. Chuck
mentioned that in his talk. It is referenced under Note Number 1.
And the cap is set, proposed to be set, at $1.657 Million. And
that is a reduction from the December 12th Budget of $651,735.
However, as Project Manager, I am very comfortable with the number
of $1.6 Million. I know how it is comprised, and I feel confident
that we can make it through this job and keep staff labor at that
cost. As a matter of fact, Joe Long, our Director of Engineering,
has dictated that is the case. So that is my charge: to keep our
costs at $1.6 Million for in -house labor. The next change [is]
Change No. 2. It pertains to a distribution of costs. Now these
are Consulting Costs. It is referred to as ESDC, and that is an
acronym for Engineering Services During Construction. And the
number was reduced from the December 12 Budget by $207,580. And,
again, that is to more accurately reflect the proper distribution
between the Contracts, that takes into account the actual Contract
Amount, plus Costs to date. So this represents very little risk
because we have a Contract with a Consultant that caps those costs,
that sets a Guaranteed Maximum Price. The next Change pertains to
the Construction Management Consultant or CM Consultant. And there
are actually two Changes there: Changes 3 and 4. Change 3 was the
same as [Change] 2, in the sense that we accurately distributed
costs between the three Contracts. It resulted in a reduction in
the Consulting CM Budget of $131,023. And, again, I feel very
confident in that number, in that we will have a GMP, a Guaranteed
31
Maximum Price, in the Consultant Contract. Very little risk. We
alsochanged that item, as referenced in Note 4. Now, Note 4 talks
about subtracting $364,000 from the Consulting CM Budget. Now,
this is to account for work or for effort that they will spend
while inspecting Port Utility work included in Contract A , but
that is part of our Airport Development Program. It made sense to
combine the two. Because we have a Utility Corridor going down
Airport Drive, and we put future utilities in that Corridor. So we
backed out the costs -- prorated costs for that Consulting
Construction Manager. And the Port is going to fund that out of a
different Budget Item; not in the Airport Road Project, but out of
our Capital Improvement Program that Chuck mentioned. The next
Change deals with the Contingency that is referenced in Note 5. We
actually increased the Contingency available for Contract A by
$263,408. Now, I just would like to add at this point, that the
Contingency for the Project, at this point, - -the way we have it
listed - -is 11.10. And I feel confident that is a healthy
Contingency. And I can also add that I am responsible for many
projects in the Port's Construction, Capital Improvement Program
rather; and I typically will budget 100. So we actually feel that
this is a healthy Contingency. And then the last Change pertains
to what is called Special Contracting Provisions on your sheets.
But actually what that is -- that is escalation. And in the
Contract, the Contractor is allowed to escalate his Bid Price in
accordance with the economic factors listed in Engineering News
Record. Now, based on the latest issue of Engineering News Record,
we set that escalation price at $3.5 Million. That is the latest
information we have. I think it is a good number. Now that
represents a reduction from the December 12th Budget of $500,000.
But those six Changes are the sum total of what we did to get from
the 12th to the 19th. And this is the exact same presentation I
gave to staff. And I do appreciate - -to your staff, Alameda staff- -
I do appreciate the fact that the negotiations were done in a
compressed manner, and that the Budget changed. And it caught them
off guard, and I apologize if it caught you off guard. I must say,
this is the first time one of my budgets has got so much attention.
But I would be happy to field any questions that you have.
Mayor Appezzato: It probably would not get as much attention, but
we really -- you know -- 75,000 people -- we [City of Alameda] don't
have freeways and [a] Costco, so we do not have a hell of a lot of
money. So we are just very, very careful. But no, I do have a
question for Zack and Christine. My comment is: Since both of you
represent ACTA, which is Alameda County's Transportation Authority,
and your clients are not only the City of Alameda but the Port of
Oakland and others within the County, are you comfortable with the
presentation or do you have concerns that we should know about?
Christine. Zack.
7
Councilmember Kerr: May I ask him [Lobodon] a question before he
leaves, or would you like me to ask him a question later?
Mayor Appezzato: I am going to ask the question, and then you can
ask one as soon as mine is answered.
Councilmember Kerr: Okay.
Mayor Appezzato: Christine, do you want to answer that question
please. And just stick tight there, we will have another question
for you.
Christine Monsen: We are comfortable that they [Port of Oakland]
have a Contingency set aside. And that was one issue that we early
on with this Construction Contract wanted to make sure [of] -- that
there was an adequate Contingency set aside for Change Orders. With
every project you can find things during construction, and you need
to find the revenues to pay for them. And I commit that we will
not come back to the City of Alameda for those funds. We will look
at our reserves. The economy has been kind to us, so we can look
at that in light of all of our other Measure B projects.
Mayor Appezzato: My question is: Are you comfortable with the
presentation?
Christine Monsen: I am comfortable with it.
Mayor Appezzato: Would you [Lobodon] come back. Councilmember Kerr
has a question for you.
Councilmember Kerr: Thank you for your presentation. Since it was a
page, a large page, full of numbers that we got just before the
meeting, I have some questions. And I may not have followed
completely everything on here. I probably did not follow
everything completely on here. In our staff report, it points out
that one of the Changes between December 12th and December 19th,
was the Construction Management Cost for Project A was reduced by
$1,354,113. And staff's comment, in general, is that the staff
objects to the dollars being allocated to pay for cost overruns for
Contracts B and C. to which this reduction was allocated before
construction has commenced on Contract A. Did you cover that in
your commentary that we just heard? In other words, they reduced
the cost estimate for Contract A- -which is Alameda's part -- and re-
allocated those funds to Contracts B and C. which is Oakland's
part; and the staff recommendation is that the money should go into
Contingency Fund to increase our Contingency from 11.8% to 16.250.
And considering the way that costs have been rising, that would
not be unwise. So did you cover that when you just spoke to us?
Frank Lobodon: I believe I did. The first four Changes I mentioned
all fall under the general category of Construction Management and
Administration. And the Changes, in the most general sense, shift
dollars between A, B and C to cover costs both in B and C, but to
adequately budget for Contract A as well. So, let me clarify one
point. It would not be possible to take those same dollars,
represented by Changes 1 through 4, and just simply put them into
an added Contingency. Because the problem with that is then there
would be corresponding underruns, or, pardon me, overruns, on B and
C in the Construction Management and Administration area that we
would have to decide who is going to pay for. So, in order to make
the bottom line of work of the $114 Million, it would not be
possible to take those dollars and simply shift down to the
Contingency. We would then have overruns on B and C in the
Construction Management and Administration areas. One more point
to clarify. We are very careful to accurately distribute the
dollars between A, B and C. The dollars that we have left in A,
there is very little risk there in the area of the Construction
Management and Administration. We have capped the Port labor at
$1.657 Million, and that is going to be referenced in the
Agreement. We have Consulting Contracts for Engineering Services
during construction, as well as Construction Management Services.
Both those Budget items will be capped in our Consultant Contracts.
So there is very little risk of overruns in this area.
Councilmember Kerr: In the Staff's Report on that same page, they
also have half a million dollars that is being taken -- reduced in
escalation costs -- that are estimates that are being taken out of
Contract A.
Frank Lobodon: That is true.
Councilmember Kerr: That is true. Okay, thank you.
Frank Lobodon: Well, now the escalation accurately reflects what is
being -- what we intend to write the Change Order -- the Contractor
for, covering the escalation between September of 1999 through the
end of December 2000.
Mayor Appezzato: Are there any other questions before we go into
Closed Session now?
Vice Mayor DeWitt: Yes. On escalations. What is driving that?
What causes an escalation? Is that the -- when you budget it like
that, is that because of inflation, or water? Labor ? - -not labor.
But what is escalation?
Frank Lobodon: It is
account materials, as
it into the Contract
a market basket of sorts
well as labor. And the idea
was to - -see, we
9
awarded a
that takes into
behind building
Contract if you
recall, and we did not issue a Notice to Proceed. So the
Contractor bid and his number was based on September, 1999 prices.
And here now, we have allowed sixteen (16) or seventeen (17)
months to pass. So he is entitled to some inflation, if you will.
And so the way that we were able to come up with a technique that
is acceptable to the contracting community was to tie it back into
a publication, such as E &R and their construction cost index for
the San Francisco Bay Area. And it is comprised as I say, as
materials, certain materials and labor.
Vice Mayor DeWitt: Okay.
Mayor Appezzato: We will go to Closed Session. We should be out
shortly.
Councilmember Johnson: Mr. Mayor. I just want a clarification.
For Christine. I think [she] would be the appropriate person.
Mayor Appezzato: Christine.
Councilmember Johnson: Do you envision that the Cross Airport
Roadway could start and then suddenly come to a halt? Or, do you
think that we have those problems worked out pretty well?
Christine Monsen: Like Chuck [Foster] said, I cannot envision the
Port [of Oakland] getting the Contract and then canceling it at a
future time. That would certainly be inconsistent with ACTA's
desires.
Councilmember Johnson: Okay. Thank you.
Mayor Appezzato: We will go to Closed Session.
Following the Closed Session, Mayor Appezzato reconvened the
Special Council Meeting
Mayor Appezzato: [The] City Council voted 4 to 1 to approve [adopt]
the Resolution [to] execute the Fourth Amendment to the Agreement.
And we will do that again for public notification [purposes], but
that was an action taken. There was a comment from Council.
[Councilmember] Tony [ Daysog].
Councilmember Daysog: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I think, to
be sure, I think all of us recognize the forest, working to
separate the trees from the forest, the forest being the ultimate
product that the completion of the Roadway will mean to the City of
Alameda, if not the region. But, as to be expected, we are all
concerned about the details -- the trees. And like all the rest of
10
the Councilmembers, you know certainly I am concerned about issues
like cost escalation. I mean technical things like cost
escalation, ENR's, and all those kinds of things. And to the
extent that we as a City can insert ourselves in that process, I
think that will definitely -- process of management and oversight- -
that will definitely make things even smoother. So I understand
the difficulties in that. But I think it is important you know for
me as a representative of Alameda - -one of the representatives of
Alameda - -to say that, so that we can insert -- we do have something
called the PAC, I understand, and that is an important role. And I
think our representatives there, Mr. Naclerio [Public Works
Director] and others, have done a yeoman's job in that area. But,
in the same way that the Port, or other members, are asking us to
go take a step forward, when it comes to the dollars, we also want
to be able to take a step forward when it comes to our direct
involvement -- I mean I am not specifying what that involvement is,
but to the extent that we could even be more direct, that would be
wonderful. And a lot of relations would be soothed. Thank you Mr.
Mayor.
Mayor Appezzato: Any other comments?
Councilmember Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I will make just a brief comment
and then I will make a motion. This Resolution that we are
approving tonight does two things, and we have two hurdles that we
have overcome. One is Alameda does not have any more money to put
in. We wish we did. But there are a lot of other things we want to
spend money on, and we do not have money to do those either. So
the first is, no more money; and the second is, we want the Project
to go forward. Alameda residents committed to this Project many
years ago, and it has not happened yet. But we would like to see
it proceed forward and come to a conclusion somewhere in the middle
near future. So I will make a motion to --
Mayor Appezzato: We really do not have to, but we will. We have a
motion, and you [Vice Mayor DeWitt] seconded it.
Vice Mayor DeWitt: I will second it.
Mayor Appezzato: Okay. Any further discussion?
Councilmember Kerr: I just wanted to comment that this -- Alameda's
required contribution has gone from a little over $6 Million to
$8.8 Million, plus an additional half a million [dollars]. This
whole Project is beginning to look like we are Charley Brown and
the Port is holding the football. One of my main objections to
this Amendment is that the Port is not agreeing that they will push
for the completion of the Project without any additional funds from
Alameda. We may say that, but so many times we give direction and
11
then the whole thing comes back to us asking us for more money. I
would like to point out that the Traffic Improvement Fund was
originally started way back when the Earth was cooling to pay for
improvements throughout the City because of the impact of the
Harbor Bay Business Park. We have so many projects that we are not
completing within the City because the money has been diverted --
the TIF money has been diverted to this Cross Airport Roadway. I
would also like to point out in the original DEIR /DEIS for the
Airport Expansion -- in that document they actually said that the
Cross Airport Roadway would increase traffic on Fernside [Blvd.]
and High [Street]. In the current one, the LOS's they give for all
the pertinent intersections are unacceptable, no matter what
happens. So I think it is an empty promise to the people in the
East End, given these studies, which are the best we got, that this
will help the traffic through the East End. I am disappointed that
the Port has not been willing to commit money from the --
essentially they are selling property at the Airport to this
Project for $8.9 Million -- I am disappointed that they are not
willing to say that they would contribute money from that $8.9
Million for future cost overruns. End of comment.
Mayor Appezzato: I want to also let the citizens of this City know
that in 1986, this Project was part of the original Measure B which
the citizens of this City approved: a Cross Airport Roadway. It is
unfortunate that fifteen years later, we are still dealing with the
Project. But this Council, I think the majority 4 - 1 -- and by
the way, the 4 - 1 has been that way since day one -- Councilmember
Kerr has been opposed to this Project; not just tonight, but from
the beginning. I just want everyone to know we are doing what the
citizens asked us to do, by a 4 - 1 vote, back in 1986. I think
personally, the Project will be a huge benefit, contrary to other
opinion - -will be a huge benefit to Doric Development, the Business
Park and this City. And if just one car from Fernside [Blvd.] uses
that freeway, it will be a benefit to the East End. All in favor?
Vice Mayor DeWitt: Aye.
Councilmember Daysog: Aye.
Councilmember Johnson: Aye.
Mayor Appezzato: Aye.
Mayor Appezzato: Opposed?
Councilmember Kerr: No.
Mayor Appezzato: Measure [Resolution] passes 4 to 1.
12