The Little Trestle That Still Can!

Dear Editor,

Regarding your article about "The Little Trestle That Could," it is indeed a tragedy that the City of Larkspur wants to remove this important and valuable structure. The request to tear down the railroad trestle and widen Sir Francis Drake Blvd. ironically comes at the same time as the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District is planning to pave over the railroad corridor between the trestle and the Cal Park Hill tunnel to provide more free parking at the Larkspur Ferry Terminal.

Everyone agrees that traffic and parking congestion is a problem. However, undermining the integrity of a vital transportation corridor to satisfy the voracious appetite of the automobile is not a well thought out plan. Especially when the reason for such a violation is a parking lot that is a 10 minute walk from the terminal, mostly through other parking lots.

Despite the fact that it seems that passenger rail will not reach Larkspur in the near future, there is a compelling argument to be made in favor of preserving structures such as trestles and tunnels so that future transportation options can be left open.

An intelligent, cost effective alternative to more traffic and more asphalt would be to convert this corridor into a bicycle / pedestrian path that will provide Marin residents with a flat, car-free greenway connecting to San Rafael through the Cal Park Hill Tunnel and to Corte Madera over the trestle.

Continuing to chip away at our inherited transit resources and our natural environment in order to cater to ever greater numbers of single occupant vehicles is a short-sighted behavior that will benefit nobody. Preserving an historic corridor by converting it to a greenway for skaters, bicyclists, wheelchairs, and pedestrians is a sensible investment that will preserve the corridor for future rail and will improve the health and well-being of County residents in the meantime.

Josh Hart

Fairfax

Harbor Bay Residents Make Some Noise of Their Own

Dear Editor,

I read your editorial piece entitled, "Heroes &Goats", in the April edition of Bay Crossings. I agree with your position that we all must take responsibility for the Bay, hence, its protection. However, I believe your conclusion that Harbor Bay residents must accept additional airplane noise in lieu of Sail Francisco’s proposed runway expansion into the bay is superficial.

The Community of Harbor Bay Isle in conjunction with CLASS, Citizens League for Airport Safety and Serenity, which collectively represents an estimated 1 1,000 Harbor Bay Island residents (a number we do not consider to be "a relatively small number,.."), has been in discussions with representatives of the Oakland Airport for the last 15 years with a goal to create a balance between airport development and the attendant issues of safety and noise. These discussions have never reached the level of negotiations simply because the airport refuses to move to this level. We have proposed to the airport solutions that we believe provide for development while addressing our concerns. Unfortunately, the airport will not consider them.

San Francisco’s proposed runway expansion plan’s primary goal is to address delays in arrivals and departures and not future expansion. Furthermore, this goal can be more efficiently and quickly addressed through the implementation of global positioning technology. This technology does not require filling the bay with two square miles of new runways.

In short, the issues you wish to address are complex. They take thoughtful research and analysis before arriving at conclusions and/or solutions. I would be more than happy to provide you with more substantive background information.

Walt Jacobs

Vice President

Community of Harbor Bay Isle

Editor’s Note: We’re going to take Mr. Jacobs up on his offer for more information on this issue as part of continuing coverage on this issues in the months to come.

Perspective on Port of Oakland

Long before it was "Oakland" this was a waterfront place and will be long after "Oakland" is forgotten. The Port rolled out its RFQ (Request for Qualifications) for development of the Oak to 9th Ave. section of the Estuary Plan Area last week. The bottom line of the RFQ is right in line with Article 7 of the City Charter, which in 1927 set up the Port. In essence Article 7 says ‘take these lands and make money’.

Although there were always skirmishes over Waterfront access, commerce and related industries took precedence. Even with containerization the seaport and airport occupy three quarters of Oakland’s twenty-one mile shoreline, and for obvious reasons will never have any public access. Despite the recommendations of the Charter Review Committee in 1995 to withdraw the remaining five miles from the Port’s jurisdiction, the Port sold Site B to Lincoln Properties (now Legacy Properties) for $12.00 /sq. foot shortly thereafter. Now anyone can rent an apartment at ‘The Landing’ for just $2500.00/month, and like the Executive Inn, Portabello and KTVU, there is enough "public access" along the shoreline to build a levee as the sea level rises.

Except for two private parcels in the middle, most of the Oak to 9th area is Tidelands held in trust by the State of California for the Public, so a sixty-six year lease is as much as the Port can offer. Ironically efforts to sweeten this pot by inducing eminent domain over the private holdings for a proposed "Pan Pacific Expo" several years ago were what forced me into this conflagration. My neighborhood graphically demonstrated to City Council that amongst other fallacies in the proposal, the Expo simply wouldn’t fit here. The only notice our landlords or we received was via the newspaper, so potential negotiations were stillborn. When the obvious choice of potential locations became the Army Base the Port balked and the sham crumbled.

The 9th Ave. Terminal is given Port Priority Use Status in the BCDC’s SF Bay Plan and the first responsibility of a would-be housing/office developer is to assist the Port in getting the BCDC to lift this designation. The Estuary Policy Plan does not include residential uses except joint living and working quarters. It may be under the circumstances that the Public’s interest would be better served if the Port Priority Use Status remained. Public access has become the paramount use of Tidelands, but we surely won’t get much from the Port’s business as usual.

Robin Bartoo