Chapter 9: The Long Journey to Find and Fund a Campus Site (Full Detail)

Chapter 9: The Long Journey to Find and Fund a Campus Full Detail Version Introduction In 1960 the California legislature passed, and the Governor signed into law, the Donahoe Bill, also known as the California Master Plan for Higher Education. This landmark legislation called for universal, no-cost, access to higher education for all Californians. As a result, numerous new Cal State and junior college campuses were built in the 1960s. Land speculation grew and business opportunities for municipalities, realtors, architects and construction firms were plentiful.

From 1959 to 1964 the South County Junior College District (SCJCD) (Chabot College), spearheaded by cities and school districts of Hayward and San Leandro (and later joined by Pleasanton, Livermore, Dublin and Union City), went through the complete cycle of district formation, starting classes at a temporary location, passing a construction bond measure, and building a permanent campus. The Fremont-Newark Junior College District (FNJCD) was formed in December 1965 and embarked on a similar cycle as that completed by SCJCD. The issues of bonds, sites and architects were on agenda of the new District Trustees from the beginning. After the first, mainly ceremonial, Board meeting on January 3, 1966, the first meeting to conduct regular business was held on January 12, 1966. At this meeting the Board received three communications that gave early signals of the three major issues that would dominate the work of the Board in the journey to build a permanent campus for the new junior college.

The first was from Washington Hospital surgeon, Dr. Holger Rasmussen. Dr. Rasmussen had been President of the Washington Union High School Board and Fremont Unified’s Board after school unification. He was also a leader in the drive to create the FNJCD, and served as chairman of the campaign for the formation election. His communication was in the form of a letter to the Board reporting a $108 surplus from the formation campaign and requesting that it be held to support the eventual bond campaign. This is a clear indicator that the notion of floating a bond to build a campus was in the works before day one.

The second communication was from local realtor Jim Critchfield who forwarded maps for a proposed college site on Jarvis and Newark Boulevard at a cost $12,500 per acre (this site came up later in the selection process). Eventually, total of a two dozen sites would be in the running.

The Board also received a request for consideration of an architect for the permanent campus project from Worsley, Rankin and Williamson. This was the first in what would be a series of similar requests from other firms This section will cover the journey toward establishing a permanent campus for the new Junior College District. It is a story of initial optimism and an early failure.

This was followed by regrouping and resolute planning ending with a successful bond measure in June of 1968. This led to a plan for an exciting permanent campus on a beautiful site. This section is divided into three parts:   

First Bond Attempt Regrouping and Focusing on Site Selection Second Bond Attempt

First Bond Attempt Given the fast track set by SCJCD/Chabot College, the Fremont-Newark Junior College District Trustees were initially optimistic about being able to start classes in that first year. The sooner classes could begin, the sooner state aid would come their way in the form of apportionment for attendance, as well as state funding support for facilities. Following an initial ceremonial meeting on January 3, 1966 and a short agenda meeting on January 12, the Board meeting on January 19 was called a “work session” by Board President Sears to address the numerous issues and tasks ahead of them. To assist they had gathered a group of experts in starting junior colleges. The full Board Minutes for this comprehensive discussion are presented in Appendix 7.

The discussions covered a number of key topics including bonds, site selection and architects. The magnitude of what needed to be accomplished caused the Board to rethink the original notion of starting classes in September 1966. At their next meeting on January 26, 1966 Trustees voted 5-2 to delay the start of classes until September 1967. As will be seen, this did not settle the issue.

An important factor in campus planning was the “701 Sketch Plan” coming before the Fremont and Newark City Councils. The “701 Sketch Plan” is what might now be referred to as a City’s General Plan. As will be seen, this plan would have its own take on the future of higher education facilities in the City.

At the February 2, 1966 Board meeting Trustees received a review of the “701 Sketch Plan” by Perry Hockson, Newark Planning Department, and Marilyn Pray, Fremont Planning Department. Mrs. Pray stated that although the Sketch Plan had potential sites for colleges and universities, it would not be recommending specific sites for the junior college. An Argus article that day indicated the “701 Sketch Plan” called for four junior colleges and a four-year college in Fremont’s future. Locations cited were 1) west of Newark, in the northwestern area of Newark, 2) in the hills east of Fremont and 3) south of Walnut Way.

The months of February and March 1966 were spent on other major operational tasks including hiring an interim part-time administrator, launching the search for a Superintendent/President, leasing temporary office space for the District, procuring furniture and equipment for the offices, procuring initial budget funds from the county, setting up an accounting system with the county, purchasing insurance and obtaining secretarial help.

In early April 1966 there was a slight controversy that is a great example of small town politics and the use of the local newspaper to promote a particular agenda.

The day before the April 6 Board meeting the Argus ran a story (A-026) with the headline, “$9 Million Bond?” The article reported that a group of citizens was planning “…to appear before the Board that evening to petition for the ($9 million) bond issue to finance the purchase of a site and a set of portable classrooms to get at least a temporary educational program in operation” by the fall of 1966.

The article mentioned Fremont Trustees Hochler and Costello as strong proponents of getting classes underway in the fall of 1966. As mentioned in the Establishment Period section above, Hochler had tried at least once to get the Board to reconsider its earlier decision to postpone the start of classes to fall of 1967.

Costello was not available for comment but Hochler was quoted as saying he was unaware of a group coming to the Board. However the article went on to state: …he (Hochler) does favor going forward with a bond issue and setting up temporary facilities to start the college in fall of 1966. He said the idea came from a recent study trip to a new college in St. Louis that had used bond funding to, “acquire a permanent site for the new junior college and then setting up portable classroom around its perimeter to handle the program until permanent construction gets started.” He said the school used the portables for storage space…when the permanent buildings were finished.

But, he also indicated that he was not in favor of setting up a bond plan before a Superintendent/ President was hired. Although he said there would be no harm in exploring what it would take to put together a bond effort.

No citizen’s group addressed the Board about a possible bond at the April 6 meeting. During the discussion session at the meeting, Mr. Snow felt the Board should start consideration of a long range planning program. Mr. Sears thought the Board should investigate the District’s bond capacity and discuss this matter with other college districts regarding their past practices. Dr. Edmison stated that since a bond election was inevitable in the future, the new President should find this a first item of business.

Interim Administrator Lloyd Messersmith suggested if all press releases were issued through the District office, it would solve many logistical problems. In addition, it was felt that those issues of vital concern should be released only after authorization by the Board. This could lead one to conclude that the Argus article about the potential $9 million bond was based on some sort of communication from a Board member to the Argus.

The months of April, May and June 1966 were dominated by the work to recruit, screen and select the Superintendent/President for the District. As described earlier, Dr. Stephen Epler was hired at the end of June and Dr. James Duke was hired a Vice President in July. Both had come from the College of Marin and both had experience with bond issues and college construction projects. Epler, in particular, had previous successful experience in starting both a campus center and a full college from scratch. The college he developed was Reedley College in California, so he was quite familiar with the California scene.

The only mention of site selection during that period came at the May 4 Board Meeting. Under other business, the topic of site selection was discussed and Dr. Edmison suggested that each Board member get topographical and aerial maps of the District’s territory. The Board could then appoint a committee of two of three people to draw up possible sites. Mr. Snow stated a decision on the number of sites needed must be made. Mr. Messersmith added he felt that no more than two sites should be considered. No follow up on this is recorded.

During June, July and August, 1966 a major task for the Board and the new Superintendent/ President was developing and approving the 1966-67 budget. The topics of permanent site selection and bond issue came up in the process in the form of two questions: 1) Should the site acquisition funds be in the budget or in the bond? and 2) Should the site be selected before the bond? The concern about the first question was the impact it would have on the resulting tax rate. The worry about the second question was potential land speculation should the site selection process to be part of the bond campaign. The final 1966-67 budget contained a $200,000 undistributed reserve to support site acquisition activities.

As a side note: Site selection would become a major issue 35 years later in the 2001 campaign to pass the Measure A bond to build a second campus in Newark.

Work on site selection and bond planning picked up momentum rapidly after the 1966-67 budget had been finalized and Dr. Epler and Dr. Duke were firmly settled in their new jobs. At the August 3 Board meeting Dr. Epler reviewed the amount of time required to plan and construct a permanent campus. He stated that building and occupying a permanent campus at the earliest possible date would have the primary advantage of providing additional education to many more students.

Dr. Epler pointed out there was a measure on the November 8, 1966 General Election that would allow school bonds to be approved with a 60% yes vote rather than the two-thirds required at the time. He explained Trustees would need to act quickly to meet the timeline for a bond issue on the November 8 ballot.

Mr. Vassallo of the Country Superintendent of Schools office explained some of the advantages of holding a bond election in conjunction with a general election. One of the most significant advantages was a reduction in the per-precinct cost. In a general election the cost to the District would be $14 or $15 per precinct versus

$200 to $250 per precinct in a special election. He stated a minimum of 45 days was required following a general election before a special bond election could be held.

When asked about the projected size and cost of a permanent campus, Drs. Epler and Duke explained that a minimum of 100 acres was required for a junior college site, but that the State Department of Education recommended a site of at least 160 acres. They reported many junior colleges were acquiring sites of 200 or 300 acres.

Regarding the new Fremont-Newark Junior College they anticipated full-time day enrollment of 2,000 full-time equivalent students in approximately three to four years. Using state formulas, the cost of building a campus for these students was estimated to be in excess of $7.5 million.

Mr. Vassallo stated the District could propose a bond issue of any magnitude, but that no more than five percent of assessed valuation in bonds could be sold at any one time. He also explained that a ten million dollar bond issue with the bonds sold over a three to four year period would cost the taxpayers approximately 18 cents per $100 of assessed valuation. He said the District was paying 25 cents per $100 assessed valuation to cover out-of-district tuition charges for students attending other junior colleges.

The arguments for going out for the bond that year were strong and at the next Board meeting on August 10 the Trustees unanimously approved Resolution #466/67 ordering a ten million dollar capital outlay bond issue be placed on the November 8 general election ballot. Trustee Blawie moved and Trustee Snow seconded a motion to establish a Citizens’ Steering Committee to promote the bond.

Dr. Epler explained the procedure used at Peralta College and other Districts utilizing such a committee. The motion passed unanimously.

Trustee Blawie cited 49 area residents desirous of serving on a citizens’ committee: including Fremont City Councilmen Gene Rhodes and Dr. Hugh Block, Professor O. Fritz Freitag, Dr. William Vandenburgh, H. Guy Clouser, Rollin Cunningham, Danial Silva, James Bray, James Vieth, Mrs. Amelia Silva, and Stuart Carpenter.

She called for creation of a 350 person committee to promote the bond passage.

An August 15, 1966 Argus article (A-027) stated: In the short space of two weeks…the Trustees have managed to shape a $10 million bond issue for the Nov. 8 general election ballot and set up the machinery for a huge citizens committee to push for its passage. Whether the 49 prominent persons enlisted by Trustee Mrs. Marilyn Blawie last week will swell their ranks by an additional 200 or 300 supporters is questionable.

Board President Wes Sears has asked each of the seven Trustees to try and come back with the names of 50 persons willing to work for passage of the district’s first bond issue.

The article also offered an interesting comparison to efforts of the nearby newly formed West Valley Junior College District:

The district has proceeded through its infant months somewhat like the West Valley Junior College District in Campbell. West Valley was set up a year before it started accepting students. Although it is three years old, it is still operating in rented facilities. It has purchased land in Saratoga on which to build or place portable buildings and has its eye on additional property in Santa Clara. The district has already been rebuffed twice on bond issues but has a third ready for the November ballot. (It is) small wonder then that the wheels are already turning in Fremont and Newark.

By the September 7, 1966 Board meeting the District received the wording for the bond measure, which would be identified as Measure J on the ballot. No record of the ballot language has been found in college files, but the Argus printed the language in a September 10 article (A-028): Shall the Fremont-Newark Junior College District of Alameda County incur a bonded indebtedness in the sum of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000) for the purpose of raising money for the following purposes (which are hereby united and shall be voted upon as one single proposition) to wit: The purchasing of school lots; The building or purchasing of school buildings; The making of alterations or additions to the school building or buildings other than such as may be necessary for current maintenance operation or repairs; The supplying of school buildings and grounds with furniture equipment or necessary apparatus of a permanent nature; The permanent improvement of the school grounds; and The carrying out of the projects for purposes authorized in Section 15811 of the Education Code, to wit, to provide sewers and drains adequate to treat and-or dispose of sewage and drainage on or away from school property.

At that meeting Trustees reviewed wording and some concern was raised about the use of the term “school” instead of “college.” Dr. Epler explained the language comes from the State Education Code. This is another example of the effects on the junior college from being part of the State Department of Education. The K-12 legacy still remains today within the Education Code.

General discussion ensued at the meeting regarding the upcoming bond campaign.

The topics included: Need to start campaign immediately Need to coordinate all publicity releases Need to actively solicit volunteer workers from the entire community Need for financial support for the campaign Need for speakers to present information to the public At that same meeting Dr. Elwood Lehman, a consultant in the Bureau of Junior College Administration and Finance of the State Department of Education, presented slides on recently constructed junior college facilities in both California and nationwide. Dr. Lehman emphasized the need for continuous planning and explained several new devices or systems currently being used as instructional aids

in junior colleges. As will be seen, Dr. Lehman would become a central figure in the final site selection two years later in the fall of 1968.

According to the September 21 Board meeting minutes the Trustees approved Resolution 9-66/67 authorizing an application to the State Department of Education under Junior College Construction Act (SB 318) for $653,905 to assist with site acquisition. The Argus (A-032) reported the application was actually $1.33 million total over a three-year period and would include capital outlay funds for buildings in addition to site acquisition. The report further suggested the District was obligated to put up $1.9 million in matching funds to become eligible for the state construction funds, which was dependent upon passage of the $10 million bond issue in November 1966.

The actual resolution has not been found in college files but it is clear the Board intended to make use of the Junior College Construction Act funding to help acquire and build a permanent campus. The resolution passed unanimously. A year later, Dr. Epler would get caught in a local political furor by looking to an update of this law as a source of campus funding. As will be seen, it was interpreted then to be a plan to circumvent the traditional bonding strategy requiring local voter approval.

Bond campaign planning was in full swing during the month of September 1966.

There were several interesting planning tidbits from the September 14, 1966 Board meeting: 1) $108 remained from campaign to establish the District and was earmarked for use in the bond campaign, 2) it was suggested that each board member should make a contribution, checks made out to the Junior College Bond Campaign, and 3) Trustee Blawie suggested an Open House be organized to introduce college staff to the community and was appointed as a committee of one to do it. In addition, the Board refined the ballot argument for publication as part of the county election materials.

A Citizens’ Steering Committee for the Bond (Steering Committee) was created and involved many of the folks who were involved in the campaign to form the District.

Assemblyman Carlos Bee agreed to serve as Honorary Chairman. The first meeting of the committee was scheduled for September 28 at Kennedy High School.

Proposed sub-committees were Finance, Endorsement, Publicity and Precinct. It was suggested that each committee have Fremont and Newark co-chairs.

A short Board meeting was conducted on September 28 at Kennedy High School prior to the Steering Committee meeting. The next day the Argus (A-029) reported a sparse turnout of about 35 persons, including District staff and board members The main presenters were Board President Wesley Sears and Dr. Holger Rasmussen, Co-Chair of the Steering Committee. Sears announced that Assemblyman Carlos Bee, D-Hayward, had agreed to serve as Honorary Chairman of the Steering Committee, and that Stuart Carpenter would be the Newark CoChairman. Subsequently Judge E. A. Quaresma and Mr. Joseph Souza agreed to Chair the Finance Committee. Other Finance Committee members included Wendell Ogard, Fremont and Joseph Souza, Newark. Mr. Frank Haggerty agreed

to serve as Chairman of Publicity. Other Steering Committee members would include William Delucchi of Newark, and Walter Aylward, Frank Haggerty, Wendell Ogard, Wes Peterson and Peter Jacobson of Fremont.

The Argus article provides a glimpse of what would be an underlying issue leading to the defeat of the bond, the lack of a designated site for the permanent campus: The discussion turned to the size of the permanent campus, which district spokesmen have said will open up in September 1969 for classes for 2,500 full time students. Dr. Epler said the minimum size recommended by the state is 100 acres, although the usual size is 150-160 acres – some districts have sites of 200 acres.

Neither district officials nor board members have said anything thus far about which sites are being considered. Dr. Epler said last week that if the potential sites were named, opposition against the bond issue might develop.

Dr. Rasmussen call a halt to the discussion with the comment: “The purpose of this meeting is to get a junior college – not to argue its merits.”

The bond campaign received a significant blow when the Argus, which staunchly supported the formation of the District, came out against the bond measure in an October 6 Editorial titled, “Reject the Bond Issue” (Appendix 26). The editorial commended the Trustees and other advocates for their hard work over several years to bring a junior college to the area. They indicated that up to this point the community had been in strong support of the effort.

The bottom-line of their opposition was there needed to be considerably more specific planning done and much more public vetting. The paper felt the Trustees had now, “put together a hastily-prepared and rather vague bond issue to get their dreams on paper.” They were concerned about the following:     

No long-range plan had been developed A site had not been identified The $10 million seemed to have been “pulled from a hat” because it was the maximum the state allowed Enrollment projections were vague and uncertain The college curriculum had not been set

Further, they claimed there was “a strong suspicion that the District Trustees and administrators view with considerable envy Proposition 4 on the forthcoming ballot, a measure that would reduce the necessary two-third majority on such bond issues to only a 60 per cent majority.”

At the next Board meeting on October 12, 1966 Dr. Epler recommended the Board appoint a citizens’ committee to assist in site selection. A motion passed unanimously to do so and added “curriculum development” to the committee responsibility. This would appear to be in direct response to the October 6, 1966 Argus editorial.

Another press-related hiccup in the bond campaign occurred on the day of the October 19, 1966 Board meeting. In an article previewing the Board meeting that evening, Trustee Blawie was quoted as saying the District had “explored the matter of campus sites regularly and fully and it has announced publicly that in due course it would be purchasing one or more sites and invited offers of campus sites.” This fed into the suspicion that a site had already been selected, or was near selection, but not to be announced until after the bond election.

At the Board meeting that evening Trustee Snow presented an 11-point statement regarding the selection of sites (statement not in the archives). The Board approved unanimously to adhere to it until a site was selected (Trustee Blawie was not present at the meeting). The Argus (A-030) quoted Snow as saying his 11-point statement was intended to, “make it clear that we have not selected a site.” The Argus article went on to state: “The board action was in response to comments made by persons opposed to the bonds, and over the board’s refusal to name a site until after the $10 million bond issue is voted on Nov. 8.”

Snow went on to say critics of the bonds, “…give the impression that we’re hiding something from the public.” He added that, “…perhaps her (Blawie’s) comments were ambiguous; I thought we should clear up the ambiguities. We have not discussed specific sites. We have discussed procedures for selecting sites.”

The article included statements from Dr. Rasmussen. He stated, “The reason we haven’t picked a site is because you cannot chose a site and go to condemnation, and then not have the money to buy it. He also said if the site is announced too soon, “…land speculation will start. I hate to admit it, but it’s the truth.”

In a related Argus article (A-032) that day, Dr. Rasmussen projected the general use of the $10 million bond: Land purchase and site development: $2 million; Buildings: $6 million; Equipment: $1.5 million; and Reserves for contingencies: $500,000.

At the October 19 Board meeting mentioned above, a number of other items related to the bond campaign and campus planning were addressed: 

 

Dr. Elwood Lehman, of the Bureau of Junior College Administration and Finance of the State Department of Education, showed photographs of the Cypress College campus recently visited by Trustees Sears and Costello.

Cypress was housing classes in temporary buildings on the construction site of their permanent campus. He further offered his services to the District in any way he could to assist during the planning phase of the college.

Dr. Rasmussen advised the Board that the City of Fremont is to consider the 701 Plan in the near future and the adopted statement should be made available to the city. (statement not in minutes) Mr. Sears reminded the Board and the public that the Board at a previous meeting adopted a resolution calling for a Citizens’ Advisory Committee to

 

assist with selection and program development. He invited all citizens to submit names of people to be on the committee.

Mr. Hochler indicated the Newark Women’s Improvement Club had come out against the bond and asked Dr. Epler to contact them.

Dr. Duke presented a memo on “Criteria for Selection of an Architect.” (not in the archives) The Board passed a motion for staff to continue working on the criteria. Snow pointed out that not all phases of the total architectural services required would necessarily be needed at one time.

Campaign mailers began arriving at the homes of residents during the last part of October. This generated two articles in the Argus on the same day; one negative and one positive.

Because the mailers were sent out from the District office and it appeared staff time had been involved in the preparation and distribution of the materials the Argus published an article (A-033) with a somewhat provocative and misleading headline “College Staff Promotes Bond Issue’s Passage?” Although it had a question mark at the end, the average reader would likely take it as a declarative sentence.

Dr. Epler and Dr. Duke defended the District stating the two brochures, “Taxpayers Information Bulletin” and “Build Our Community College, Facts on Measure ‘J’” were printed, paid for and distributed by the Citizens’ Steering Committee. Dr. Epler defended the use of college staff time, as it was mainly in connection with getting out information about the District and not directed toward advocating for bond passage. These explanations apparently passed muster, as no further news articles appeared related to the issue. (Although the Argus chastised the District in a November 10 editorial, see below) The second Argus article on the same day (A-034) was a report about the content of the mailers mentioned above. The mailers urged support of the bond measure and, “…emphasizes a “Yes” vote on Measure J will bring a campus to this area and keep local tax money at home.” The article states the Board claimed the maximum tax rate to repay the bonds would be 18 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, adding that local taxpayers pay 25 cents of the District’s 62 cent tax rate to other districts to educate students from Fremont and Newark. The Board was expected, however, to keep the present 62 cent tax rate.

The article presents the key arguments for the bond from the campaign literature: “Every taxpayer in California pays a junior college tax whether he is in a junior college district or not. If we did not have our own district as we have now we would be paying about $730,000 a year to out-of-district colleges that our students are attending. With a district but no buildings we now pay $433,600 to other junior college districts. With passage of the bonds, we can have a campus – and keep our tax money at home.”

“The cost to other districts is figured on tuition fees plus a $300 ‘seat tax’ for their capital improvements. Because we formed our own district last year,

we received a moratorium on the ‘seat tax.” But the moratorium will expire three years after the bonds are passed thereby upping our tax rate. We need our won college facilities before then.” “…a home site enables transportation and other commuting costs to be reduced, brings a local payroll to boost the area’s economy, gives local students first choice of classes, attracts industries with its large tax base, and money spent by students for food, clothing, books and supplies spend at home.”

By the end of October 1966 Measure J had formal endorsement from Congressman Don Edwards; the Centerville Business Association; California School Employees Association (CSEA) - Newark Chapter; the Newark Teachers’ Association; Governor Pat Brown; Washington Township Industries; the Alameda County Education Association Board of Directors; and the Fremont Chapter of the Mexican American Political Association. The Argus reported that the Citizens’ Bonds Committee released a list of 43 organizations that had endorsed the bond issue including Hayward, Fremont and Newark Chambers of Commerce, Fremont and Newark City Councils, Fremont and Newark Unified School District’s Boards of Education, and Fremont and Newark Jaycees. Three opponents were: The Argus, Newark Women’s Improvement Club and Frank Calhoun, Safeway Stores executive.

On Election Day, November 8, 1966, the $10 million Measure J construction bond failed. It received 59% Yes vote, over 7 points lower than the required 66.6%.

Proposition 4 that would have lowered the threshold to 60% for this type of bond also failed. However, if it had passed the 59% vote would still not have been enough. Board President Wes Sears was quoted as saying that the bond failed with, “…a landslide majority vote of 59%.”

At the November 9, 1966 Board meeting Dr. Epler presented his analysis and comment regarding the elections results:           

Only three other states require 2/3 vote on school bonds, while 32 require a simple majority Four junior college bond votes were unsuccessful: Contra Costa, 63%; Fremont-Newark, 59%; West Valley and Santa Barbara, 50%.

The Los Angeles over-ride of 15 cents failed and Modesto passed a 30 cent over-ride.

The adverse effect of AB-80 Concern over taxes generally The need to use all available state and federal funds Forthcoming NUSD and FUSD bond elections The need to start classes in temporary quarters in the fall An uninformed public The need for site selection action and community participation Possible timing for future bond election

The Board, administration and community supporters were hesitant to identify, or even discuss identifying, a campus site before the bond election for fear of politicizing the matter. However, lack of clarity on the site proved a politicizing factor that, along with other issues, contributed to the defeat of the measure.

In a November 10 Editorial (A-035), “Cooperation Needed Now,” the Argus again criticized bond supporters and District administrators for rushing to get on the ballot in an attempt to take advantage of the possible passage of Proposition 4. The Argus also called for full adherence to election laws and paying back the District for staff time spent promoting the bonds. They then offered an olive branch, of sorts: Community cooperation is now the real need and the Argus promises to lend its full cooperation to a responsible, objective and economically feasible approach to the problems which are still with us as long as that approach is designed purely to involve and serve the interest of ALL the people not just a chosen few.

An interesting side note about this particular election: Ronald Reagan was elected Governor defeating Edmund G. “Pat” Brown who was running for a third term.

Regrouping and Focusing on Site Selection The Board wrapped up the year 1966 by adopting approval criteria and a procedure for selecting an architect and establishing criteria and a procedure for selecting a site for a permanent campus. One of the responsibilities of an architectural firm would be assist with the vetting of possible campus sites. The site selection procedure included the use of a citizens’ advisory committee, which would also provide input on program and curriculum development.

In an end of the year story in the Argus (A-039), Dr. Duke indicated about a half dozen sites were being evaluated to determine if they met the legal criteria of the state and the Board of Trustees. He reiterated the hope the site could be chosen and purchased before the start of classes in September of the upcoming year, and it could be used to house temporary buildings for classes while the permanent buildings were being constructed.

After the defeat of the bond measure, the Board and administrative staff moved forward with a dual mission: 1) prepare for the first year of classes to begin in September 1967, and 2) continue with the identification of a permanent campus site and the planning for an eventual bond issue.

At the January 11, 1967 Board meeting Dr. Rasmussen gave his analysis of the bond defeat. According to the Argus (A-043), Dr. Rasmussen told Trustees the bond failed primarily because there had not been enough time in which to familiarize the community with the college and its responsibilities to them. He said it would not be wise to hold another election in the spring. He suggested the best time to ask the community to vote on a bond issue would be after students began the first quarter.

After Rasmussen’s report, Dr. Duke presented a map of Fremont and Newark showing the sites that had been investigated to date and reported on five suggested sites without making a recommendation. As will be seen, some of the sites tend to be described differently from time to time, and some seem to appear out of nowhere.

The attempt here is to report on the process and the sites as accurately as possible but there may still be some confusion (because it can be confusing!): 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Beard Road and Fremont Boulevard Patterson Ranch, Jarvis and Nimitz Freeway Prune Avenue Site, Brown and Prune Streets and Mission Boulevard Dumbarton Site, Jarvis Road, between Newark Boulevard and railroad Mission Site, adjoining Mission San Jose

The Argus report of the January 11, 1967 Board meeting (A-044) starts with the statement, City fathers lost their race in the 50s when they tried to lure a college campus to Fremont, California State College going to Hayward instead. The story may be brighter in the 60s. Trustees of the Fremont-Newark Junior College District are now considering five sites for the new district college all are in Fremont.

The article gives summaries of three of the properties reviewed by Dr. Duke, stating they had actually been offered for sale: 1. A 300-acre parcel south-west of the Patterson Ranch in Fremont bounded by the proposed Dumbarton Freeway and on the west by PG&E power lines.

Owned jointly by Fremont Realtor Jim Critchfield (see January 12, 1966 Board Meeting noted above), Mel Dutra, Leroy Braun, Ed O’Mara and original tenants of the old ranch, Ernst and Franklyn Brown, the land is destined for property alignment with a proposed new shoreline freeway that would stretch from San Jose to San Leandro. (Probably #2 above) 2. A 470-acre parcel (on Huddleson Ranch) in the Mission District The Huddleson property proposed in the 50s as a site for Cal State would offer Trustees an option of buying a portion of the 470 acres or the entire package, with possible aid from the federal government. Duke explained the site has many hills too steep for building. Buying the entire package would allow the District to apply for federal aid to allow preservation of the hill areas. If only choice areas were purchased, prices might vary, but if the entire package were bought, the prices would probably be lower. (Probably #5 above) 3. 160 acres on Mission Boulevard bounded by Pine Avenue, also in the Mission District, owned by San Leandro developer Lloyd Bradhoff, owner of the BradRick Homes firms in San Leandro and developers of the Way Out West tracts in Mission San Jose. (Probably #3 above)

The other two were mentioned in passing as having been suggested by private citizens. One was the old Patterson Ranch in the Fremont flood plain (this would eventually be a front runner as a site) and the other consisted of several parcels of land near Fremont Boulevard, all under different ownership.

At their next meeting on January 18, 1967 Trustees discussed proposed “Procedures for Selecting a Campus Site.” Topics included: number of students to be enrolled; number of sites needed; examination of additional sites other than those submitted; function of the citizens’ committee; length of time required by committee; and limited number of sites for consideration. Trustees voted to approve the proposed procedures but added the direction that District staff and citizens committee conduct a search for additional sites, and invite the public to present sites.

At the end of the meeting Trustees voted to go into closed session to appoint the 14member committee to assist with site selection. At the next meeting on February 1, 1967 Trustees approved the responsibilities of the Citizens’ Committee to Advise the Governing Board on Site Selection (referred to hereafter as the Site Selection Committee) and announced the members: Dr. William Vandenburgh, Fremont, Chair; Walter Aylward, Fremont; James Bray, Fremont; Dean Campbell, Newark; Stuart Carpenter, Newark; Martha Clark, Fremont; H.G. Clouser, Fremont; Frank Haggerty, Fremont; G.H. Loosmore, Fremont; Mrs. Gertrude McDonald, Fremont; Dr. Holger Rasmussen, Fremont; Dale Roberts, Newark; Dr. Franco Sangalli, Newark; and Walter Thompson, Newark.

The Committee was scheduled to meet on February 8, 1967 in the Centerville School Board Room in Fremont.

Dr. Duke advised he expected all applications from architects to be in by February 8. Board President Sears appointed Trustees Charles Snow, John Costello and Rev. John Wilson as a committee to meet with Dr. Duke to study applications received from various architects.

Dr. Epler and staff joined the Site Selection Committee at the February 8 meeting.

Dr. Duke would report at the next Board meeting that 13 of the 14 members attended. The roles of the committee were discussed, as well as an update of the sites currently being considered. The Argus reported (A-046a) that four sites were reviewed (as compared to the previous five) as follows: 1. Dumbarton site: A rectangular shaped parcel containing almost 300 acres is bordered on three sides by a freeway, railroad and power lines. It is compatible with college development but is limited in so far as existing access.

2. Patterson Ranch: From 200 to 300 acres of the ranch would be available to the District. The owner has expressed his wishes for the old home to be maintained as a monument. The site has good immediate access from Jarvis Avenue in Newark Boulevard; long range access would be excellent from two freeway interchanges, one at the Nimitz freeway and Jarvis Avenue and the other on the Dumbarton freeway at Newark Boulevard.

3. Huddleson Ranch: An irregular shaped site almost 160 acres. The area which would be considered for campus development consists of from 150 to 200 acres. It is bordered by Mission Boulevard on the west and partially by Witherly lane on the north.

4. Warm Springs: 166 acres bounded on the east by Mission Boulevard, north by Prune Avenue, west by a future freeway and south by Browne Avenue.

The Huddleson Ranch and Dumbarton sites were consistent with the previous list.

Patterson Ranch moved from just a suggestion from a community member to having been offered for sale. The Warm Springs site seems to have been a new addition.

The site previously mentioned as Fremont Boulevard seems to have been omitted.

The committee requested information on two additional sites. The committee was scheduled to meet again on February 20, 1967.

At the February 15, 1967 Board meeting Dr. Duke reported on the February 8, 1967 Site Selection Committee meeting. He also reported approximately 50 architect applications had been received. Several could not meet the Board’s adopted criteria.

The Argus report (A-046b) of the February 20, 1967 Site Selection Committee meeting carried the headline “Site Group Diverts Into Policy.” The article states the committee moved into questions of policy like how many campuses there should be and what type of buildings should be built. This is not surprising because in several discussions of the role of the committee Trustees had added “curriculum development” advice as part of the committee’s role.

Dr. Rasmussen informed the committee that verbal negotiations had already been carried on with owners of one of the prime sites for the college, a 100 acre parcel in central Fremont owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This was the first mention of the site. He said it adjoined 80 acres under private ownership, which was also available for purchase and could be combined with the church land. He said it was good level land and that all utilities were either in or very close to the site. This is another example of the fluid nature of the list of sites.

Dr. William Vandenburgh, Site Selection Committee chair, attended the February 23, 1967 Board meeting, along with fellow committee members Mr. Walter Aylward, Mr. Frank Haggerty and Mr. Stuart Carpenter. Dr. Vandenburgh updated the Board on the work of the committee and asked for direction on two issues: 1) the number of campuses to be established, and 2) the size of the site to be considered.

Later in the meeting Trustees responded to the committee’s requests by unanimously approving the District seek a single site of not less than 160 usable acres as recommended by the State Department of Education.

Dr. Duke presented further information on additional sites under consideration by the committee:

1. West end of Warren Boulevard, extending to the Bay (could be previously referred to as a Warms Springs site) 2. West of Mission Boulevard, just north of the cemetery and south of the Park (possibly a new site) 3. The church property just south of Walnut and west of Mission Boulevard (likely referring to the previously mentioned Latter-day Saints church site) Dr. Duke also reported that all applications from potential architects had been reviewed by the Board committee and he was collecting and reviewing additional information before making a recommendation.

A March 4, 1967 Argus story (A-048) provides insight into the thinking of the administration and of some Board members. Still stinging from the bond defeat, alternatives were being considered for siting a campus. The article quoted Dr. Duke as saying the owners of three of the sites under consideration had offered to explore a “lease-purchase” plan. This would allow the District to rent the land for a period of time, freezing in a purchase price, and then finalizing the purchase when funding was found either through a bond issue, state funding or local tax levies, or some combination of two or all three.

This shows some of those involved were still of the mind that classes could begin in the coming September in temporary quarters on land where the permanent campus would ultimately be built. Duke argued the cost of leasing would come from the general fund and might not affect taxpayers as they were already paying for out-ofDistrict attendance by residents. With those students enrolling in the new local District the savings could be used to support the cost of a lease and temporary buildings. However, with only six months remaining before the start of classes, time was running out on that strategy.

The article identifies the following sites as possibly available under a leasepurchase plan: 1. 300-acre Dumbarton site: South of the Patterson Ranch will be bounded by the proposed Dumbarton Freeway and on the west by PG&E power lines.

Prompted by an offer for “lease-purchase” of the site offered by Jim Critchfield, Mel Dutra, Leroy Braun, Ed O’Mara, and original tenants of the old ranch, Ernest and Franklyn Brown in January 1966 right after the District was formed.

2. 470-acre parcel of the Huddleson Ranch: Proposed in the 50s as a site for Cal State Hayward, would allow Trustees an option of buying a portion of the 470 acres or the entire package with possible federal aid to preserve the hill areas.

3. 160-acre Warm Springs site: Owned by San Leandro developer Lloyd Bradoff, is bounded on the east by Mission Boulevard and on the north by Prune Avenue, a proposed freeway would bound it on the west and Brown Avenue on the south

At the March 8, 1967 Board meeting, Dr. Duke reported the Site Selection Committee met on March 1, 1967 and on Sunday March 5, 1967 a tour of prospective sites was made. He was collecting additional information on two sites and the committee is considering a total of eight (8) sites. Board President Wesley Sears urged Board members to attend the next Site Selection Committee meeting on March 13, 1967.

Duke reported the Board sub-committee on architect selection would meet at noon on March 9, 1967 to continue the review of applications. The committee expected to have four to six architects to appear before the Board at the next meeting. About 30 minutes is planned for each interview. He reported some districts do this in closed session. Sears questioned the propriety of this and indicated the Brown Act might prohibit it. Epler was asked to verify the procedure.

In a March 9, 1967 Argus story (A-049). Dr. Duke was reported to have informed the Board he was awaiting a ruling from the county district attorney on whether or not a lease-purchase strategy would be allowed.

The Site Selection Committee met again on March 20, 1967 and the Argus reported they were now considering five sites as follows: 1. An area bounded by Mowry Avenue, Peralta Boulevard and Cherry Lane; 150-acre site would take almost 12 private homes and some commercial properties if purchased (new added to the overall list) 2. Heath Rogers property, 45 acres (this appears new, uncertain of location) 3. Huddleson Ranch property, 465 acres 4. Durham Road parcel, 125 acres 5. Warm Springs site, 100 acres As stated, it is somewhat difficult to follow the different site descriptions.

The Argus (A-051) reported the next day the Site Selection Committee had identified the Huddleson Ranch property as its top choice for the permanent college campus. The other sites recommended included: No. 2 Warm Springs, No. 3 HeathRogers, No. 4 Durham Road and No. 5 Cherry Lane.

One dissenter on the committee, Stuart Carpenter of Newark, was cited as “bitterly accusing” the committee of making a hasty decision by eliminating the Patterson Ranch property because of a newspaper picture showing an airplane flooded in a nearby area, because of lack of access roads and because it was hemmed in by freeways. Carpenter declared that the grounded plane rested on much lower ground and “in an area subject to flooding.” Carpenter vowed to take his objection to the Board of Trustees. However, by the time of the next Board meeting one March 29, 1967 he said he accepted the decision and would not pursue it further.

At their March 29, 1967 meeting Trustees received the report and recommendations, with thanks, from Dr. Vandenburgh and the Site Selection Citizens’ Advisory Committee. Dr. Epler was instructed to write letters to committee members expressing the thanks of the Board for the work they had done.

As will be seen, this did not end the involvement of the committee in the site selection process.

Also at the March 29, 1967 meeting Trustees interviewed six architectural firms selected by the Board sub-committee:      

Neptune and Thomas and Associates, Pasadena Ernest J. Kump, Palo Alto Killingsworth-Brady and Associates, Long Beach Honnold and Rex Architects, Los Angeles Hellmuth, Obata and Kassabaum, Inc., San Francisco Corwin, Booth and Associated Architects, San Francisco

Each firm was interviewed for approximately 30 minutes or over three hours for the entire group. However, it is apparent that the Trustees were not overly enthusiastic about the results. Following the interviews, Snow suggested the Board members review the twelve remaining firms from the original eighteen on the list.

Sears suggested each Board member arrange with Dr. Duke to review the brochures of the eighteen firms and leave names of their selections with him. Dr. Edmison expressed appreciation to the committee members, and Drs. Duke and Epler.

At the April 5, 1967 Board meeting Dr. Duke reviewed the architects’ presentations of March 29, 1967 stated that several Board members had reviewed additional brochures and recommend that selected additional firms be invited for interview by the Board at the April 12, 1967 meeting.

Having received the recommendations from the Site Selection Committee, Dr. Duke reviewed the Board’s Procedure for Site Selection. He suggested arranging for a tour by Board members of all available sites. He then reviewed each of the 11 sites having been under consideration to that point: 1. Dumbarton Freeway Site 2. Patterson Ranch Site 3. Huddleson Ranch Site 4. Warm Springs Site 5. Durham Road Site 6. Kiote Hills Golf and Country Club Site 7. Mowry Avenue Site 8. Cherry Lane Site 9. Church of Latter-day Saints Site 10. Massa Site 11. Windsor Land Development Site The Board voted unanimously to eliminate the most northerly (Windsor) and the most southerly (Massa) sites from future consideration.

Blawie moved, Costello seconded, to remove the site known as “Kiote Hills” from future consideration. Mr. Snow stated he opposed the motion because he would like

to leave as many sites as possible for the citizens to consider and speak to. Second to the motion was withdrawn by Mr. Costello who stated that his reason for seconding was to save the time of those concerned. Dr. Blawie stated that the motion was made originally because of the decision of the Citizens’ Committee appointed by the Board to drop this particular site. Mr. Hochler felt that as many sites as possible should be retained for the public hearing. Dr. Blawie withdrew the motion.

The Board voted unanimously to hold a public hearing on potential college sites at 8:00 pm on April 19, 1967 at the Instructional Materials Center Conference Room or the Centerville Junior High Auditorium (in case of overflow attendance). It appears the idea of the Board touring all the sites was tabled.

Mr. Sears invited members of the Site Selection Committee to attend the hearing.

Mr. Hochler asked for the preparation of pictures and or slides for each site. The press was requested to publicize the location of the sites and the public hearing.

All of these discussions and processes about the site selection were taking place within the context of the political campaigns around the three Board seats on the line in the April 19 election described earlier. The Argus published an editorial (A054) on April 6 entitled, “The Junior College Site.” They criticized what they felt was a less than transparent process citing ambiguities and poor communications about the Church of Latter-day Saints site and the negotiations around the leasing of the Serra Center. The editorial ends with rather biting words: These, and similar patterns, corrode existing confidence and foster deep suspicion about the District’s ability to conduct its business in a practical and professional manner. Even if it is election time, let’s have less of the campaign talk and more responsible action on behalf of the hundreds of students who are going to be forced to attend a school that is fast running out of time.

The full editorial is presented in Appendix 27.

At the April 12 Board meeting Trustees interviewed an additional four architectural firms at approximate 30 minute intervals. The additional firms included:    

Stein, Marshall and Bowles, San Francisco Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, San Francisco Frank L. Hope and Associates, San Diego Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall, Los Angeles

After the interviews, Dr. Duke reviewed the Procedures for Selection of Architect, advising that the next step for the Board was to narrow the list to two or three firms. After discussion, written ballots were taken with the following four firms retained for further consideration (Neptune and Thomas being the only ones from the previous interview session):

   

Neptune and Thomas and Associates, Pasadena Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, San Francisco Frank L. Hope and Associates, San Diego Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall, Los Angeles

Dr. Duke reported that the public hearing on site selection would be listed as the first item on the agenda for the April 19, 1967 meeting in the Instructional Media Center Conference Room in Fremont, with the Centerville Junior High School Auditorium in reserve, if need to accommodate a large audience. The press was asked to publicize the meeting.

The April 19, 1967 Board meeting, in the FUSD Instructional Media Center Conference Room, opened with the public hearing on the college site. Although arrangements had been made for an overflow crowd, the Argus reported only 25 people attended.

Board President Sears opened the public hearing on sites for the college campus.

Aided by slides and maps Dr. Duke presented specific information on each of the nine sites remaining under consideration: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Silver Pines Country Club, Newark (seems to have been a late addition) Dumbarton Freeway area, Newark Patterson Ranch property, in both Fremont and Newark Mowry Avenue site, Fremont Mormon Church of Latter-day Saints site, Fremont Cherry Lane site, Fremont Huddleson Ranch, Fremont Durham Road site, Fremont Warm Springs, Fremont

After all questions had been answered and no further comments came from the audience, Sears announced the close of the public hearing, and the Board went back into regular session.

The Board voted unanimously to consider only the five sites recommended by the Site Selection Committee plus Patterson Ranch and the L.D.S. site (this action automatically eliminated the Silver Pines and the Dumbarton Freeway sites).

Trustees then unanimously voted to eliminate two of the sites: 1) the Mowry Avenue site. Objections to the site mentioned during the discussion: high cost; size; adjacent to high school; and heavy industrial traffic; and 2) the Warm Springs site.

Among the reasons were: proximity to the industrial area; distance from center of student population; and proximity to earthquake fault.

A motion to eliminate the Durham Road site failed.

Again, it is admittedly difficult to follow the descriptions of the various sites, let alone the decision making process involved. This account has used a combination of

Board minutes and Argus reporting to present as full an account as possible.

However, when all was said and done, the Board agreed to retain the following four sites for review by the soon to be selected architect: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Durham Road Huddleson Ranch Latter-day Saints Site Patterson Ranch

After the April 19, 1967 Board meeting and before the May 3, 1967 meeting, the Argus (A-059) followed up on the continuing interest in the Church of Latter-day Saints property. The article stated it was bounded generally by Walnut Way, a future freeway alignment and an extension of Stevenson Boulevard. It was also described as being near the proposed Bay Area Rapid Transit station. Dr. Duke was quoted as saying, “he had talked with the church’s real estate division in Salt Lake City regarding the District’s acquiring the property…and church officials (had) promised a written answer before the next Board meeting.” He was reported of have said the site would probably cost $20,000 per acre, not including improvements.

At the May 3, 1967 Board meeting Dr. Duke reviewed the four architectural firms still under consideration. The Board agreed that written ballots would be taken on the four firms. Results of the vote based on 1 point/first choice, 2 points/second, etc.:    

12 - Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, San Francisco 18 - Neptune and Thomas and Associates, Pasadena 19 - Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall, Las Angeles 21 - Frank L. Hope and Associates, San Diego

Trustees were unanimous in their approval to begin negotiations with Skidmore, Owings and Merrill for Master Planning and Site Selection.

An Argus Editorial on May 9, 1967, “Junior College at Crossroads,” argued all that input had been heard and Trustees should move forward to make the right choice.

If their decisions are not those shared by the majority, then the critics will have more than ample opportunity to voice their feelings and reactions when the district goes for another bond issue in the fall.

But those ill-tempered hard losers who whisper threats of breaking away or disbanding because the site may be located here or there should cease their destructive efforts at once.

The editorial is presented in full in Appendix 28.

At the May 10, 1967 Board meeting Dr. Duke reported a preliminary meeting had been held with Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM) and a proposal for services would be sent to Board members before the May 17, 1967 meeting. He stated that John O. Merrill of SOM would be in charge of the project.

Later in the meeting Rev. Wilson moved, Costello seconded, to withdraw the Mormon Church Site from further consideration. Since the consensus of Board members was to await further developments, Mr. Costello withdrew his second and Reverend Wilson subsequently withdrew his motion.

The contract with Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM) was approved at the May 17, 1967 Board meeting. Dr. Duke explained the SOM proposal was separated into three categories: 1) site selection, 2) pre-bond master planning, and 3) post-bond master planning. He pointed out the site feasibility portion was up for approval that evening, and the other parts would be reviewed and approved separately.

With their contract approved SOM set about to study the feasibility of the four sites still under consideration, with a target completion date of mid-July. However, by mid-July, SOM was still working on the study of the sites. At the July 19, 1967 Board meeting Dr. Duke again reviewed the four sites, as Joe McCord had taken the place of Marilyn Blawie on the Board. Dr. Duke also indicated the SOM report was due to be finished within the next week and would be ready for presentation at the August 2, 1967 Board meeting.

John Merrill, Jerry Goldberg and Walter Costa of SOM presented their findings and recommendations at the August 2 Board meeting. Their report was titled “Report to the Board of Trustees of the Fremont Newark Junior College District August 2, 1967 Ohlone College Site Selection.� The report recommended the disqualification of the Huddleson Ranch site because of an apparent active earthquake fault which they claimed ran through the most buildable area of the site. SOM recommended consideration of the remaining sites in the following order: the Durham site as first alternate choice and then Church of Latter-day Saints and Patterson Ranch sites equally. Architects and board members participated in discussion covering driving time to the various sites, access routes, actual building costs, cost of the improvements, and costs of running utility and sewer lines.

SOM had vetoed the top choice of the Site Selection Committee. The second choice of the Site Selection Committee was moved to a tie for last place by SOM. The SOM report has not been found in the college files, but the Argus story the next day (A063) provides a summary of the presentation: Architect Jerry Goldberg told Trustees that after extensive planning, data collecting and geological studies for the four sites under consideration, the Huddleson Ranch site in Mission San Jose should be eliminated at once because of an earthquake fault which strikes northwesterly into the site just above its most economically buildable zone. He added that the Huddleson Ranch is entirely suitable for other non-campus development.

The Durham site Goldberg said more adequately fulfills development standards of the College and is an exceptionally beautiful, topographical and distinct part of the environment.

Should the Durham site acquisition become impossible, Goldberg told Trustees his firms next recommendation for building the campus would be on

the Patterson ranch, which has a boundary on the proposed Paseo Padre Roadway, the Dumbarton Expressway, which were to be completed in 1975, Newark Boulevard and the Jarvis-Decoto Road.

The Patterson Ranch site received architectural selection primarily because of a 50 acre massive eucalyptus Grove, Goldberg said. He said the grove could be preserved intact permanently.

Several members of the audience expressed continued interest in the Huddleson site and Durham sites.

The Board agreed to delay further discussion of the site selection until the August 30, 1967 meeting in order to further study the architects report and to allow further consideration by the public. Trustees requested Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM) have a representative at the August 30, 1967 meeting. Duke announced that copies of the architects report could be borrowed from the District office on a loan basis to interested citizens.

New Trustee Mr. McCord urged formation of a committee to work on the bond issue.

This led to discussion of combined elections, choice of site before taking any action, most favorable date for election, and preliminary steps the boards might take.

At the August 30, 1967 Board meeting the SOM architects, John Merrill, Jerry Goldberg and Walter Costa of SOM were in attendance, along with Donald Clark of Cooper-Clark and Associates, Foundation Engineers and Engineering Geologists.

There had been enough concern about the SOM recommendations, particularly ruling out the Huddleson site, that it was felt the consulting engineering geologists should be on hand. Mr. Costa summarized the architects’ report from the previous Board meeting and Mr. Clark reviewed the geologists’ report on preliminary site reconnaissance of five proposed campus sites.

Audience members, including members of the Site Selection Committee, continued expressions in favor of the Huddleson Ranch site and questioned the emphasis on the earthquake hazards. Former Trustee, Dr. Marilyn Blawie, distributed a 10 page report on her observations after studying the architects and engineers report. Dr. Robert Fisher, representing the Mission San Jose Chamber of Commerce, staunch supporters of the Huddleson site, read a memo from the Chamber favoring both the Huddleson and the Durham sites. Mr. Norman Hale, a Chamber member, showed slides of campuses erected on elevated sites such as those favored by the Chamber.

The Board directed staff to ask all former Site Selection Committee members to review all reports and materials from SOM and the engineers, and to invite them to meet in a work session with members of the Board on September 20, 1967 in the administration building at Ohlone College (now located at the Serra Center).

While tensions continued to grow between the Trustees, the administration, SOM architects, the Site Selection Committee, and others in the community over site selection issues, another dispute erupted. This concerned the financing options for constructing the permanent campus, once a site was determined. The conventional

wisdom had been to use a bond measure. However, wanting to keep all options open, the college administration was exploring alternative funding strategies.

One of these strategies emerged from the legislature. SB 691, The Junior College Construction Act of 1967 (updating the previous version of the Act), written by State Senator Walter Stiern, D-Bakersfield, provided for the state to pay 50 per cent of the cost of capital projects for junior college districts and allowed districts to raise their share by levying a tax to raise the necessary match. The Argus and Republicans referred to this as the junior college “Bypass Law.” Their objection was the apparent side stepping of the normal bond measure approach, which required a 2/3 approval by the voters.

Dr. Epler, being an astute junior college administrator, had been following the development of this legislation. In an Argus interview on September 7, 1967 (A072), Epler said the law might be of value to the District. He also mentioned that it could help avoid the somewhat daunting 2/3 vote needed to pass a bond. The Argus, which was decidedly against the “bypass law” immediately called Board members and got different views from two of them. One was opposed to any circumvention of a popular vote for a bond. One favored looking at it as a possible tool to be used to help fund construction. It created a bit of a tempest in the teapot of local politics.

As described earlier, one of the driving forces to put local bond Measure J on the November 1966 ballot was the presence on the ballot of Proposition 4, which would have reduced the threshold for local school bond measures to 60%. The hope was that the proposition would pass and improve the chances of the local junior college bond. Proposition 4 failed, as did Measure J. Measure J garnered 59% of the vote and would have failed even if Proposition 4 had passed.

The Board of Directors of the California Republican Association (CRA) voted unanimously to urge the legislature to correct what it called, “an abridgement of rights of voters” and called for “remedial legislation” as soon as possible. According to the Argus, the resolution was “introduced by the Alameda County delegation by Berkeley economic analyst Byron James – the group’s state parliamentarian.

Fremont delegates prompted James to initiate the matter.” It was also reported the CRA “tempered the language of the demand so as not to prove an embarrassment to Governor Ronald Reagan who signed the bill into law.” (A-078) The September 7, 1967 Argus report of Dr. Epler’s plan caused a stir among those involved in the District’s efforts to fund the construction of a permanent campus.

The controversy became public in another Argus article on September 9, 1967 (A074). The Argus stated that Epler’s consideration of using SB 691 had been, “clouded by strong adverse reactions from college Trustees and citizens alike” and continued: College board chairman Wes Sears said he already has told Epler, “in no uncertain terms” his announcement this week that the district will use the new enabling legislation was both premature and unauthorized.

“He has been told,” said Sears, “that matters of policy decision – such as this – are only within the board’s realm. We make the policies – he administers them.” Sears indicated the matter will come up again at Wednesday’s regular board meeting.

“Had there been more time,” added Sears, “I would have called a special emergency session of the board this week to discuss the new law and its impact upon the district.” Sears and other Trustees, said they knew nothing of the bill before Epler issued a public statement saying the district would take advantage of the law.

The article stated, “Epler had said he had followed the law since its inception though he did not – apparently – bring any of his Trustees up to date with either its drafting or passage through either branch of the legislature.” The article went on to say that in addition to the strong opposition by the California Republican Association (CRA), “…other local political groups have united in a bi-partisan effort to stack Wednesday’s meeting to voice strong disapproval of both the law and its announced application here.”

A large number of people attended the September 13, 1967 Board meeting. In fact, the first comment made during the “Hearing of Citizens” period was by Mr. Frank Calhoun who requested the Board hold future meetings in a space adequate to accommodate the large audience attending. The staff indicated they would investigate other possible rooms.

Noting the presence of a large number of citizens in the audience interested in the item regarding the Junior College Construction Act (JCCA), Board President Sears recommended the item be moved up on the agenda and the Trustees agreed to the modification. For those not familiar with it, Sears explained SB 691 and how it updated of the JCCA for 1967. He then asked for opinions of board members on the use of provisions of the bill.

The report of this meeting by the Argus (A-081) is somewhat at variance with the Board minutes. The article stated that Trustee Joe McCord moved that the Board guarantee it would not take advantage of SB 691. The motion failed with all other Trustees voting against it. This action was not recorded in the official minutes of the meeting. It shows the Trustees were being careful not to rule out use of some of the provisions of the law (which they would subsequently do).

The Board minutes show that Trustee Charles Snow moved, and Trustee Abe Hochler seconded, that the District would, “Submit to the voters at an appropriate time, a bond issue to finance site acquisition and construction costs of a permanent campus for Ohlone College.”

The Board minutes do not document any discussion on the motion but the Argus article (A-081) provides the following account: Before pledging his support to the motion…Edmison questioned Snow, “Suppose you only receive 65% approval for three consecutive bond issues

would your attitude change? Snow said he would like to leave that question open and indicated he would prefer to make a judgement on such a dilemma when the time arises. “I would wager that the legislature will amend this bill before another session,” Snow said. Trustee McCord, who was eager to vote yes for letting the public know the board would use a bond issue rather than bypass voters through terms of the new law, voted in favor of Snow’s motion but said he would never support any board action that would favor going over the public’s head regardless of how many bond issues might fail. Edmison finally gave his approval to the motion but only after he was convinced that it would in no way cut off the boards chances for financing construction and site acquisition through the new law.

The Board unanimously approved the motion as stated. The action was followed by commendations and declarations of future support on the bond election from the following citizens Dick McKean, James Bray, Charles Russell, Frank Calhoun, Mrs. William Pruitt, and Amelia Silver.

According to the Argus (A-081), Charles Russell, a member of the Alameda County Democratic Committee, praised Trustees for favoring a bond election: “You … had the option to present financing to the people or to by-pass the people. You have taken your biggest step forward (by choosing to bring the financing to the voters)” As will be seen later, the Board would eventually pass a local bond well above the 2/3 threshold; but also did ultimately take advantage of sections of SB 691 to leverage state funding for the construction of the permanent campus.

A side note on the 2/3 threshold for local school bonds: This requirement continued to be daunting. From the passage of the Measure F Bond on June 5, 1968 to build the Ohlone College campus in Fremont there would not be another local bond for Ohlone for another 33 years. The two major construction projects during this period, the Smith Center and Hyman Hall, were built using state funding. Each was on the planning books for years before qualifying for state funds. In 2000, the voters in California approved Proposition 39, which lowered the threshold for local school construction bonds from a 2/3 requirement to a 55 percent threshold. There had been a growing need for a second campus in Newark but state funding for such a project had not been available. The lower threshold of 55 percent was attractive and in 2001 the $150 million Measure A bond was passed to construct a new campus in Newark and a Student Services Building on the Fremont Campus. In 2013, local voters approved the $350 million Measure G bond to re-construct the academic core facilities and athletic fields on the Fremont Campus. Measure A passed with a 56 percent margin and Measure G by 64 percent. Neither would have been a reality without Proposition 39.

Also at the September 13, 1967 meeting Dr. Epler called attention to the work session of members of the Site Selection Committee and Board members to be held on September 20, 1967 in the Ohlone College library. Dr. Duke advised that all members of the committee were notified and had responded. No college documents have been found to show the details of the September 20, 1967 Board meeting with

Site Selection Committee. However, the minutes of the September 27, 1967 Board meeting the next week provided the results of the September 20, 1967 joint meeting.

It is very telling that in the Hearing from the Public portion of the September 27, 1967 meeting, Mr. John Westray, representing the owners of the Goosen Ranch property near the Weibel Champagne Vineyards, submitted the property for board consideration as a college site. Clearly, the site selection issue was still viewed by some as an open issue.

On the regular agenda, Dr. William Vandenburgh, Chairman of the Citizens Committee to Advise on Site Selection offered these suggestions from his committee: 1. Ask the architects to survey the District for other available sites 2. Conduct another geological study to determine what the consequences of the fault on the Huddleson site might be 3. Request commitment from the city of Fremont on future road plans in the vicinity of proposed sites 4. Hold meetings of the committee members, Board members and architects to discuss the architects’ report.

Dr. Vandenburgh suggested removal of the Latter-day Saints site because of its unavailability and condemnation (eminent domain, explained more fully later) proceedings involved. Mr. Sears asked board members to voice their views on Dr. Vandenburgh’s suggestions. Board members agreed more information was needed.

Mr. Hochler and Mr. Costello opposed condemnation proceedings on the Latter-day Saints site if the owners planned on building a college there.

This set the stage for a series of parliamentary actions: Mr. Hochler moved, Mr. Costello seconded, that the board pursue in depth with the Site Selection Committee the Huddleson, Washington and Patterson sites. Mr. McCord opposed the motion because it automatically eliminated the Latter-day Saints and the original Durham Road sites. Mr. Snow pointed out Dr. Vandenburgh's suggestion that the District be examined by the architects for additional sites. Mr. Costello withdrew his second to the motion and the motion died for lack of a second.

Mr. Costello moved, Rev. Wilson seconded, that the Latter-day Saints site be eliminated from further consideration. Mr. McCord opposed the motion and stated his reasons for personally considering the Latter-day Saints site as the best site suggested thus far. Mr. Snow stated that he hesitated to eliminate the site now and suggested following Dr. Vandenburgh's recommendations of having the architects look at other sites and having a joint meeting with the citizens committee to consider the results of the study.

Rev. Wilson moved, Mr. McCord seconded, passed unanimously to table the motion on elimination of the Latter-day Saints site.

It was then moved by Mr. Hochler, seconded by Dr. Edmison, to invite the architectural firm Skidmore, Owings and Merrill to submit a proposal for conducting a study of the entire District to determine any other good sites that might exist. The motion passed unanimously.

Board President Sears suggested that future discussions of sites be held at meetings devoted primarily to site considerations. He requested these discussions be informal work sessions with the Citizens Committee until all factors were thoroughly explored. The Board expressed agreement with Mr. Sears’ proposal. In other words, the Site Selection Committee had been called back into action.

At the October 4, 1967 Board meeting, Dr. Epler introduced a proposal from Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM) to survey the District for additional possible sites for a permanent campus. Discussion on the item covered the following points: study of access to each side, possible involvement of a traffic consultant in the study, need for an additional expenditure for site study, consideration of street development policy of the city of Fremont, and selection of the site. In addition Dr. William Vandenburgh, Chair of the Site Selection Committee, read a report from Fremont Engineers Inc. on the Durham site.

After the discussion, the Trustees took the following actions: Moved by Rev. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Costello, and passed unanimously to include the report by Dr. Vandenberg from Fremont Engineers Inc. as matter of record in the proceedings (not found in college files).

Moved by Rev. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Snow, and passed unanimously to approve the SOM proposal to survey the junior college district for possible additional sites, amended to read, “Including future roads, as reflected in plans of the cities of Fremont and newer in the state divisions of highways.”

Move by Rev. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Costello, and passed unanimously to hold the regular meeting of the board on November 1, 1967 with a brief business agenda business then adjourning to a work session with the Site Selection Committee to consider the report of the architects on additional sites. Dr. Vandenburgh asked the staff to notify members of the Site Selection Committee of this meeting.

At the October 18, 1967 Board meeting Dr. Epler recommended approval of Resolution No. 16/67-68 authorizing an application for funds under SB 691: Junior College Construction Act. This is the same law that caused the recent uproar. Dr. Epler explained that this application involved construction funds for 1969-70 and that it must be filed together with a 10 year master plan by November 1, 1967. Dr. Duke reviewed the format of the application and the Board unanimously approved the application. Apparently the Trustees had time to understand SB 691 more fully and felt comfortable with taking advantage of the acceptable parts of the bill.

This item prompted an article the next day in the Argus (A-093). The article provided more information than contained in the available Board meeting minutes.

The Argus declared the Trustees had, “…approved a tentative 10-year, $30 million campus to be constructed by 1978.” The article mentioned that Dr. Epler said all cost figures shown in the application, “…are merely projections and in no way bind the District to adhering to them.” The article goes on to state, “The $30 million campus is based on a student enrollment of 3,500 by 1973 plus another 2,400 by 1978.” Epler was reported to say the state estimated the cost of construction using a factor of $4,000 per student.

Another site problem came up at the October 18, 1967 meeting; this one having to do with the temporary campus at the Serra Center location. The presence of the college was causing traffic issues near the Washington Boulevard entrance. Dr. Duke indicated that the District had proposed providing the city with $19,000 to widen several blocks of Washington Boulevard at the Ohlone College entrance to four lanes. He reported that the City Council had tabled the offer to allow the city staff to bring in more information. Mr. Sears recommended that the staff provide representation at future City Council meetings on this issue and to supply any information needed.

Mr. Hochler moved and Mr. Costello seconded a motion to request the Fremont City Council consider favorably the proposal to widen Washington Boulevard in front of Ohlone College for the safety of the students, residents of the area, and other citizens utilizing Washington Boulevard. The motion passed and Dr. Epler was instructed to write letters the Fremont City Councilors advising them of the Board action.

Mr. Snow asked if representatives of the Fremont Planning Department had been invited to attend the site committee and board work session on November 1, 1967.

Dr. Epler was asked to invite them and arrange the Board Room to accommodate as many citizens as possible for the meeting.

As planned, a short business agenda at the November 1, 1967 Board meeting was followed by an 8:30 pm recess to conduct a work-study session with the members of the Selection Committee to hear the Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM) report on possible additional campus sites. The Argus reported (A-099) SOM architects had identified three additional sites: 1. Fremont-Walnut site, generally located near the Fremont Civic Center between Walnut Way and Stevenson Street near Fremont’s Central Business District (Wes Sears said the land could sell for about $50,000 an acre, based on local realtor appraisals and was used for farming, Sears said the land would be too costly for the District) 2. Goosen Ranch near Weibel Winery in the Mission San Jose District (this had been offered for the first time at the September 27, 1967 Board meeting) 3. A new Newark location known through the years back to the 1800s as the “encyclopedia area” near proposed industry for Newark Following the architect’s presentation and a discussion of the individual sites, the Site Selection Committee made the following recommendations:

1. The Board not consider the three new sites suggested by the architect 2. That the Board commit itself concerning the use of condemnation procedures relative to the Latter-day Saints Church site 3. Of the three remaining sites – Huddleson Ranch, Washington Boulevard and Patterson Ranch – the Site Selection Committee preferred Huddleson Ranch as best for the college based on existing information, reiterating its previous recommendation.

The Board reconvened in regular Board session at 9:45 pm Trustees agreed unanimously to support recommendation 1 of the Site Selection Committee to not consider the three additional sites suggested by the architects.

Here is a rundown of the resulting parliamentary action: Moved by Mr. Snow, seconded by Mr. Costello: To refer the Huddleson Ranch site and the Washington Boulevard site to the State Department of Education for evaluation and recommendation.

Moved by Mr. Hochler, seconded by Mr. Costello: To amend the motion to include the Patterson Ranch site in the submission to the State Department of Education Roll Call Vote: Ayes/Hochler, Costello; Noes/McCord, Snow, Edmison, Wilson, Sears - The motion to amend failed, 2-5.

Roll Call Vote on the Original Motion: Ayes/Costello; Noes/Hochler, McCord, Edmison, Snow, Wilson, Sears - The original motion failed, 1-6.

Basically, these actions eliminated the Church of Latter-day Saints site and the Board decided not to forward any of the remaining three sites to Sacramento.

There was unanimous approval of a motion to conduct a tour of the Huddleson and Washington sites to be conducted with members of the Board, the Site Selection Committee, the SOM architects, and appropriate city officials. This would provide an opportunity for on-site discussion and questions. The motion was amended by Hochler and Wilson to include Patterson Ranch in the tour and was passed unanimously. The tour was scheduled for Saturday, November 11 leaving Lyons Restaurant on Fremont Boulevard at 9:00 am.

Trustees also agreed unanimously to hold another meeting at 8:00 pm on November 15 and to convene to an informal work-study session with members of the Site Selection Committee to continue the discussion of sites.

On Saturday, November 11, 1967 he Trustees and administrators conducted a daylong tour of the three prime sites for the permanent campus. The tour included: 1) The sweeping 476-acre Huddleson Ranch in the Mission San Jose hills; 2) The rolling 190-acre Washington Boulevard site just west of the temporary campus; and

3) The 276-acre Patterson Ranch just west of the Nimitz Freeway and north of Jarvis Avenue.

All three sites were in Fremont, but the Patterson land almost adjoined the northern city limits of Newark.

District officials were accompanied by members of the Site Selection Committee and city of Fremont personnel from the Planning Department. The press also participated and in a follow up article the Argus (A-101) reported, “A majority of the…Trustees indicated Saturday that they still favor a Mission San Jose District site for the future…college campus.” The paper indicated that, “a privately financed geological study indicated that (an earthquake) fault would not affect properly designed buildings...and Fremont city planner Marilyn Pray said the new traffic studies of the area show that access roads to the Huddleson site are adequate.”

On the day of the November 15 Board meeting the Argus published an editorial titled, “D-Day for Ohlone” – “Ohlone Decision Due” – that endorsed the Huddleson Ranch property becoming the site for the permanent Ohlone campus. The editorial is presented in full in Appendix 31.

At the Board meeting that evening Site Selection Committee Chairman, Dr. William Vandenburgh reported that the consensus of the committee was to reaffirm the Huddleson Ranch site as its first choice and to recommend the Patterson Ranch site as its second choice.

It was then moved by Rev. Wilson (from Newark), seconded by Mr. McCord that the Board name the Patterson Ranch as its first choice for a permanent college site.

Rev. Wilson reviewed the advantages of the Patterson site.

Roll Call Vote: Ayes/ Wilson and Sears (Newark) Noes/Hochler, Costello, Edmison, Snow, McCord. The motion failed 2-5.

This was apparently done to give the site in Newark its day in court.

Then it was moved by Mr. Costello and seconded by Rev. Wilson that the Board select Huddleson Ranch as its first choice for a permanent college site, subject to required local and State approvals.

Discussion of the motion covered: the diligent work of the Citizens Committee to Advise on Site Selection; the need for further detailed analysis of the earthquake problem on the Huddleson site; the need for further study of road planning in this area; the actual need for this large a site; presentation of a letter concerning the offered price of a portion of the property; the cost of purchasing Linda Vista Park, which lies within the side boundaries; and traffic flow patterns.

The motion passed unanimously and the Board selected Huddleson Ranch as the site for the permanent campus against the advice of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill Architects.

Mr. Sears explained this action needed approval by certain local and state agencies.

He added more information may be required by the state for consideration and approval. Mr. Aylward of the Site Selection Committee asked that any additional information collected be available to the Committee members.

Trustees voted unanimously to commend the Site Selection Committee for a job well done.

In its follow up article the next day (A-103) the Argus reported that Ed Huddleson, owner of the ranch, was in the audience of the meeting. The article stated that, “In September and again last night Huddleson… agreed to eliminate the 20 acre fault area from the package.

Huddleson said last night that earlier this year, Epler had attempted to negotiate with him for about 30 acres of land located south of Linda Vista Park for $180,000.

The reason for the purchase, according to Huddleson, was the District needed property in order to borrow money to buy a site.

The deal was never consummated because the board rejected the proposal.

Between the November 15, 1967 and December, 1967 Board meetings two issues came up in the press. First, in an Argus article on November 23 (A-104) Board President Wes Sears was quoted as saying, “Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM) were hired for a specific job – site analysis – and they’ve been paid for that job and that’s that…any further working contracts for SOM or any other firm must be approved by the Board.”

Clearly several members of the Board and likely the entire Citizens’ Site Selection Advisory Committee were dissatisfied with the SOM architectural firm. Their immediate elimination of the Huddleson site and subsequent choice of the Patterson Ranch and Washington Boulevard sites, in opposition to the advice of the Citizens’ Committee had caused considerable tension.

Second, somehow Dr. Duke got tangled with the press and the Board President on how the Huddleson land would be procured. Duke was quoted by the Argus in a front page top story (A-105) as saying that although Ed Huddleson had indicated he was a willing seller and offered the property for $4,000 an acre, “…we may discover the price is too high and negotiate condemnation proceedings (an eminent domain, a strategy for a public buyer and private seller to have a reasonable price set by a court). The Argus then enlisted the opinion of an unnamed “local realtor” who said, “…the District would pay at least $3.3 million for the 120-plus acres fronting Mission Boulevard if the property were sold on the open market.” The paper went on to report the realtor said the property would sell conservatively for $15,000 an acre.

The paper then presented this information to Board President Wes Sears who promptly disagreed with Duke’s suggestion that the District could find Huddleson’s $4,000-an-acre offer too high. He said, “It is true that the Board has voiced a

unanimous agreement to locate on Huddleson – and it is true that we have not accepted Huddleson’s offer price.” But he indicated that his understanding was the District would negotiate directly with Huddleson without court involvement; although he thought the district attorney will more than likely insist on an appraisal of the property before the District enters into an agreement”.

Sears stated, “…we’re talking negotiations not condemnation….we have a willing seller who has indicated complete cooperation.” He said the 120-acres of level land would cost the District at least as much as they would pay for the entire 476-acres if bought through condemnation proceedings. “That is a choice property and choice lots for subdivision,” Sears said.

The paper then went on to opine, “The city of Fremont also might disagree with Duke’s notion of possible condemnation – through such proceedings the city was forced to pay $353,961 for 16 acres of civic center land owned by the Fudenna family – quite a bit more than anticipated.” The article stated that in June 1964 the law declared that when condemnation proceedings are brought about land must be purchased by the buyer at whatever price set by the court.

As 1967 was coming to an end, the Board had agreed on the Huddleson site but the drama was not yet over.

Dr. Elwood Lehman, a consultant in the Bureau of Junior College Administration and Finance of the State Department of Education, had previously worked with the District staff. As described earlier, he made presentations to the Board in September and October of 1966 before the first unsuccessful bond election. His presentations were on the general issues surrounding selecting a site and having it approved by the state for use as a campus. He was also the official who would review and act on the site proposal for Ohlone College.

Dr. Lehman got into some hot water with local politics and the local press once the Huddleson site had been selected by the Board in November 1967. The Mission San Jose Chamber of Commerce had staunchly advocated for the Huddleson Ranch to become the site of the college. It seems somehow Chamber President Donald Stransky had a conversation with Dr. Lehman shortly after the November 16 Board decision. And the conversation had some very negative results.

Some additional background will help set the stage for what came to pass over the next week. The architects had not merely disregarded the choice of the Huddleson site by the Site Selection Committee; they said it should be dropped entirely. Folks on the Site Selection Committee and members of the community had been through the earthquake issues in the past on other projects. The architects used a study done previously on the area by the Palo Alto firm of Cooper & Clark (they had accompanied SOM at an earlier Board meeting). That report had been discounted by the Mission San Jose Chamber of Commerce as “superficial” and not a comprehensive view. There were those on the Site Selection Committee and in the Chamber who felt they were promised by the Board that studies such as the Cooper

& Clark report would not be sent to the State Department of Education until after more complete studies were completed by other firms.

Dr. Epler and Dr. Duke and probably members of the Board wanted state approval of any eventual site in order to have access to the state funding. Epler told the board that he had received a tentative promise (possibly by Lehman) of $563,223 from the state for site acquisition if the District matched the amount with $436,777.

The exact context and content of the conversation between Mr. Stransky and Dr. Lehman is not known but can be gleaned from a subsequent strident written statement by Stransky and given to the press. Stransky stated he was very concerned about what Lehman said to him. He claimed Lehman said the Cooper & Clark report about the earthquake danger at the Huddleson site had already been sent to him by District staff.

Stransky also indicated that Lehman told him he had met with District administrators already and toured the site several times. Further, Stransky charged that Lehman told him he could probably make a decision to veto Huddleson right then and there without any further data.

The Argus would later point to Lehman’s involvement in a similar pattern of opposition and disagreement with the South County Junior College District Board over the Chabot College campus in Hayward, which sparked a protracted series of heated exchanges between Lehman and that board several years ago.

The Argus picked up on the statement by Stransky and confronted Lehman with it and the resulting article on December 1 (A-107) headlined, “Prejudice in Selection of Ohlone Site Charged - Expert Charged with Bias in Ohlone Site Selection” is provided in full in Appendix 29.

According to the article, Dr. Lehman had to do some back pedaling. He acknowledged to Stransky that he had the Cooper & Clark report “for some time” and that he already toured the Huddleson site “three or four times.” Then he added that, “maybe I said a little more than I should have…or, at least, phrased it too strongly.” He said he knew nothing about the Board having ordered its own detailed study or of its having assured the Site Selection Committee that none of the previous material would be forwarded to the state until after later findings were added. Lehman emphasized that, “…there would be no snap judgments by his department and that he would be perfectly willing to wait for the more detailed seismic survey on potential earthquake dangers before making a judgment.”

The Stransky statement had included some strongly worded charges of bias and prejudice about the Huddleson property on Lehman’s part: It is obvious even to the most naïve that the unauthorized release of the incomplete information, used as sole basis for judgement, would render such a judgement strongly biased toward the disqualification of the Huddleson property.

We ask why, even after overwhelming approval of the site by both the Citizens’ Committee and the junior college board, are there those who still seek, by devious means, to disqualify it and direct the choice again back to the Washington or Patterson sites.

As concerned citizens, we have the right to expect the decisions of the board and the citizens committee to be respected and fair evaluation of its choice made on the basis of unbiased and complete information.

Reacting to this Lehman said he wanted, “…to make it abundantly clear at this time that the administration at Ohlone has done nothing to pressure me in my decision. They have only invited me there (the upcoming) Monday (December 4) in an unofficial opinion on the site. Nothing I would say would be official…just an opinion. The official ruling would depend on a much more thorough approach.”

It would seem the planned Monday meeting between Lehman, Epler and Duke was perceived by some as “closed door” negotiations outside the purview of the Board and the Site Selection Committee. In responding to the Argus Lehman denied any “devious means” were used and repeated his claim that Epler and Duke had done nothing to sway him to, or away from, the Huddleson site. He said he had received the soil reports long before the day the board indicated they would not be forwarded to the state until a later, more detailed version had been completed.

The Argus brought all this to the attention of Ohlone Board President Wesley Sears. The article reports that Sears said he was “red faced” about the state getting the incomplete information “…especially since it was me who reassured them that this wouldn’t happen,” he said. Sears went on to explain: I can’t believe for a minute that the state could possibly make a decision with the sketchy information we have at hand now. However, I’m going to talk to Dr. Epler and Dr. Duke and if it seems that anyone on the staff has taken undue liberties to influence this decision one way or the other, I will call a special board meeting.

Later, Sears contacted the Argus, which reported Sears’ comments as follows: …(he) said he was completely satisfied that there had been no prejudicial interference by the staff and that Duke had confirmed the soil report had been given to Lehman before the Board decision to withhold it. Sears said he was now prepared to wait until the Monday (December 4) meeting when he could talk with Lehman, even though Lehman said he only planned to meet the college administrators.

Lehman met in the District office with Epler, Duke and Sears on that Monday and the Argus was following the results closely. In an Argus article the next day (A108) it was clear the reporter had talked with Epler, Sears and Lehman after the meeting. With respect to the Cooper & Clark report having been sent to the state, Epler said it had been mailed to the State Department of Education its presentation

to the Board. Thus, it sounds like the issue was both miscommunication and misperception in a highly charged environment.

Sears told the press after the meeting that Lehman had not voiced any opinions on the site but had promised a written report listing information on the seismological and geological studies he would require before making an official ruling on the Huddleson property in time for the December 6, 1967 Board meeting.

Apparently the Argus reporter was on the Ohlone Campus and attempted to interview Dr. Lehman after the meeting. The article indicates Lehman was asked to respond to charges made the previous week by Mission San Jose chamber of commerce President Don Stransky that he was unfairly prejudiced against the Huddleson property. But the article states Lehman gave a terse no comment and departed quickly.

Epler also told the Argus he would be presenting Trustees with five firms involved in engineering and geology. Trustees would then select one of these firms to prepare the study for Lehman’s office. Epler explained the firms were furnished to the District by the Structural Engineering Association of Northern California.

The Argus contacted Stransky, who said the Chamber requested and received the names of potential firms from officials at Stanford, University of California, U.S. Department of Interior and the city of Fremont planning staff. Stransky said the names of the firms were forwarded to Trustees immediately for the Board meeting that week. The firm Woodward, Clyde and Sherard and Associates consultants who have formally worked with Fremont Unified School District and the city received high ratings in four of the reports.

At the December 6, 1967 Board meeting Dr. Epler introduced Dr. Lehman. Dr. Epler had previously written to Dr. Max Rafferty, State Superintendent of Schools, requesting information regarding submittal of a proposed college site of State approval. Dr. Lehman had written a reply to Dr. Epler on behalf of Dr. Rafferty and he read the letter to the Trustees (Attachment 7 [try to find]). The letter focused on the procedures required to comply with Education Code 15002.1 and the time needed for State review and approval, and the procedures for selection of a site without State approval. There was no mention of any particular sites.

The Board unanimously directed that the following firms, recommended by the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California, be asked to present proposals for a seismological investigation of the Huddleson Ranch site to meet the Education Code requirements:     

Dames and Moore Harding, Miller, Lawson and Associates Shannon and Wilson, Inc. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineers, Inc. Woodward, Clyde, Sherard and Associates

The Board also instructed Dr. Epler to contact the East Bay Regional Park District regarding their possible interest in acquiring part of the Huddleson Ranch site for future park facilities.

Trustees agreed to hold a special meeting at 4:30 pm the following Wednesday, December 13, 1967 to make the choice of an engineering firm to conduct the indepth study of the Huddleson ranch.

Two days after the December 6, 1967 Board meeting, the Argus (A-109) “added detail from the session that may not have been prudent for inclusion in the official Board minutes but adds much to understanding the dynamics and tension of the situation. The opening of the article sets the mood: The friends of Huddleson Ranch are back in their accustomed place in a determined bid to get the site approved as the permanent home of Ohlone College - behind the eight ball.

Insulted and rebuffed by a state acquisition official at Wednesday night's board meeting members of the citizens’ site selection team that battled in favor of the hillside campus site and the mission San Jose Chamber of Commerce were undecided yesterday about what course of action they would take to encourage the board of Trustees to override the negative approach of state site official Elwood Lehman.

The article mentioned a number of controversial comments made by Dr. Lehman.

First, having strongly denied he had already made up his mind the previous week, the article states, “…the board was cautioned by Lehman that even if it went ahead with a $10,000 site study the results would not necessarily change his mind.”

Second, Lehman led some in attendance to believe it would take a vote of the electorate to override his rejection of the Huddleson site. He may have said the Board could hold a bond election to fund the campus construction entirely with bond funds and not use state funding. But it was taken differently by the paper.

Third, the paper stated, “Besides turning a cold shoulder on the Huddleson site Lehman recommended the canyon-laced Washington Boulevard site,” which had been eliminated by the Board previously when they named Patterson Ranch as their second choice to Huddleson.

Fourth, it seems Lehman also tried to convince Trustees they should reverse an earlier decision for a one campus District and, “urged two campuses with each housing about 5500 students.”

Finally, and probably of most negative local political impact, Lehman is reported to have referred to the Site Selection Committee as members of the American Institute of Amateur Architects. He was later taken to task by Trustee Charles Snow for his “sarcastic” comment and Snow demanded a public apology by Lehman.

The article reported both Lehman and Epler added finances as a possible disadvantage of the Huddleson site. Lehman said the State Finance Department indicated it would not participate in the financing of any site beyond about 150 to 175 acres. Epler told the board that he had received a tentative promise of $563,223 from the state for site acquisition if the District matched the amount with $436,777.

The Argus continued to pursue this story and contacted Lehman’s superior at the State Department of Education, Dr. Archie McFerrin (A-110)). McFerrin stated he was unaware of Lehman’s appearance before the Board and did not know anything about Lehman having already made up his mind about the Huddleson site.

McFerrin told the Argus he knew nothing about any state law allowing for a vote of the local people to override a site decision by the state. He also said if Lehman did finally reject the site, the Board could appeal the decision directly to him (McFerrin). The article states that “McFerrin said in such cases he studies existing data obtained for evaluations of the site in question confers with the state consultant from his department who has vetoed the site and often calls in another state official for advice before making a firm and final ruling.”

That same day, in a pun-laced commentary the Argus (A-111, “Whose Fault Is It?”) provided a lighter look at the site selection saga and is worth showing here in full: Whose fault is it?

Yes indeed. Things are always shaking in Fremont-Newark Junior College District.

No great shakes mind you. Just sort of a steady tremor as a stirred up Citizens Site Selection Committee keeps rumbling for its No. 1 site for Ohlone College - the Huddleson ranch property in Fremont's mission San Jose district.

While they're shaking fists, Ohlone president Stephen Epler and his boys are aptly providing person after person to find fault with their choice. Faultfinders every one of them. As in earthquake fault.

The latest fault-finder called in by the administration was Dr. E. H. Lehman of the state Department of Education. He said he’d advised the district to avoid the Huddleson site because of the earthquake fault on the edge of the property.

But Trustee Charles Snow found fault with the way Lehman found fault.

Lehman, it seems, made a bad crack about there being professional persons who are members of the AIA, the American Institute of Architects, and then those others who belong to the AIAA, the American Institute of Amateur Architects.

The statement chilled Snow. He interpreted it as being disrespectful toward the citizens committee. He called for Epler to get Lehman to apologize to the committee.

The committee is still waiting.

At the December 13, 1967 Board meeting Trustees received a report from the Site Selection Committee. The report was presented by Mr. Frank Haggerty and asked

the Board to reaffirm its stand that an in-depth study of the Huddleson Ranch site be completed prior to the submission of any request to the State Department of Education for site approval. In a subsequent report (A-112) the Argus stated the Site Selection Committee held a rushed special session before the Board meeting and agreed that unless the board showed its good faith by reaffirming its trust in the Site Selection Committee they would resign as a body.

After Mr. Haggerty’s statement to the Board, Mr. Sears replied that one purpose of the meeting that day was to select a firm to make the type of in-depth study being requested by the group.

Dr. Epler introduced Mr. George O. Gates, Assistant Chief Geologist, Geologic Division, U.S. Department of Interior, and stated Mr. Gates would report on general earthquake studies and not on one particular area. Using slides and maps, Mr. Gates discussed in detail the San Andreas, the Hayward, and the Mission faults.

Mr. Sears thanked Mr. Gates for his fine presentation and assistance.

The Argus reported the day before (A-113) that Gates told them he, “…has been informed of the site controversy within the District for the new Ohlone campus and the earthquake problems that caused some people to strike the Huddleson ranch from the list of locations for a campus location.” He told the paper, “…he would attempt to stay out of the local site problems and simply inform the board of earthquake fault hazards and their effects on structures.”

Dr. Duke presented responses from various firms invited to submit proposals to conduct the geological study of the Huddleson Ranch site. He reported that all firms had indicated that they could not submit a price proposal until they were selected. Duke introduced Mr. W. A. Wahler of the firm Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineers Inc. of Palo Alto, who requested permission to address the board concerning his proposal.

The Board voted unanimously to instruct staff to prepare, with County Counsel’s approval, an agree with the principle owners allowing a geological and soil study to be conducted on the Huddleson Ranch site by Woodward, Clyde, Sherard and Associates. The purposed of the study was to provide information to satisfy the Board and the State Department of Education that a safe and economical campus could be built on the Huddleson Ranch site. The administration was directed to bring a contract proposal for the study to the next Board meeting Again, local press reports fill in some of the blanks left by the Board minutes in the follow-up article by the Argus the next day of the December 13, 1967. (A-112) The article asserted the Wahler and Gates had cast serious doubt on the existence of an earthquake fault on the Huddleson ranch site of the proposed alone a college campus. The paper stated the two experts had, “questioned the existence of an earthquake fault through the property. And even if the fault does exist, Wahler minimized the danger from earthquake damage by saying that proper construction would all but eliminate any threat to life.”

Wahler was quoted as saying, “I'm not sure there is even a fault crossing through the building site (Huddleson Ranch),” and said most damages are not caused by quakes themselves but rather by fire, which can be eliminated by building fire proof buildings and using electricity instead of gas.

The Argus said that Gates urged the Board to recognize geological problems and plan their engineering around them; if a fault was found on a site where a school is going to be a built and there is enough land left after establishing a safety zone, there would be nothing wrong to go ahead for the construction. The article stated that owner Ed Huddleson had agreed to eliminate some 20 acres from where Skidmore, Owings and Merrill claim to have located a fault.

The Argus article ends by relating that Mr. Huddleson, who was in the audience, assured Trustees he not only approved of the study being proposed, he would welcome one. He said, “…my ranch has stigma on it and I would like to see it removed. However, I want this board to know that after a study is made should prove the ranch is not safe, I would not like to see a college on it.”

It is quite obvious that no love was lost between Dr. Lehman and The Argus, nor between the college administration and the Argus, for that matter. On December 14, 1967 the Argus published a blistering editorial (A-114), “Misinformed Advisor” taking Dr. Lehman on directly and the, indirectly, the college administration.

Rather than subjectively summarizing an already subjective historical document, the editorial is provided in Appendix 32 for the reader to see in full.

Second Bond Attempt As 1968 began, the District was in a good position to move forward with its longer term plans. Ohlone had been formalized as the name of the college. The first quarter of classes had operated successfully at the Serra Center, Kennedy High School and Fremont Boys’ Club. Ohlone College was now a reality and becoming increasingly known in the community. Enrollment was increasing as were course offerings. The football season had finished and the basketball team was playing and the winter quarter was set to begin.

Even though the selection of the Huddleson Ranch site was approved, the District was still not in a position to schedule a bond measure vote. The site still needed approval from the State Department of Education, if the District wanted to avail itself of any state funding to support the campus development. Further, the voters would need confidence the Huddleson site was, indeed, the final location of the campus. Thus, it was critical the site be studied and found free of any earthquake danger that would obstruct the construction of the campus.

In addition to the longer-term planning for a permanent campus the District needed to firm up the location for classes in the short term. The one-year lease for the Serra Center would soon come to a close. The notion of erecting portable buildings on a permanent campus site and operating the college there, during construction, was fading as an option. The actions related to the Serra Center lease and

accommodations for enrollment growth will be described in a separate section below entitled, “Serra Center Lease and Relocatable Buildings Issues.”

At the January 10, 1968 Board meeting Trustees addressed the adoption of Resolution No. 21/67-68 entitled, “Authorizing Approval to Conduct a Geological, Engineering and Soil Study of the Huddleson Ranch Site.” Mr. Lloyd S. Cluff of Woodward, Clyde, Sherard and Associates, assigned as principal investigator for the study, reviewed the proposal from his firm. He responded to a series of questions from Trustees, including:    

Adequacy of the six points in the proposal Cost of buildings designed to protect from earthquake risks Cost of the study itself Methods of determining the safety of the site

Board members then discussed funds to pay for the soil study and the need for this in-depth study for state support. Trustees discussed the need for a sequential study, the possibility of a cost less than the $18,300 proposed, and the need for the study in relationship to a forthcoming bond issue.

A motion was made to table the resolution authorizing approval to conduct a geological engineering and soil study of the Huddleson Ranch but the motion failed 2-4 (Mr. Hochler and Mr. Snow voting in favor of tabling).

Another motion was made to request the firm rewrite their proposal to a sequential basis and continue the question to the next Board meeting. Mr. Cluff offered to rewrite the proposal immediately in order to avoid further delay in starting the study. He was excused from the meeting to do so. Board President Sears called a recess to allow Mr. Cluff time to write the amendment.

When the meeting reconvened Mr. Cluff presented the revised wording for the proposal and the Trustees passed the Resolution 4-2 (Mr. Hochler and Mr. Snow voting against the motion). The Board then unanimously approved Resolution 27/67-68 entitled “Authorizing Execution of a License Agreement Given to the District by E. E. and Irene M. Huddleson for the Purpose of making a Geological and Engineering Study of Their Property.”

Trustee Sears read a letter from the Fremont planning commission suggesting a joint meeting to discuss mutual problems regarding the Huddleson site. The administration was instructed to convey the Board’s willingness for a joint meeting with the Planning Commission at their convenience.

The Argus report of the meeting (A-117) adds interesting detail not presented in the formal meeting minutes, helping to clarify what was meant by a “sequential” study, as requested by the Board. The article stated: The Board approved the contract only after Lloyd Cluff, chief engineering geologist for the firm agreed to rewrite the agreement. It was rewritten to

read that, ‘…if at any time in the site investigation evidence is found that would cause the site to be eliminated because of earthquake conditions, the firm will halt the study and so notify the board of Trustees.’

In other words, “sequential” meant if at any time the property were found to be unsafe for a campus, the study would be halted and the cost be adjusted accordingly.

At the February 7, 1968 Board meeting there was an update of the Huddleson Ranch site study. There was obviously high interest as Board President Sears asked the item be moved up the agenda for the convenience for the citizens who were interested in it. Dr. Duke reported Mr. Cluff’s statement that normal progress was being made but that it was too early to make any report to the board.

Once the study was underway, the administration and the Board began planning the financing package that would be needed, a combination of state funding and local bond funds. At the February 7, 1968 Board meeting Dr. Epler reported that the District’s request for funding under the Junior College Construction Act had been included in the Governor’s budget for 1968-69. The state funding was set at $563,233 with the requirement of local match. Since the match would need to come from bond funds, along with the bulk of the construction cost, the Board’s attention was understandably focused on the best time to get the measure on the ballot.

The next possible elections were the June 1968 primary election and then the General Election in November 1968. The sooner a bond measure could be passed, the sooner the many tasks involved in planning and building a permanent campus could move forward. Thus, the June 1968 election was attractive but could be a close call with regard to the completion of the seismic study. Also, the use of the June election for a bond measure was being discouraged by Rene Davidson, Registrar of Voters for Alameda County. In fact, Dr. Duke reported he had received information from Davidson stating it was too late to get the bond issue on the June for the primary election ballot. Duke reviewed the legal election rules received from the office of the Alameda County Counsel.

This led to numerous statements about the need for a bond measure. Mr. Snow asked to have a meeting soon with the bond election as a specific agenda item. Since this discussion took place after representatives of the press had left the meeting, he added the comments made that evening should be repeated at a future meeting with representatives of the press present.

The Trustees agreed to schedule a specific agenda item on bond planning at the next Board meeting on February 21, 1968.

An Argus article following the February 7, 1968 Board meeting (A-123) quotes Administrative Assistant William Collins as saying he asked Davidson for a letter of clarification explaining why the District should not seed a June election. “I hope to have the letter in time for the board’s meeting on February 21,” Collins said.

Of course, the Argus followed up on this before the February 21, 1968 Board meeting. An article on February 17 (A-125) reports that Davidson had said there were two reasons for discouraging the June bond measure: “First, the adding of two new parties to the June ballot has created major printing difficulties. Second, the measure would not be coincident with any other agency on the ballot.”

In the same article, Dr. Duke was quoted as saying he had, …discussed the matter with the county counsel and that if the district intends to try for the June election the board will need to make a decision by Wednesday. If the board agrees to try for the June ballot, they would notify the county counsel who would prepare a legal document requiring the board’s adoption. Then the County Board of Supervisors would need to approve it.

As planned, a specific item, “Discussion of Bond Issue” was first on the agenda at the February 21, 1968 Board meeting Mr. Snow repeated his statements made after the press left the meeting on February 7, 1968 regarding the need for the bond issue as soon as possible.

Mr. Costello stated that the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on February 6 had approved a bond issue for the election on June 4, 1968, if the board decided to call such an election. Apparently the concerns of Mr. Davidson had been overridden.

The discussion involving Trustees and audience members covered a variety of topics.

Mr. Hochler pointed to the college as a prime industry in the area and stated the sooner a campus started the sooner the community would receive maximum benefit therefrom.

Mr. Costello mentioned rising costs and the fact that the size of the bond issue would not buy as much as it would have two years ago.

Mr. McCord stated that the sum stipulated should cover the cost of the land and the cost of a basic campus.

Mr. James Bray said that he would work for this bond issue but advised getting information in detail to the public as soon as possible.

Mr. E. E. Huddleson, owner of the Huddleson Ranch property, felt the public would be reassured by knowing that the board has a detailed definite site selected and urged immediate action. Mrs. Wilma Pruitt offered to help in the passage of the bond issue.

Mr. Charles Russell offered the following suggestions: immediate and frequent press releases to keep the public informed fully, the use of an uneven figure rather than the round $10 million of the last election, the three-year lease as a handicap to passing the bond issue, and his willingness to work for its success.

Mr. Don Stransky, President of the Mission San Jose Chamber of Commerce, stated he felt this was the right time for the bond election but added that the amount should be carefully considered.

Mr. Snow stated the need for this bond issue must be demonstrated to the people.

Mr. Hochler mentioned the need for a master plan which would help inform the public of the real needs, and added that in view of increased building costs and the predicted college enrollment he favored asking the maximum amount of $11,100,000 for this bond issue.

Mr. Costello felt that the people must be given a true picture of all the cost and the taxpayers will be saving money if the maximum out of this.

Dr. Duke pointed out that the last bond election would've cost the taxpayers a maximum of $.18-$.20 per $100 assessed valuation. He stated further that the District now levies a $.25 tax to cover leasing facilities, and out of district payments, which could be eliminated once they have their own campus.

The Board considered Resolution 29/67-68 directing the County Counsel to prepare necessary documents to schedule a bond election for June 4, 1968 in the amount of $10.75 million. Mr. McCord stated that he felt $7.5 – $8 million to be sufficient to build academic facilities only. Dr. Edmison discussed the need for a complete campus since physical education is mandatory and the District must either supply these facilities or lease them off campus and although the cost of materials labor and land are going up it would be unwise to build less than is needed for the student population. Reverend Wilson spoke in favor of going for an amount to build an adequate campus and added that the legal maximum would not be enough.

The original motion was amended to set the bond at $11,138,056. Mr. McCord again stated that he wanted a lower figure with another bond election two or three years later. Mr. Hochler pointed out the Chabot College experience with bond election and added that the board must show the citizens how they plan to use the bond money in order to build community confidence. The amendment passed 5 to 2 (Mr. McCord and Mr. Snow voting against it).

President Sears called a roll call vote on the original motion as amended and it passed 6 to 1. Mr. McCord was the lone no vote but said he intended to work for the bond election. This dissenting vote would trigger yet another in the line of controversies and dustups in the press. Mr. McCord said he was not opposed to the bond but did not think the amount was directly linked to any tangible building plans. The administration and other Trustees were content to rely on state construction cost estimates based on per student cost ratios. First he said the bond amount was too much; then he said it was not high enough.

This issue stretched out for the next two weeks in a series of articles in the Argus: (A-127) “Plan Upsets McCord – Bond Stand Aired”; (A-128) “11.1 Million for Ohlone

– Bond Plan Holds ‘No Frills’”; (A-130) “Ohlone Proposal Assailed”; and (A-131) “June Bond Vote – Ohlone College Enrollment Decision Up to Voters”) through the March 6 Board meeting. Essentially it boiled down to how much should be funded by the bond and how the amount was calculated.

To help school districts estimate the cost of construction of planned building projects, and thus, help estimate the amount of bond funding needed, the State Department of Education provided a formula for cost calculations. Dr. Duke summarized the construction calculations for the Argus (A-131), along with the matter of the cost of the land needing to be purchased: According to the state projections Ohlone College can expect at least 9600 students in the September 1972 enrollment which would include 3,210 fulltime equivalent day students.

College vice President James Duke using the state formula for completing campus costs said present day costs per full time equivalent student (FTE) for a total campus development are between $4200 and $4400 per FTE. Using the conservative figure multiplied by the projected 3210 FTE for fall 1972, Duke said present-day costs of the total campus development would be $13,500,00. “This would include buildings, built-in equipment, such as chemistry lab benches and sinks, moveable equipment, such as microscopes, architectural fees, outdoor areas, such as roads, parking lots, lighting and landscaping,” he said.

Dr. Duke said the 13.5 million would not include the cost of site acquisition and site development. Trustees have received an offer from the principal landowner of the scenic Mission San Jose campus site. Ed Huddleson, owner of the 460 acre Huddleson Ranch, has offered his property to the junior college district for $4,000 an acre. However Duke said the campus site would include about 26 other acres owned separately by Kit Catlin and John Amaral.

“Catlin and Amaral have not discussed price with us,” Duke said.

He said an appraisal of the entire properties would have to be made before the district could begin to quote site purchase costs. However Trustees indicated Wednesday the cost could be about $2.4 million.

Total site acquisition and site development, according to state figures, could bring the total amount of the district’s proposed new campus up to $18 million.

However, a successful bond election June 4, 1968 would provide $563,223 in state aid for site acquisition costs. That amount has been earmarked for the junior college to the governor’s 1968 budget providing the district is able to match the amount with its own funds.

Duke explained that with the successful $11.1 million bond election and the state aid to be provided the local district. The junior college would need either to qualify for other state and federal funding or defer about $6 million of the total project to a second phase of construction.

Trustee McCord, sensitive to the failure of the November 1966 bond measure, was uncomfortable with the level of ambiguity involved in the general calculations by the state. Explaining his concerns, McCord told the Argus (A-135), I feel this is one of the prime reasons the first measure failed because the amount asked for was not based on the actual need,” he said. He said that this is like asking the voters to endorse a blank check. “I do not and will not oppose a college bond election. On the contrary, I intend to work as hard as I possibly can to help it pass but I do object to the amount asked for,” he said.

“It had no bearing on actual need. If just happens to be the maximum allowable by law. A decision of this magnitude should not be made on the basis of what we can get but rather on the basis of what we need. The $11.1 million may be too high or too low…if someone proves to me that a higher figure is absolutely necessary I would rather vote for that than merely picking the legal maximum out of the hat and asking voters to approve it,” McCord said.

On March 1, 1968 Lloyd Cluff, Chief Engineer of the Huddleson Ranch site study, told the Argus (A-130a) the completion of the study and report was four weeks off.

An accompanying photo was: “Soils expert Lloyd Cluff, on left, explains use of equipment to detect possible earthquake fault movement to Mrs. Gertrude McDonald, member of the Site Selection Committee, and Ohlone College board president Wes Sears.”

At the March 6, 1968 Board meeting the status of the Huddleson site study continued to be off great interest. Dr. Duke reported on a meeting with Mr. Lloyd Cluff of Woodward, Clyde, Sherard and Associates, who advised that his firm would continue to study of the Huddleson Ranch site, since nothing had been found to stop the study. Dr. Duke added that the completion date was set for April 1, 1968, with time allowed for delays due to weather.

Mr. Sears then opened the topic of the bond election for general discussion. Mr. McCord stated that he would support a bond election but felt that the amount of the issue should be based on clearly defined needs. He then presented a summary of San Mateo College campus costs. Further discussion covered the following:  Core buildings and temporary classrooms  Actual amount of the bond issue  Comparison of building costs over a seven year period, and  Open land price increases.

Mr. Ken Lucas, from the audience, pointed out the need for work by all Board members to bass a bond election.

The Argus article (A-131) about the Board meeting added more detail than the Board minutes. According to the Argus, Mr. McCord had suggested the District place a $13 or $14 million bond proposal on the ballot but that only $9.5 million of the total figure be spent. In his initial presentation Mr. McCord suggested

temporary buildings should be located on the campus for classrooms and academic uses.

The Argus article quotes Board President Wes Sears as having reminded Mr. McCord that three years following a successful bond election – “leasing funds will no longer be available to us.” The Argus stated Trustee John Costello reminded Mr. McCord that the $11.1 million figure was agreed upon only after professional cost estimates had been made available to the District. “These figures are pretty standard and even so we’re asking for much less,” Costello said.

Trustees unanimously passed Resolution No. 30/67-68 Authorizing a Bond Election on June 4, 1968 in the amount of $11,135,000.

These matters were resolved and Trustee McCord became an ardent campaigner in favor of the $11.1 million bond measure. He would later be honored by students with an award for leadership, including advocacy of the bond. Mr. McCord asked if a meeting could be held soon to discuss necessary bond election strategy and potential leaders. Mr. Sears would call a special meeting as soon as possible.

Trustees unanimously approved the firm of Orrick, Herrington, Rowley and Sutcliffe as bond attorneys.

Mr. Sears opened by March 13, 1968 special Board meeting by explaining the session was to discuss plans for the forthcoming bond election. The Board was especially interested in hearing suggestions and comments from the community.

The following persons offered suggestions: Dr. William Vandenburgh, Mrs. Trudy MacDonald, Mr. James Bray, Mr. Steve Bammel, Mrs. Alice Cline, Mr. Pete Wilson, and Mrs. Wilma Pruitt. The Board discussed each of the suggestions made and offered suggestions of their own.

The Board minutes did not reflect what the Argus thought to be newsworthy comments and complaints made by a Site Selection Committee member about Skidmore, Owings and Merrill architects, pushing they not be rehired. The Argus (A-139) reported as follows: Trustees, meeting last night in a special session to launch the bond campaign, heard a dissenting note from a member of the Site Selection Committee concerning the present firm of architects hired by the district to select a campus site.

Mrs. Gertrude McDonald, member of the 14 member site selection committee, said the question of hiring an architect would have to be settled before she, some members of the committee, and other citizens could support the bond proposal.

Referring to the present firm of architects, Mrs. McDonald said, “I and many people in the community will be reluctant to work for a college bond until we settle the architect question. Many of us here have had enough from Skidmore, Owings and Merrill,” she said, naming the firm.

During the site selection process, the firm vetoed the Huddleson Ranch site over objections from the committee.

After several heated sessions, the board scrapped the firm’s recommendation and, in December, agreed to purchase the Huddleson property.

And although the firm was hired to perform the site selection study only, Mrs. McDonald has implied that the firm might be retained to design the campus.

However the board has indicated that it has no legal commitment to retain the firm for the larger project.

Mr. McCord distributed and discussed an outline for conducting a campaign.

Trustees unanimously approved Mr. McCord’s outline as a tentative guide for the bond campaign.

Trustees unanimously approved that Mr. Sears be appointed temporary chairman of the bond campaign. Members of the Board, the community, and the press were invited and encouraged to submit names to Mr. Sears of individuals to be considered for membership on the Citizens’ Bond Committee.

Internal support within the college was strong. Steve Bammel, President, Associated Student of Ohlone College presented various methods for the students to assist in the bond campaign and pledged assistance of the student government in the campaign. Pete Wilson, President, Ohlone College Faculty Association, pledged the support of the faculty in the forthcoming bond campaign. Mr. Paul Thompson, President of the Ohlone College Chapter No. 490, gave word of CSEA’s support.

Mr. Sears called a special meeting for March 20, 1968 on the bond campaign.

Between the March 13, 1968 and March 20, 1968 special Board meeting, the Argus interviewed Dr. Epler on the status of the overall campus planning (A-140). Dr. Epler made the following statements regarding the June 4, 1968 bond measure:      

Successful passage of the bond issue would make possible site acquisition and the operation of a new campus by 1971.

Maximum development of the new college would not be fully completed until 1976, in time for present fourth-graders attending schools throughout the Fremont Newark areas.

The first major tax cut for home owners would come with the opening of the college in September 1971.

The districts tax rate would be sliced $.17 and could even drop lower if the districts assessed valuation jumps, as it did last year.

The next tax drop in 1990 would bring the tax rate down to $.15.

The present $.25 tax override for leasing facilities and paying out of district tuition would continue for three years after a successful bond election. This means by 1971, if the bond passed, the district would no longer have the override tax he said.

At the March 20, 1968 special Board meeting Mr. Sears suggested Dr. Holger Rasmussen and Walter Aylward as chairmen of the Citizens’ Bond Committee. Dr. Epler reported that Frank Haggerty had agreed to serve as Finance Chairman.

James Bray suggested Dr. William Vandenburgh as General Chairman. Alice Cline suggested James Perley. Mr. Snow suggested separate chairmen for Fremont and Newark. Mr. Sears thought separate committees might not be desirable but there should have Newark and Fremont people on all committees. Stuart Carpenter said he could not serve because of other commitments. Tom Clark offered to serve on the Publicity Committee, as would Bud Kay. Wilma Pruitt would help students address envelopes. John Goodwin would help with signs. Alice Cline offered to help with signs and publicity.

The Trustees unanimously appointed the following citizens as members of the Executive Committee: Walter Aylward, Steve Bammel, Alice Cline, Frank Haggerty, Peppy Mayer, James Perley, Judge E. A. Quaresma, Dr. Holger Rasmussen, Gus Robertson, Joe Souza, Walter Thompson, and Dr. William Vandenburgh.

Mr. McCord suggested raising a campaign fund of $8,000 to 10,000. Mr. Wilson proposed forming a Century Club of those who donate $100 or more, with a goal of 100 members. Contributions collected from those at the meeting amounted to $78 in cash, plus five $100 pledges.

Board members were assigned to work with Committees as follows: Executive, Mr. Sears; Signs, Mr. Costello; Finance, Mr. Hochler; Speakers’ Bureau, Rev. Wilson; Endorsements, Dr. Edmison; Precinct, Mr. McCord; and Publicity, Mr. Snow The first meeting of the Executive Committee was tentatively set for Saturday, March 23, 1968 at 7:30 am at Lyons’ Restaurant in Fremont.

Mr. McCord suggested a sign-up sheet for volunteer campaign workers be kept at the receptionist’s desk in the Administration Building Lobby.

Dr. Epler asked that pro-argument revisions be turned in by the next meeting.

March 20, 1968.

Prior to the regular Board meeting on March 26, 1968 the Argus (A-142) gave their rundown of the status of the bond campaign. The article reported the college bond campaign had begun and Dr. Holger Rasmussen was named chairman for the campaign committee. Dr. Rasmussen had been a leader in the successful drive to form the junior college District in 1965 and had chaired the unsuccessful bond campaign in 1966. Rasmussen named Joe Souza of Newark as cochairman and organized subcommittees to assist in the campaign. Other committee members included Walter Aylward, Alice Cline, Frank Haggerty, James Perley, Judge E.A. Quesara, William Vandenburgh and Walter Thompson. Haggerty, Aylward and Vandenburgh served as members of the site selection committee. Haggerty was appointed by Trustees to serve as finance chairman.

Despite the Huddleson Ranch study findings not being ready, the Trustees, at the March 26, 1968 Board meeting finalized the placement of a bond measure on the June 4, 1968 ballot. They had stated earlier that the decision would not be made until study results were in. But, they did not want to miss the deadline for placing the measure on the ballot. They must have had some preliminary assurances from the engineers the site would be cleared. The Board also discussed and approved the arguments statement favoring the bond measure, including a promise to reduce the current $.25 tax rate to $.18 by 1971.

At the same meeting Dr. Duke reported that Mr. Cluff of Woodward, Clyde, Sherard and Associates had notified him that trenching of the Huddleson Ranch site would be completed that week and a final study report would be ready about mid-April.

Mr. Sears reported that the first meeting of the Bond Campaign Executive Committee, held on Monday, March 25, 1968, was most successful, with committee chairmen was appointed and the next meeting would be held in two weeks. Mr. Blum stated that the students were meeting that evening to set up their parallel committees. Mr. Sears advised that he had added Mr. William Walton, Editor of the News Register, to the Executive Committee and planned to invite the Editor of the Argus to also serve on the committee.

As the meeting progressed, the Board unanimously approved the “Arguments in Favor of Fremont-Newark Junior College Bonds.” and passed Resolution No. 32/6768 in support of the local college bond; and Resolution No. 33/67-68 in support of the State Bond Proposal for community college construction bonds in the same election.

Mr. McCord reported on his meeting with students earlier that evening who were working diligently on planning their parallel committees and distribution of campaign material.

On April 5, 1968 the Argus (A-145) reported that Chief Engineer Lloyd Cluff had announced the Huddleson study was complete. With so much riding on the Huddleson site being cleared of earthquake danger, the Board and administration would understandably wanted to get some positive information out as soon as possible. Cluff stated he had found nothing that “would completely throw the site out.” But, he refused to get into the details of the results until the full report had been written and presented to the Board. This at least put the community on notice that the Huddleson Ranch was very likely to be declared safe when the final report was finished. Mr. Wes Sears stated he would call a special meeting of the Board as soon as the final report was ready.

Shortly after this pre-report announcement, the Argus reported (A-149 and A-155) the bond measure was overwhelmingly endorsed by both the Fremont and Newark Chambers of Commerce. Both bodies also committed to help campaign for the passage of the bond.

The Newark Chamber gave specific reasons for their support:

    

The bond would provide educational, cultural and recreational facilities The present 25-cent tax rate would be reduced to 18 cents three years after the successful passage of the bond and completion of permanent buildings A portion of the bond funds would provide the junior college district with matching funds for a state grant of $563,000, which would not be available if the measure were to fail Funds from bond sales would provide adequate classrooms and laboratories for the projected student enrollment of 5,000 by 1972 The bond would provide the college District the necessary funds while at the same time serve as a tax relief to citizens

The April 24, 1968 Board meeting started off on a good note as Mr. Don Stansky presented a $200 donation to the bond campaign from the Mission San Jose Chamber of Commerce Dr. Duke reported that the site report would be delayed until the May, 1968 meeting. Mr. Sears added that a verbal report could have been made but he preferred the delay so the full written report could be presented.

Dr. Rasmussen, Bond Committee Chair, reported on the excellent help given by all committee members and the activities of the Speakers’ Bureau. He advised that the area medical staffs had contributed $400 to the campaign fund and passed unanimous endorsement of the bond issue, which was an unprecedented action for this group. He also thanked the Mission San Jose Chamber for their support and asked for their continual help. Dr. Epler and Mr. Sears commended Dr. Rasmussen and his committee members for their fine work and Mr. McCord commended the members of the Fremont Fire Department for their help in posting signs.

At the May 1, 1968 Board meeting Mr. Lloyd Cluff, chief engineer, Woodward-Clyde and Associates, and Mr. Frank E. McClure, consulting structural engineer, McClure and Messinger, presented a comprehensive report of the findings of the geological and seismic studies of the Huddleson Ranch site. The presentation included slides, maps, and diagrams used to clarify major points of interest. The report cleared the site of any earthquake dangers that would preclude construction of the permanent campus there. Based on this report, the Trustees voted unanimously to accept the Huddleson Ranch as the permanent campus site.

Mr. Cluff and Mr. McClure answered questions of Board members covering such matters as danger of slippage from steep slopes, comparison of wood and stucco structures, the safety of relocatable buildings, the use of restricted areas for parking lots, the amount of acreage covered by the slide area, and the possibility of predicting future earthquakes The actual engineering report has not been found in college files, but good summaries were provided in the Spring 1968 edition of “NEWS quotes:” the Fremont Newark Community College District Newsletter and in the Argus (A-157).

The college newsletter printed the following synopsis:

In-depth earthquake studies conducted by the geological firm of Woodward, Clyde, Sherard and Associates have concluded that the proposed campus site for Ohlone College is not threatened by seismic conditions any more than is the total coast of the Pacific.

Previous published literature concerning the geological conditions present in the area of the proposed site, indicated the existence of ground cracks which were allegedly due to movement along a fault line.

Lloyd Cluff, chief engineering geologist in charge of the study, pointed to the presence of an ancient landslide below Mission Peak located in the southern portion of the college site. “It is apparent,” stated Cluff, "that this landslide is very old and existed at the time of the 1868 earthquake,” which occurred along the Hayward fault, one and one-half miles west of the site. The reported cracks possibly were caused by slight movement within the old landslide mass due to the ground motion of the 1868 quake. No evidence was found after extensive evaluation of existing information and intensive field testing, to indicate the existence of an active fault on the site, according to Cluff.

The geologist recommended that building restriction area of 150 feet be maintained along the slide area. PG&E power easements now traverse the restricted area, and are themselves restrictive to construction. “Excluding the obvious restricted areas, preliminary planning for siting building and other development areas can be made without limitations,” stated Cluff. The earthquake problem at the proposed site is not greater than any other site in the district. Subsoils on the site were found to be of stable composition. “We believe,” stated Cluff, “that this report represents one of the most complete geological engineering studies of a proposed public school site ever prepared in the accordance with the provisions of the state Education Code.” Cluff was echoed by Dr. Elwood Lehman in the State Department of Education who indicated that the study resulted in approval of the site by the department.

Purchase of the site by the junior college district depends on voter approval of an $11.1 million bond issue on June 4.

The Argus summary (A-157) of the engineering report states: …from the standpoint of earthquake risk it is economically feasible to develop the Huddleson site to a level of earthquake safety which is accepted as reasonable and adequate for the protection of life and property... the site findings were based on extensive use of aerial-photos, geological field mapping, geophysical surveys, drilling and trenching. Previous conflicting study reports over a suspected fault were due to the limited scope of investigations, the geologists said. During the study, both geophysical methods, based on physical and chemical properties of materials, and seismic methods measuring the velocity of sound waves passed through the subsurface, were utilized.

The Argus report adds some interesting details on the previous studies of the area:

The major claims that a suspected fault existed stemmed from a 1967 U.S. Geological Survey map, which used information gathered during a probe of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake – 38 years after the 1868 shift of the Hayward fault located 1.5 miles from the Huddleson site.

That map in turn was based on statements from eye-witnesses that “on the mountain above the old Mission, and above a place called Peacock Springs, a great crack in the earth appeared, which looked as if the lower part of the mountain had parted and split down.”

Geologists noted that a huge ancient landslide mass in the southern portion of the Huddleson property corresponded to the location of the reported cracks.

Slight ground motions within the slide – not related to a fault – might have caused the cracks, the report stated. In the landslide area, the experts said, “it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of the suspect fault” since the slide “is the main reason for the lack of conclusive evidence. If a fault does exist in this area, it would have to be classed as a very minor secondary fracture and not as an active earthquake fault.”

Furthermore, surface land features do not indicate an underlying fault, the geologists added.

The Argus article cites several other elements of the report not included in the college summary: The experts say the proximity to the Hayward fault should it become active, would not necessarily have a major bearing on the campus site. Due to the nature of earthquake waves, distance does not indicate the strength of a possible tremor.

The soils underlying the bedrock layers of the Huddleson site consist mainly of stiff to hard sandy clays and represent stable ground conditions that would not be subject to extensive settling and shifts.

No inactive faults traverse the site, although some minor ones are located in the surrounding areas. Should a Mission fault exist, it would not be active and would pose no problems.

Any construction of buildings would still require detailed geologic and soil engineering tests for specific locations – a subject not covered in the report.

Following the presentation the Board voted unanimously to approve and accept the written report of the site study submitted and to forward it to the State Department in Sacramento for consideration. Mr. Sears said that copies of this report would be available on a check-out basis to interested citizens as soon as additional copies were received. He thanked Mr. Cluff and Mr. McClure for their excellent cooperation and fine report.

Dr. Robert Fisher representing the Mission San Jose Chamber read a statement requesting clarification of the master plan prior to the bond election and showing concern over the choice of architects. It was the feeling of the Board members that the concern over the architects should be delayed until after the bond election. Mr. Sears assured Dr. Fisher that the Board would give consideration to his concerns at that time.

Dr. Epler reported the bond campaign was progressing very satisfactorily and, in his opinion, showed greater activity and interest than the campaign of 1966.

At the May 14, 1968 Board meeting, Trustees learned from Dr. Elwood Lehman that the State Department of Education had approved the Huddleson Ranch site for the Ohlone campus. Lehman earlier had strong doubts about the safety of the site but was now quoted in the Argus (A-162) as saying, “The study conducted by Woodward, Clyde, Sherard and Associates concerning the earthquake fault at the Huddleson site is without a doubt the most thorough that has been submitted to me for review.”

Dr. Epler reported the bond campaign had been thoroughly covered by the press prior to this meeting. Mr. McCord presented a copy of the brochure, adding that 30,000 would be printed and ready for distribution to the Bond Committee at the meeting on May 25, 1968.

Shortly after the approval of the Huddleson Ranch site, a group of students visited the Huddlesons to get a closer look at the future campus location (A-164). Two photos accompanied the article. One was captioned: “Fond memories of future Ohlone campus. Mrs. Irene Huddleson recalls early ranch days for Linda Largin, Pat Pallister, Dianne Healy, Sheri Brown and Robin Berba.” The other stated, “Students stake claim to Huddleson Ranch. Ed Huddleson, lower right, hosts Ohlone students.”

The Argus newspaper was an enthusiastic supporter of the initial efforts to form the local junior college district and firmly endorsed the December 1965 ballot measure to create the district. However, just prior the first bond measure in November 1966, the paper published an editorial opposing the bond stating it was rushed and illconceived. After an arduous and sometimes controversial year and a half site selection process, the Argus first endorsed the Huddleson Ranch as the permanent site for the college and then on May 23, 1968 published an editorial, “Yes on Ohlone Bond” (A-166) in strong support of the June 4 bond measure. The editorial is presented in Appendix 33.

On the afternoon of Sunday May 26, 1968 a community picnic and ranch tours were held on the Huddleson Ranch site. The event was hosted by: Don Stransky, President of the Mission San Jose Chamber of Commerce; Kit Catlin, owner of Linda Vista Park and the Orchard House, which were now part of the sale for the full campus site; and Irene and Ed Huddleson, owners of the ranch. Ohlone students were there help as guides and circulate information concerning the property and the bond issue. The Ohlone song girls and yell leaders were in uniform as hosts throughout the afternoon and as special guests of the Huddlesons.

The Argus continued its supportive coverage of the bond measure by publishing a decidedly pro-Ohlone College and pro-bond special series the week before the election: Argus (5/31/68) “Crucial Ohlone Bond Issue – Voters Asked to Back a

Dream” – “Ohlone Bond Plan Based on Crucial, Simple Issue;” Argus (6/1/68) “Ohlone Faces Grim Future if Bond Fails Again.”

The documented community endorsements for the bond measure are presented in Appendix 34.

The General Election took place on Tuesday, June 4, 1968. The report on June 5, 1968 that the Ohlone Measure F bond was passing at a 70% margin was overshadowed by the shocking news that Robert F. Kennedy had been gunned down the previous evening while campaigning in Los Angeles. (A-177) As the June 5, 1968 Board meeting was getting underway, Senator Kennedy, who had been shot just 22 hours earlier in Los Angeles, was still hanging on to life.

Under the “Hearing of Citizens” at the beginning of the meeting, Mr. James Bray from the audience asked for a moment of silent prayer for Senator Kennedy.

Kennedy would die about six hours later, around 2:00 am on June 6, 1968. (A-178) Dr. Epler gave a report on the outcome of the bond measure the previous day. Yes – 19,616 (73%); No – 7,315 (27%). (Unofficial figures) Mr. Costello commended Mr. McCord for the excellent job he did on the bond campaign.

Mr. Snow stated that now that appraisals had started, it was time to get to work on master planning and selection of an architect. He requested staff to place the questions of the sale of bonds and the selection of architect on the agenda for the June 26, 1968 Board meeting for discussion.

Dr. Edmison requested the Superintendent to compliment the faculty advisor and staff of the magazine Tempo for a very fine job.

At the June 26, 1968 Board meeting Dr. Epler read a letter from Mr. Walter Costa, of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM) Architects, requesting the name of his firm be deleted from the list of candidate architectural firms for master planning the Ohlone campus. The Argus (A-187) reported the letter cited, “lack of community unity” in the site selection studies as precluding it from rendering a professional service to the District.

Following detailed discussion by Board members and audience participants, it was decided to ask the architects previously interviewed, plus one local firm soliciting consideration, to submit their revised brochures and applications for consideration.

The firms of SOM and Hellmuth, Obata, and Kassabaum were to be eliminated from this request.

Dr. Epler advised the Board that two appraisers were at work and hoped to make their report to the Board within 30 days; that eminent domain procedures are used in Alameda County; and, at Mr. Snow’s request, a composite map of the Huddleson site would be prepared by Dr. Duke for presentation at the next meeting.

Dr. Epler asked Board for approval of an award for distinguished service to be prepared for presentation to Dr. Holger Rasmussen at the next Board meeting and this was passed unanimously.

President Sears, on Mr. Snow’s suggestion, directed the staff to look at the existing buildings on the Huddleson site for consideration as temporary and long range use and report their findings to the Board at a future meeting.

Serra Center Lease Extension and Relocatable Buildings Issues As mentioned above, while all the activity surrounding the approval of the Huddleson Ranch site was taking place, the administration and Trustees needed to firm up the locations for classes until the permanent campus was built. At the March 27, 1968 Board meeting Trustees directed the administration to negotiate an extension of the Serra Center lease for another three years for $6,000 per month, with an option for a fourth year at the same price.

To handle the projected increase in enrollment the use of relocatable buildings was discussed. There were still Board members who felt the portable buildings should be located on the permanent campus site. But there was no time to implement that approach before the start of fall classes, as the Huddleson Ranch purchase was still being negotiated. Trustees discussed the possible use of portable buildings on the permanent site in the future and the need to order relocatable buildings within a few weeks to have them ready for fall classes. They directed the administration to draw up a contract with local architect Mr. Peter Jacobsohn to plan for temporary buildings at the Serra Center.

At the next Board meeting on April 24, 1968 the Trustees approved the lease of the Serra Center for the period July 1, 1968 through June 30, 1971, at a rental rate of $6,000 per month plus the option to renew for one additional year. Dr. Duke explained the planned use of the temporary buildings to be leased and answered questions of Board members concerning the possible moving of these buildings if a site is purchased, the state law requiring an architect’s services for planned use of temporary buildings, and the possible use of existing buildings at the Serra Center.

Trustees approved the contract with architect Peter Jacobsohn to assist with the planning and purchase of the relocatable buildings for the Serra Center for 1968-69.

At the May 14, 1968 Board meeting Dr. Duke presented and discussed the sketches for planned temporary buildings, parking lot, playing field, and improvements to leased property. Mr. Peter Jacobsohn, architect for the temporary buildings, discussed the plans and site layouts and discussed estimated costs. Mr. Snow stated that he felt that alternatives should be provided in case the bids exceed the estimated amounts. Possible alternatives discussed covered the play field and grading, either or both the art and music sections, and the drama or lecture hall.

Further discussion covered the period of time these improvements would prove adequate, consideration of moving temporary buildings to the permanent site, and the possibility of termination of lease on temporary buildings.

Trustee unanimously adopted Resolution No. 40/67-68 entitled, “Authorizing Advertising for Bids for Installation, Erection and Completion and Lease of Relocatable Buildings with the Drama Building Being Indicated as an Added Alternative;” and Resolution 41/67-68 entitled, “Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Installation, Erection and Completion of Parking Lot and Playfield.” They also adopted resolutions for each project authorizing general prevailing rate of wage payments for the work done.

At the June 5, 1968 Board meeting Trustees unanimously adopted Resolution No. 44/67-68 entitled, “Authorizing Execution of the Serra Center Lease Rewritten to Include Approval of Site Development and Requirement of 6 Months Advance Notice of Request for 4th Year Lease.”

Dr. Duke explained that the parking lot and playfield covered in Resolution No. 48/67-68 would be paid for out of current funds. Discussion covered the adequacy of the plan, the size of the playfield area, sub-soil, use as a practice field, and change in the size of the parking lot if buildings were placed elsewhere.

Trustees approved Resolution No. 48/67-68 entitled, “Approving Acceptance of Base Bid for Installation, Erection, and Completion of Parking Lot and Playfield from Redgwick and Banke, Inc.” for $21,995 and rejecting Alternate No. 1, a deduction in the amount of $6,000, making a net contract price of $21,995 for the project.

They then addressed Resolution No. 47/67-68 entitled, “Authorizing Execution of Lease-Contract with Speedspace Corporation for Installation, Erection, and Completion of and Lease of Eleven Relocatable Buildings.” Lengthy discussion covered: the cost of these relocatable buildings, advantages of purchase over lease, future need for leased facilities, delay in completion date if the decision to execute contract is not immediate, and the need for Board members to receive material in ample time before meetings to examine and analyze before taking action.

Mr. Snow stated that he would abstain from voting on the resolution if the Board felt it necessary to take action that evening because he needed more time to review the material. Trustees voted 5-1 to defer discussion until a continuation of the meeting in two days on June 7, 1968.

At the June 7, 1968 continuation Board meeting at Trustees addressed “Continuation of Discussion on Resolution No. 47/67-68 Authorizing Execution of Lease-Contract with Speedspace Corporation for Installation, Erection, and Completion of and Lease of Eleven Relocatable Buildings.”

Dr. Duke opened the discussion by reviewing the following items that should be taken into consideration: The $.62 maximum tax rate, the already established 1968 fall program, the planned facilities needed, and that temporary buildings could not be relocated to the new site for use during the 1968 Fall quarter. He offered the following suggestions: 1) Lease as bid and defer major site acquisition; 2) Rebid on this site to buy or lease (or combine); and 3) Delayed addition of relocatable buildings the first year and place on a permanent site when available. (Item 3

would necessitate cancellation of the two year electronics and drafting programs and require a restudy of all of next year’s programs.) Mr. Grady, of Speedspace advised that the resale market value of the relocatables would be about 70% and that the moving cost of 960 square foot relocatable building is about $900 per unit.

Rev. Wilson stated his reasons before presenting his motion: 1) to offer a full two year junior college program in September of the 1968-69 school year; 2) to use the maximum amount of bond monies for site purchase and permanent buildings; 3) to have time to create a well-designed and organized master-planned campus; 4) to have one unified campus; and 5) to get the best use of regular tax monies.

The ensuing parliamentary actions were as follows: Rev. Wilson moved, seconded

by Mr. Costello, to adopt the existing relocatable design, to press for the beginning of construction at the earliest possible time, including the provision that Resolution No. 47/67-68 be rebid to provide for a) leasing in five or seven equal payments, b) outright purchase, c) removal charge, and d) deduct items. Dr. Edmison moved, seconded by Mr. Costello, a substitute motion for staff to develop the financial alternatives and present in writing for study by Trustees the before next meeting, with the intent to purchase the Huddleson site with bond money and the relocatable buildings with tax money. The substitute motion passed unanimously.

At the June 13, 1968 Board meeting Dr. Duke distributed a memo to Trustee on relocatable facilities for 1968-69. Discussion by Board members covered the following items: the need to purchase the site immediately and the possible penalty if only a portion were purchased this year; the additional source of State aid made possible by the passage of the $65,000,000 State Bond issue.

Mr. Costello moved, seconded by Rev. Wilson, to adopt the staff recommendation on relocatable facilities with the stipulation that taxes may be reduced if an additional $400,000 in State aid is received to assist in the second year purchase of the site.

Passed unanimously. Rev. Wilson moved, seconded by Mr. Costello, to reject all previous bids on relocatable buildings. Passed unanimously Rev. Wilson moved, seconded by Dr. Edmison, to adopt the plans and specifications as outlined by the architect, deleting the Physical Education storage building and using three deduction alternatives: 1) drama building, 2) library, and 3) shower room. Passed unanimously Rev. Wilson moved, seconded by Mr. McCord, to adopt Resolution No. 50/67-68 authorizing general prevailing wage rate for installation, erection, and completion of relocatable buildings.

Rev. Wilson moved, seconded by Mr. Hochler, to adopt Resolution No. 51/67-68 authorizing advertisement for bids for installation, erection, and completion of relocatable buildings, subject to approval of the County Counsel.

The opening of bids on relocatable buildings scheduled for 4:00 pm, Tuesday, July 2, 1968 in the Board Room. Report on bids to be made at the July 3 Board meeting.

Aftermath This history covers the formation of the District and up through the first year of classes. The following is a summary of the events during the late summer and fall of 1968 related to the Serra Campus and the planned permanent campus on the Huddleson site.

In the end, the bid for the relocatable buildings was awarded to Speedspace, Inc. The Argus (A-188) reported in July, 1968 the Trustees had selected Ernest J. Kump Associates, a Palo Alto architectural firm to plan the permanent campus for Ohlone College. Kump was noted for master planning Foothill College in Los Altos, De Anza College in Cupertino and the College of the Virgin Islands in Saint Thomas.

Kump Associates had been in the running when Skidmore, Owings and Merrill were selected for the pre-bond master planning and site selection. As noted above, SOM dropped out of the second round for campus master planning after a rather rocky relationship with the District, especially with the Site Selection Committee and the Board.

In late September the Argus reported (A-191) Speedspace, Inc. delivered 10 portable buildings to the Serra Campus. The buildings arrived aboard flatbed trailers and a large crane placed them on their quick setting concrete foundations. The start of the Fall quarter was delayed one week in order for the buildings and furnishings to be ready for an October 7, 1968 start.

And on September 26, 1968 the Argus reported (A-103) that the District finalized the purchase of the Huddleson Ranch site for $1.9 million. The sale was negotiated privately so outside condemnation proceedings (eminent domain) were not required.

It would be another six years before the college moved to the permanent site during the summer of 1974.