Goodwin v. Alameda County Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
Public Court Documents
March 28, 1984
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Goodwin v. Alameda County Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, 1984. cc36b4b9-b39a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/ecdb8661-8a07-4ee7-acb2-2fa637654ba4/goodwin-v-alameda-county-petition-for-writ-of-mandate-and-complaint-for-declaratory-and-injunctive-relief. Accessed May 04, 2025.
Copied!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BILL LANN LEE
MARILYN 0. TEASAURO
JOCELYN D. LARKIN
JOHN R. PHILLIPSCenter for Law in the Public Interest
10951 W. Pico Blvd., Third Floor
Los Angeles, California 90064
(213) 470-3000
HENRY S. HEWITT
ROBERT ATKINSERICKSON, BEASLEY & HEWITT
12 Geary St., 8th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
(415) 781-3040
Attorneys for Petitioners
and Plaintiffs
S M DOI s STi D
P I L E D
m 3o w
R E N E C. D A V ID S O N , County Cleric
By Peggy Waller Deputy
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA -
5 8 J 5 4 r~'iGLINNES GOODWIN,
and FRAN WHITE,
Petitioners and
Plaintiffs,
vs.
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; BOARD
No.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
[CCP 525, 526, 1060
and 1085]
OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA;
DON EXCELL, CHARLES
SANTANA, FRED COOPER,
JOSEPH BORT and JOHN GEORGE;
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA;
and DOES 1-20 inclusive,
Respondents and
Defendants.
7
Petitioners and plaintiffs allege:
INTRODUCTION
1. This action challenges the legality of the
redistricting plan for Alameda County supervisorial districts,
Ordinance 83-077, which was adopted on October 11, 1983 ("the
-1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
redistricting plan") by the Board of Supervisors of Alameda
County ("Board"). Petitioners and plaintiffs — black County
residents, taxpayers, and registered voters — assert that the
Board gerrymandered certain supervisorial districts with the
purpose and effect of discriminatorily denying portions of the
County's black population their right to an equal and undiluted
vote as guaranteed by the equal protection clause, Article 1, § 7
of the California Constitution. Specifically, the Board altered
District 3, where many black voters reside, by eliminating
precincts with predominantly black populations and adding a large
number of virtually all white precincts. As a result, the black
population of the district was reduced 11% from approximately 42%
to 31% while the white population was increased 14% from
approximately 38% to 52%. These changes were not necessary to
equalize the population of the districts or to accomplish any
other legitimate purpose. Petitioners and plaintiffs, therefore,
request that the court issue a writ of mandate, pursuant to C.C.P
§ 1085, directing respondents to rescind the discriminatory
redistricting scheme and to promulgate a reapportionment plan
that satisfies the requirements of the Constitution. Petitioners
and plaintiffs also request that the court declare the 1983
redistricting plan invalid, pursuant to C.C.P. § 1060, and enjoin
its use in all future supervisorial elections including the
supervisorial election scheduled for June 5, 1984, pursuant to
C.C.P. §§ 525 and 526.
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PARTIES
2. Petitioner and plaintiff Glinnes Goodwin is a black
resident, taxpayer, and registered voter in District 3 of the
County of Alameda as presently drawn and as drawn prior to the
1983 redistricting plan.
3. Petitioner and plaintiff Fran White is a black
resident, taxpayer, and registered voter in District 3 as
presently drawn and as drawn prior to the 1983 redistricting.
4. As residents, taxpayers and registered voters in
Alameda County, petitioners are directly and beneficially
interested in the vindication of their constitutional right —
and the right of their neighbors and the black community — to an
equal and undiluted vote in supervisorial elections, and in the
preservation of the integrity of the electoral process.
Petitioners, furthermore, are directly and beneficially
interested in securing respondents' faithful performance of their
legal duty to adopt a redistricting plan that neither is intended
to discriminate on the basis of race nor results in racial
discrimination in violation of Article 1, § 7 of the California
Constitution.
5. Respondent and defendant COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ("the
County") is a governmental entity duly organized and existing
under the Constitution and laws of the State of California.
Among the official governmental functions performed by the County
are the establishment, maintenance, regulation and supervision of
all county elections and procedures related thereto, including
the reapportionment of supervisorial districts, consistent with
-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the Constitution and the laws of the State of California.
6. Respondent and defendant BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA constitutes the legislative body of the County
responsible for establishing, maintaining, regulating and
supervising all County elections and procedures related thereto,
including the reapportionment of supervisorial districts,
consistent with the Constitution and the laws of the State of
California.
7. Respondents and defendants Don Excell, Charles
Santana, Fred Cooper, Joseph Bort and John George are members of
the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County. Each is sued in his
official capacity.
8. Respondent and defendant REGISTRAR OF VOTERS is the
agency of the County responsible for supervising and
administering the County supervisorial primary and run-off
elections, consistent with the Constitution and the laws of the
State of California and the County Charter.
9. Petitioners are ignorant of the true names and
capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or
otherwise, of the respondents and defendants fictitiously named
herein as DOES 1-20. Petitioners therefore sue these respondents
and defendants by fictitious names, and will seek leave to amend
this petition and complaint to show their true names and
capacities when the same have been ascertained. Petitioners are
informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the
fictitiously named defendants is responsible for supervising or
administering County elections and procedures related thereto,
including reapportionment of supervisorial districts, and that
-4-
each is responsible for the illegal actions alleged herein.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Writ of Mandate)
10. Petitioners reallege and incorporate herein by
reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 9.
11. County supervisors are elected from five geographic
districts for staggered terms of four years. The next
supervisorial election is scheduled for June 5, 1984 for seats in
Districts 1, 4 and 5.
12. The last reapportionment of supervisorial districts
prior to the 1983 redistricting occurred in 1981 (Ordinance
81-64). (A map showing the districting created by that ordinance
is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated by
reference.) This reapportionment was required by Elections Code
§ 35000 et seq. following the decennial federal census.
13. Prior to the 1983 redistricting, District 3 had
encompassed parts of the City of Oakland that include
predominantly black neighborhoods. District 3 had the largest
black population of the five supervisorial districts, both as an
absolute number and as a proportion of district population. For
many years, District 3 has been represented by Fred Cooper, who
is white. In both the 1978 and 1982 elections, black candidates
ran against Cooper. In the June 1982 supervisorial election,
Sandre Swanson, a black candidate, and C.J. "Chuck" Corica, a
white candidate, opposed Cooper. Swanson received 37.6% (14,361)
of the votes cast, Cooper received 31.5% (12,018), -and Corica
received 30.9% (11,776) . Because the County requires a majority
-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
vote for election, a run-off was held between Cooper and Swanson
in November 1982. In that election, Cooper received 52.6%
(28,634) and Swanson received 47.4% (25,770) of the votes cast.
Cooper's margin of victory was only 2,864 votes.
14. In early spring 1983, prior to any official
consideration of redistricting by the Board, Supervisor Cooper
requested that the Planning Department provide estimates of
population in each supervisorial district by race. These
estimates were provided to Cooper by the Planning Department on
or about March 11, 1983 with copies to the other members of the
Board.
15. Thereafter Supervisor Cooper's office prepared and
submitted a redistricting proposal that was included in the
redistricting plan that was ultimately adopted by the Board, as
hereafter alleged.
16. On October 4, 1983, the Board introduced for first
reading and vote Ordinance 83-077. The ordinance set forth a
redistricting plan that was ostensibly designed only to equalize
the population of the supervisorial districts, but that also
drastically affected the racial makeup of District 3. The
proposed maps for the new district boundaries were not
distributed to cities and other County organizations until one
week before the first reading. The redistricting plan was
introduced for first reading without any prior public hearing.
The only public hearing on the plan occurred as part of the
October 4th Board meeting. At this hearing, virtually all
speakers asked for more time for public participation. Specific
questions were asked and comments were made about the sharp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
decrease proposed in the black population of District 3.
However, the Board ignored the concerns expressed and, instead,
voted 4 to 1 to adopt the redistricting plan without material
change. The one negative vote was cast by Supervisor John
George, the only black supervisor, who had earlier in the debate
expressed concern about the impact on blacks and had tried
unsuccessfully to delay a vote and create a task force to study
the matter.
17. On October 11, 1983, at the second reading, the Board
again voted in favor of Ordinance 83-077. The ordinance went
into effect 30 days later. (A copy of the Ordinance 83.077 and
Map "A" are attached hereto as Exhibits B and C respectively and
incorporated herein by reference.)
18. The following data demonstrate the effect which the
1983 redistricting plan had on the population of District 3.
(a) The racial composition of District 3 before the 1983
redistricting, according to the U.S. Census Bureau and the
Alameda County Planning Department, was as follows:
Race Percentage Number
Black 42.3 93,390White 38.8 85,663Asian 9.7 21,416Nat. Amer. .8 1,766Other .8.4 . . 18,54$
Total 100 220,781
(b) The racial composition of District 3 after the 1983
redistricting, according to the Alameda County Planning
///
///
-7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Department, is as follows:
Race Percentage Number
Black 31.3 71,587White 52.0 118,-865Asian 7.8 17,880Nat. Amer. .8 1,824Other ... 8.2 ___LS..597
Total 100 228,753
(c) The redistricting resulted in a net loss to District
3 of almost a quarter of the black population of the district.
(d) The percentage of blacks in District 3 dropped 11%
from approximately 43.3% to approximately 31.3% as a result of
the redistricting.
(e) The redistricting resulted in a net gain to District
3 of approximately 32,000 white residents, an increase in the
white population of approximately 40%.
(f) A white majority of approximately 52% was created as
a result of the redistricting. Prior to redistricting, whites
constituted only 38.8% of District 3's population while blacks
made up 42.3%.
18. The population growth, which ostensibly necessitated
adjustment of the supervisorial districts, occurred in Districts
1 and 2 in the southern part of the County. Districts 3, 4 and 5
each needed population added to them in order to equalize the
population of the districts. District 3 required an increase of
approximately 8000 residents. The Board achieved this relatively
small net population gain through a series of convoluted
population shifts which had the purpose and effect of
gerrymandering District 3 and diluting black voting strength.
-8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The nature and effect of the Board's actions is shown by the
follow ing:
(a) Since both District 3 and District 4 needed an
increase in population to achieve population parity-, a transfer
of population between these districts was not necessary either to
equalize the populations of the supervisorial districts or to
achieve any other legitimate purpose. Despite this fact, the
Board transferred 30 predominantly black Oakland precincts from
District 3 to District 4, and transferred 25 virtually all white
San Leandro precincts from District 4 to District 3. The adverse
effect on black voters created by this transfer of 55 precincts
between Districts 3 and 4 was compounded by the movement of
largely white precincts from District 2 to District 3.
(b) The unnecessary transfer of precincts between
Districts 3 and 4 were fully half of all precincts transferred
from one supervisorial district to another under the 1983
redistricting.
(c) If the actual net gain in population of 7972 had
been achieved by moving only whites into District 3 and no other
change had been made in the district's population, the percentage
of whites would only have increased from 38.8% to 40.9%, and the
black percentage would only have decreased from 43.3% to 40.8%.
Thus, a redistricting scheme designed solely to equalize
populations among the districts would not have had a substantial
adverse effect on black voting strength.
(d) The transfer of precincts between District 3 and
District 4 submerged the blacks remaining in District 3 into a
majority white district. The transfer also diluted the voting
-9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
strength of black residents of the precincts that were moved into
District 4. As part of District 4, these black citizens are now
in a district that is two-thirds white; prior to the
redistricting they were part of a district that was 42.3% black.
As a result of the fracturing of the black community of old
District 3, the ability of black leaders to campaign and mobilize
the black population is diminished since two supervisorial
campaign efforts, not one, will be required.
(e) The 1983 redistricting resulted in District 3 taking
on an uncouth configuration. Precincts were gouged out of two
sections of District 3 adjacent to the eastern boundary between
District 3 and 4, and moved to District 4. As a result, the
northeast edge of District 3 was changed from the MacArthur
Freeway, Interstate 580, a natural boundary, to a jagged line
cutting along residential streets though the black community. At
another section, MacArthur Boulevard, a major street, was
replaced as a boundary line by an irregular stair step. In the
southern part of District 3, precincts from San Leandro (a
separate city) which formerly had been contained entirely within
District 4 were split off from District 4 and added to District
3. Unincorporated areas of the County were also added to
District 3 in the south, including virtually all white precincts,
which form a triangular island connected to District 3 by only a
narrow corridor and otherwise noncontiguous.
(f) The 1983 redistricting plan removed several black
leaders and politicians from District 3 who had opposed
Supervisor Cooper. This was accomplished by transferring the
precincts in which these black leaders reside. The black
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
politicians removed from District 3 include Leo Bazille and
Sandre Swanson, the candidates who ran against Cooper in 1978 and
1982 respectively.
20. The Board rejected alternative redistricting plans
which would have equalized the population of the supervisorial
districts without denying petitioners and similarly situated
black citizens their right to an equal and undiluted vote.
21. The Board's intentional gerrymandering of District 3
had the purpose and effect of reducing petitioners' voting
strength. The Board's adoption of the 1983 redistricting plan
therefore denied petitioners their right to the equal protection
of the laws as guaranteed by Article 1 § 7 of the California
Constitution.
22. Having undertaken to redistrict District 3 and
adjoining supervisorial districts pursuant to Elections Code §
35003, respondents have a clear present mandatory legal duty to
adopt a redistricting plan that does not violate Article I § 7 of
the California Constitution. Respondents have the present
ability and legal authority to perform this duty.
23. A demand has been made to the Board that it adopt a
redistricting plan that is in accordance with the California
Constitution. The Board has refused to adopt a new plan.
24. Respondents' actions described above constitute an
illegal waste of public funds.
25. Respondents' use of an illegal redistricting plan has
caused and will cause petitioners irreparable injury for which
they have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at la».
-11-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Relief)
26. Petitioners reallege and incorporate herein by
reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25.
27. There is a dispute between petitioners and
respondents regarding the duties and responsibilties of
respondents under Article I, § 7 of the California Constitution
in that:
(a) Petitioners contend that the 1983 redistricting plan
has the purpose and effect of gerrymandering District 3 and
diluting petitioners' vote and the vote of similarly situated
black citizens;
(b) Petitioners are informed and believe and on that
ground allege that respondents contend in all respects to the
contrary.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Inj unction)
28. Petitioners reallege and incorporate herein by
reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25.
29. Respondents are presently preparing for and will
administer the supervisorial election scheduled for June 5, 1984
based upon the district boundaries established by the 1983
redistricting plan. Petitioners are further informed and believe
that respondents plan to administer supervisorial elections after
June 5f 1984 based upon the boundaries established by the 1983
redistricting plan. For the reasons stated above, the use of
these boundaries in the June 5, 1983 election and in subsequent
- 1 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
elections will deprive petitioners of their constitutional right
to an equal and undiluted vote.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, petitioners and plaintiffs pray for judgment
as follows:
1. On the First Cause of Action, that this Court issue
alternative and peremptory writs of mandate commanding
respondents County of Alameda and the Board of Supervisors of
Alameda County forthwith to comply with their legal duty to
restore to District 3 the black community discriminatorily
gerrymandered out of District 3, and to assure that any revised
redistricting plan results in an equal distribution of population
among the districts without diluting the voting strength of any
racial or ethnic minority, in accordance with the requirements of
Article I, § 7 of the California Constitution;
2. On the Second Cause of Action, that this Court
declare that the 1983 redistricting plan is illegal and in
violation of Article I § 7 of the California Constitution;
3. On the Third Cause of Action, that this Court issue a
preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining respondents from
enforcing, administering or otherwise implementing in any fashion
the 1983 redistricting plan, including its use in the June 5,
1984 supervisorial primary and any and all future supervisorial
elections;
4. On each and every and all Causes of Action, that this
Court grant petitioners and plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees
and their costs, including out-of-pocket expenses; and
-13-
5. On each and every and all Causes of Action, that this
Court grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.
Dated: March 28, 1984
Robert Atkins
Attorneys for Petitioners
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VERIFICATION
I, the
That I
true of my own
my information
to be true.
undersigned, declare:
am a party to the within matter; the foregoing is
knowledge, except for the matters set forth upon
or belief, and as to such matters I believe them
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed __, 1984 , at
---- ______________________f Ceilirornia.
7
FRAN WHITE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
V E R I F I C A T I O N
I, the
That I
true of my own
my information
to be true.
undersigned
am a party
knowledge,
or belief,
, declare:
to the within matter;
except for the matters
and as to such matters
the foregoing is
set forth upon
I believe them
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed '~'7rf J7 1984, at
l2jl ___ , California.
SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICTS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
I ' W SUPENVISOKIAl OISTMCT
ill •*'#! porl>on OI in# Count, I»* Airmad* *lhiK hat AAtl#My oI a
ompr.s.nfl in* d.i#CI produO.on SCuin»«tl#M, 0I St«»*nson
•A'd. Slc.«n5 ,n Bou.A.ard N.m.u *'##•#, A..#/Ado BoviA.ard.
Q <b**d-ng in* C.ly Ol f'#mom bom in# C-ly o' Un.on C>iy. in# Ci
(•inonl boundary ho# lh# M#»n.ngion Pleasanton loantn.p hn*
* P‘«a»anion E J#n To*n*n.p tio#
C 0 •*
SECOND SWPCftVtSORUl OISTAICI
All mat Pvxl-un O' Ed#n Tuan»n>p #..J an ol that pod .on ol
*̂**,,nB***n To»ntn.p bounded by • lin# comprising in# j,i#ki pioduv.
U)" souin*#iia<i, cl Si*>#n»on Boui#ta/J Sl#»#nson 8out«.#/a.
N*m>w FiH aty. A .at ado Boul#«#'d. in# l.o# Cnr.d.ng in# C>i» ol ft#-
mom iiom in# C.ly ol Un.onC.iy in# C.iy ol fiamom bounoa.y i.n*. in#
A#»n,ogioo Pi##s#mon Toansh.p i,o# in# £o#o Pt*A»amon loensh.p
lin# (■«••<! bao lo in# g#n#(#i aouin«All#>iy boundary lm# ol Casbo
v#ll#y County f i t t P>ci#cion D.Sliitt tail t#.d OduudAJy l.o# lo ill
moil fast#Iiy int#cs«Cl.on a.th in# g#n#ra> n-»|h#.ly C.ly Ol M#, *#. j
bO«no#f> l.o# M ul JuO# JO IWI MSI tarn bound#,, bn# lo .Is most
norm#.., .m#*»«ro.on ».m Eootn.ii Bou'#.a<u Eouin.n Uoui#»#.d.
’ iOin A>#nu«. in# g#n#.#i «asr• >ir #»o gcn#<#i >uuin#.ir
C-ly o' S*o L«#no.o boundary l.n«s in# boundary I.o# d.».d.ng in# c.ly
0> Ha,aa<d irom in# C'ly Ol Oakland. and in# g#n#i#i towin«#»|#riy
bOunOAMr i.o# Ol lh# County ol Alameda
In# bound#'.#
TMIAO SuPENVISONlAt OtifAiCI
#.#i J.si' ci snail loo.p. j#
in# bound#/y i.n« o.*>d>ng in# C.ly ol H«y*#<d bum in* C*iv —
Ojh.u'.d in# DjundAfy lm# d.»m.ng in#C'ly •• Oakland Lorn in# C.ly ol
Sin L##nj.o in# ccni#.lin#s ol M#oA.inw, Boui«.Aid. Volh A,#nu#
C#.i.d«n A.#r.u« Ar*nu* Uo>.l«#»e A.#.iu* W»g.n.# A»*nu#.
H.gn i l it t l B'oo»d# « A.*no# 3Mn A.«^v, B-ocsj#'# A.cnu# Capp
Sl>e#l. N.COI A«#Aur. f lu.lt*.# A,#nv« M#uA>Ihui ?>•«•#, l#k#snure
*"*"“• '0 II* C#nl*»h.i# Ol ti CmtAi. #d#io « i.n# .„nn.,.g Sowin «»•
VV#SI lo 4 po.ni in Lot# U«f..i| on in# a-#*. piodo. ' on »ooin#osi#.i,
ul m# c#"l#'i.n# ol P#.k.ns Si'*«i bum it •nt#<s#cbon a.in in#
c#nl#'i.n# ol B«.I#.U« A.rnu# U .l »»..) p.W0ul non in# i *nt*«>.nct Ol
f>#fh.nt Sl'#«l G'#n«| A.cnutf Mo...sun i'.**i iyin S»#«l Ai.<*bi'*#l
in# iwoducnon souin##ti#.iy ul in# c#m#. ...# o' ai.c# &i>u#i io in#
bOunO«<y I.I.# d.a.d.n j in# C'ly ol Ai«.n#o« i«om "M C.ly ol C*»l*nd.
IASI S#.d bound#', I.n# And in# g#n#tM tO uin##tl#"i bound#/, I.n# ol
in# County ol AI#m«UA
rouNTH BuPiHvt&oRiAi oisiiucr
All ol in# Cily ol Piedmont #no # po't.on o* £d#n Io#nsn.p «no #
po.i.on ol 0#M#nd To#r'.sn.p «.. bounded b , a i.n# comp'.tmg in#
gm*.Ai no<in#n, bound#', i.n# o' in# Count, ol Aiemed* to in# un#
d.od.ng ta*n Toansn.p Iiom Pi«A»#nion To*otn.p. souin#«ly lo
£'»«*#, Vtti P|#«#A, S#0 IOin# g#n#'Ai SOuin*#ii#*|, bOundAi, I.n# ol
Cusno V#.l#y County Fi># PiolrCl.on D'Sl'KI l»»l %itl boondvy I.n# to
■is n o n Ausleiiy po.ni ol .ni«'s#ct.0n ».in in# g#n#iAl no<in#'i, City ol
HAyAAid boundA/y I.n# at o ' dun# JO i*di. lAtl tA d bwnd#/, i.n# i0
•IS most nu'inen, ...irrt#ci.on #.in £ooin..l BOu t.A 'd fooin.ll
buul«.#"J £'##»#■> jOO lioin A>#nu# in# g#n«'AI #ASI#'iy #nd in#
gAna.Al tJuin.ii, C.ly 0< S#n LCAnd'O bOu»OA/y l.n#s in# D-OundA/,
hr»A d.»Kbng in# City ol Gaaiahj bom in# C.ly Ol S*n LCAnd'O in#
c# n i.n .i.# t ol Mac Ami.ui BuwK.A'd JMn A,#ntf# Camden A.#nu#
B.iOsaII A«#nu«. Monl.ualio A^nu# Vifg.n.# A.#nu«. H.gn Sl(#«l
BiuofcdA.# A««nu#. C»pp St'#«t. N.col A«#n#«. FioiIvaI# A.#no#
MACA/tnu' PA'k Boul#>A'd G>OS>#no< Pl#C#, Sonnyn.lls
Ro*d in# boundary bn# o...d.ng in# C.ly ol OAAiand bom in# Cily ol
P.#dmom •#M#»y lo in# c#ni#n.n# Ol Kingston A.#nu# in#
C#ni#M.n#s ol Kingston A*#nu# Mom# v.su A»#nu# P.#dmon|
A,#nu*. «0m Si'vcl Hoa# Sli#cl 40in Slr##t. BroadaAy. Cob#g#
A.#nu# in# boundary i.n# d,„d,ng in# C.ly ol B#»#l^ Irom in# City Ol
Oakland and in# general nor I nan, boundary i.n# ol in# County ol
H IIH SUPCRVI&ORlAl O.JIKiCI
Ah ol in* C>||#S ol AlbAn, B#rk#>#y (m#r,,.n* and a poil.O'
Oa*i#no Toans'.'P. all bounded by a I.n# competed o' in# g#na><ai .
tn#rl, boundary '.n# ol in# Count, o' Alameda bom US most
l#rm.nws lo in# boundary l.n« aoKbng in# C>ly ol 8«>k#l«y I'om in#
ly 0/ Oakland las! tad I.n#. in# c#nt«.i.n#s ol Coll#J# A.enu# Bro
•ay «0m $k ##i ho## Si>#»i 40m $i.*«i P.#dmom A^<iu« Mo
WiSI* A,#«u*. K.ngsipn Ar#nu# in# boundary I.n# d.r.O.ng :n# C'l|
OA* And bom in# C-ly •»* Pi#dmom «atl#'iy lo in# c#nl*r|.n# ol S
nyn.Hl No#.i m# c#nl#rl.n«s ol SunAyn .it Hoad C'b»»«-iur P.*u« P
Bou.#>a/d Mat A'lriji £.#*»#, Lafc#sno># Aier.u# lo in# c#a .•/' ..#
Il Emria'taJa.o a i.n# rynn.ng Sowin 4S* m»n io a pom m la»» M
nil OA |A* d..#cl pioduCl.on souin*#air"y ol in# c#A|r,i.n# ul P#r«
Sl'##l bom .Is .nt#.vaClKtn a.m in# c#m#rl.n« O' B#u#ru# A.cnua i
ta*3 P'jdjCl.on in# k#n|#fl.n#S ol P#lk.ns Sbcel. GiamJ A.ynu# r
"ton Si.#«i 19m Sli##l. Al.c# Sir#«i in# pioduCl.on SOuina«sl*n,
m# C#Al«n.n# ol AIK# l̂r##l lo in# DOwnOary lin# d>».d<ng in# C.ly
Ai*m*c# bom in# C.ly ol Oakland last sa<d bn#, and in# g#n«
Muina#sl#ny boundary lm# o' in# County ol AlainaUa
cxstnicr b g u n o a h .e s a s es ta b lis h ed au g u s t , iwt
AUENOEO SEPTEMBER i» i
c c
H
m
Ikkf.tlvyA
U l
compileo *r
H. A FLERTZHEIM . j r
COUNTY SURVEYOR
jANuABf IBB)
ORDINANCE NO. 0-83-077
AN ORDINANCE ADJUSTING THE BOUNDARIES OF
THE SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICTS OF THE COUNTY
OF ALAMEDA AS AUTHORIZED BY
ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 35003
AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 81-64
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda, State of California, do
ordain as follows:
SECTION I
Ordinance No. 81-64 establishing the boundaries of the supervisorial
districts for the County of Alameda is hereby repealed.
SECTION II
The boundaries of the first supervisorial district shall comprise all that
certain territory in the County of Alameda, State of California, described as
follows:
All of Murray Township, all of Pleasanton Township, a portion of
Washington Township, and a portion of Eden Township, described as follows:
COMMENCING at the intersection of the general southerly boundary line of
the County of Alameda with the direct production southwesterly of a boundary
line dividing the City of Fremont from the City of Newark, which line is
described as "the direct production southwesterly of the northwesterly line of
County Road No. 1697, commonly known as P.G. & E. Road" (now known as
Stevenson Boulevard) in Resolution No. 77752 of the Board of Supervisors of
Alameda County, adopted November 3, 1955, and running thence northeasterly
along said production and along the boundary line dividing the City of Fremont
from the City of Newark to an angle point therein at the southwesterly
right-of-way line of State Freeway 04 ALA 17 (Nimitz); thence northwesterly
along said dividing line to the most northerly corner of the City of Newark;
thence North to a point on the centerline of State Freeway 04 ALA 17 (Nimitz);
thence southeasterly along said freeway centerline to the centerline of Decoto
Road; thence northeasterly along said centerline of Decoto Road to the
centerline of Fremont Boulevard; thence southeasterly along said centerline of
Fremont Boulevard to the centerline of Tamayo Street; thence northeasterly
along said centerline of Tamayo Street and its direct production northeasterly
to the direct production southeasterly of the boundary line dividing the City
of Fremont from the City of Union City; thence northwesterly along said direct
production southeasterly to said boundary line dividing the City of Fremont
from the City of Union City; thence northeasterly along said boundary dividing
line to the centerline of Mission Boulevard; thence in a general easterly
direction along said centerline of Mission Boulevard and along the centerline
of Morrison Canyon Road to the easterly boundary line of the City of Fremont;
thence northerly along said easterly boundary line to the centerline of Niles
Canyon Road; thence easterly along said centerline of Niles Canyon Road to the
boundary line dividing Pleasanton Township from Washington Township; thence
northwesterly along said township dividing line and continuing in a general
northwesterly direction along the line dividing Eden Township from Pleasanton
Township to the general northerly boundary line of the County of Alameda;
thence southeasterly and northeasterly, along said general northerly boundary
line to the general easterly boundary line of the County of Alameda; thence in
a general southerly direction and in a general westerly direction along said
general easterly boundary line and along the general southerly boundary line
of the County of Alameda to the point of commencement.
EXHIBIT 6:1
* . I
(
' SECTION III
The boundaries of the second supervisorial district shall comprise all
that certain territory in the County of Alameda, State of California,
described as follows:
A portion of Eden Township, and a portion of Washington Township described
as follows:
COMMENCING at the intersection of the general southerly boundary line of
the County of Alameda with the direct production southwesterly of a boundary
line dividing the City of Fremont from the City of Newark, which line is
described as "the direct production southwesterly of the northwesterly line of
County Road No. 1697 , commonly known as P.C. & E. Road" (now known as
Stevenson Boulevard) in Resolution No. 77752 of the Board of Supervisors of
Alameda County, adopted November 3, 1955, and running thence northeasterly
along said production and along the boundary line dividing the City of Fremont
from the City of Newark to an angle point therein at the southwesterly
right-of-way line of State Freeway 04 ALA 17 (Nimitz); thence northwesterly
along said dividing line to the most northerly corner of the City of Newark;
thence North to a point on the centerline of State Freeway 04 ALA 17 (Nimitz);
thence southeasterly along said freeway centerline to the centerline of Decoto
Road; thence northeasterly along said centerline of Decoto Road to the
centerline of Fremont Boulevard; thence southeasterly along said centerline of
Fremont Boulevard to the centerline of Tamayo Street; thence northeasterly
along 6aid centerline of Tamayo Street and its direct production northeasterly
to the direct production southeasterly of the boundary line dividing the City
of Fremont from the City of Union City; thence northwesterly along said direct
production southeasterly to said boundary line dividing the City of Fremont
from the City of Union City; thence northeasterly along said boundary dividing
line to the centerline of Mission Boulevard; thence in a general easterly
direction along said centerline of Mission Boulevard and along the centerline
of Morrison Canyon Road to the easterly boundary line of the City of Fremont;
thence northerly along said easterly boundary line to the centerline of Niles
Canyon Road; thence easterly along said centerline of Niles Canyon Road to the
boundary line dividing Pleasanton Township from Washington Township; thence
northwesterly along said township dividing line and continuing in a general
northwesterly direction along the line dividing Eden Township from Pleasanton
Township to the intersection of last said dividing line with the centerline of
State Freeway 04 ALA 580 (MacArthur); thence in a general westerly direction
along said freeway centerline and along the centerline of State Highway 238 to
the centerline of Ashland Avenue; thence southerly along said centerline of
Ashland Avenue to the centerline of East Lewelling Boulevard; thence easterly
along said centerline of East Lewelling Boulevard to the centerline of
Meekland Avenue; thence southerly along said centerline of Meekland Avenue to
the centerline of the San Lorenzo Creek; thence in a general westerly
direction along said centerline of San Lorenzo Creek to the centerline of
State Freeway 04 ALA 17 (Nimitz); thence southeasterly along said centerline
of State Freeway 04 ALA 17 (Nimitz) to the direct production northeasterly of
the centerline of Bartlett Avenue; thence southwesterly along said direct
production northeasterly, said centerline of Bartlett Avenue and its direct
production southwesterly to the boundary line dividing the City of Hayward
from the unincorporated territory known as San Lorenzo; thence in a general
westerly direction along said boundary line to a point in San Francisco Bay
common to the boundary lines of the City of Hayward, the City of San Leandro
and the unincorporated territory known as San Lorenzo; thence continuing in a
general westerly direction along the boundary line dividing the City of
Hayward from the City of San Leandro to a point in San Francisco Bay common to
the boundary lines of the City of Hayward, City of Oakland, and City of San
Leandro; thence southwesterly along the boundary line dividing the City of
Hayward from the City of Oakland to the general southwesterly boundary line of
the County of Alameda; thence southeasterly and easterly along said general
southwesterly boundary line and along the aforesaid general southerly boundary
line of the County of Alameda to the point of commencement.
- 2-
EXHIBIT fc '- X
(>
SECTION IV
The boundaries of Che third supervisorial district shall comprise all that
certain territory in the County of Alameda, State of California, described as
follows:
All of Alameda Township, a portion of Eden Township, and a portion of
Oakland Township described as follows:
COMMENCING at the intersection of the boundary line dividing the City of
Hayward from the City of Oakland with the general southwesterly boundary line
of the County of Alameda and running thence northeasterly along said dividing
line to a point in San Francisco Bay common to the City of Hayward, City of
Oakland, and City of San Leandro; thence in a general easterly direction along
the boundary line dividing the Hayward and San Leandro city limits to a point
in San Francisco Bay common to the City of Hayward, City of San Leandro and
the unincorporated area of San Lorenzo; thence continuing in a general
easterly direction along the dividing line common to the City of Hayward and
said unincorporated area of San Lorenzo to the direct production southwesterly
of the centerline of Bartlett Avenue; thence northeasterly along said
production southwesterly, said centerline of Bartlett Avenue and its direct
production northeasterly to the centerline of State Freeway 04 ALA 17
(Nimitz); thence northwesterly along said centerline of State Freeway 04 ALA
17 (Nimitz) to the centerline of the San Lorenzo Creek; thence in a general
easterly direction along said centerline of San Lorenzo Creek to the
centerline of Meekland Avenue; thence northerly along said centerline of
Meekland Avenue to the centerline of East Lewelling Boulevard; thence westerly
along said centerline of East Lewelling Boulevard to the centerline of Ashland
Avenue; thence northerly along said centerline of Ashland Avenue to the
centerline of State Highway 238; thence easterly along said centerline of
State Highway 238 to the centerline of State Freeway 04 ALA 580 (MacArthur);
thence northwesterly along said centerline of State Freeway 04 ALA 580
(MacArthur) to the centerline of 150th Avenue; thence southwesterly along said
centerline of 150th Avenue to the intersection thereof with the general
easterly boundary line of the City of San Leandro (near Patton Avenue); thence
in a general southerly direction along said general easterly boundary line of
the City of San Leandro to the centerline of State Freeway 04 ALA 17 (Nimitz);
thence northwesterly along said centerline of State Freeway 04 ALA 17 (Nimitz)
to the boundary line dividing the City of Oakland from the City of San Leandro
(San Leandro Creek); thence in a general northeasterly direction along said
boundary line of the City of Oakland and the City of San Leandro to the
centerline of East 14th Street; thence northwesterly along said centerline of
East 14th Street to the centerline of 94th Avenue; thence northeasterly along
said centerline of 94th Avenue to the centerline of Olive Street; thence
northwesterly along said centerline of Olive Street to the centerline of 82nd
Avenue; thence northeasterly along said centerline of 82nd Avenue to the
centerline of MacArthur Boulevard; thence northwesterly along said centerline
of MacArthur Boulevard to the centerline of 55th Avenue; thence southwesterly
along said centerline of 55th Avenue to the centerline of Camden Avenue;
thence northwesterly along said centerline of Camden Avenue to the centerline
of Birdsall Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline of Birdsall
Avenue to the centerline of Monticello Avenue; thence southwesterly along said
centerline of Montecello Avenue to the centerline of Virginia Avenue; thence
northwesterly along said centerline of Virginia Avenue to the centerline of
High Street; thence southwesterly along said centerline of High Street to the
centerline of Brookdale Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline of
Brookdale Avenue to the centerline of 35th Avenue; thence northeasterly along
said centerline of 35th Avenue to the centerline of Brookdale Aveni/e; thence
northwesterly along last said centerline of Brookdale Avenue to the centerline
of Capp Street; thence northeasterly along said centerline of Capp Street to
the centerline of Nicol Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline of
Nicol Avenue to the centerline of Fruitvale Avenue; thence southwesterly along
said centerline of Fruitvale Avenue to the centerline of East 27th Street;
thence northwesterly along said centerline of East 27th Street to the
centerline of 23rd Avenue;
EXHIBIT fc.-i
( I(.
thence southwesterly along said centerline of 23rd Avenue to the centerline of
East 22nd Street; thence northwesterly along said centerline of East 22nd
Street to the centerline of 13th Avenue; thence southwesterly along said
centerline of 13th Avenue to the centerline of East 14th Street; thence
northwesterly along said centerline of East 14th Street to the centerline of
1st Avenue; thence southwesterly along said centerline of 1st Avenue to the
centerline of 12th Street; thence northwesterly along said centerline of 12th
Street to the centerline of Lake Merritt Canal; thence southwesterly along
said centerline of Lake Merritt Canal to the boundary line dividing the City
of Alameda from the City of Oakland; thence northwesterly along said dividing
line to the aforesaid general southwesterly boundary line of the County of
Alameda; thence southeasterly along said general southwesterly boundary line
to the point of commencement.
SECTION V
The boundaries of the fourth supervisorial district shall comprise all of
that certain territory in the County of Alameda, State of California,
described as follows:
All of Parcel 4 (being the City of Piedmont) of Peralta Township, and a
portion of Eden Township and a portion of Oakland Township, described as
follows:
COMMENCING at the intersection of the general northerly boundary line of
the County of Alameda with the line dividing Eden Township from Pleasanton
Township; thence proceeding in a general southerly direction along said
township dividing line to the centerline of State Freeway 04 ALA 580
(MacArthur); thence westerly and northwesterly along said centerline of State
Freeway 04 ALA 580 (MacArthur) to the intersection of said freeway centerline
with the centerline of 150th Avenue; thence southwesterly along said
centerline of 150th Avenue to the intersection thereof with general easterly
boundary line of the City of San Leandro (near Patton Avenue); thence in a
general southerly direction along said general easterly boundary line of the
City of San Leandro to the centerline of State Freeway 04 ALA 17 (Nimitz);
thence northwesterly along said centerline of State Freeway 04 ALA 17 (Nimitz)
to the boundary line dividing the City of Oakland from the City of San
Leandro; thence in a general northeasterly direction along said boundary line
dividing the City of Oakland from the City of San Leandro to the centerline of
East 14th Street; thence northwesterly along said centerline of East 14th
Street to the centerline of 94th Avenue; thence northeasterly along said
centerline of 94th Avenue to the centerline of Olive Street; thence
northwesterly along said centerline of Olive Street to the centerline of 82nd
Avenue; thence northeasterly along said centerline of 82nd Avenue to the
centerline of MacArthur Boulevard; thence northwesterly along said centerline
of MacArthur Boulevard to the centerline of 55th Avenue; thence southwesterly
along said centerline of 55th Avenue to the centerline of Camden Avenue;
thence northwesterly along said centerline of Camden Avenue to the centerline
of Birdsall Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline of Birdsall
Avenue to the centerline of Monticello Avenue; thence southwesterly along said
centerline of Monticello Avenue to the centerline of Virginia Avenue; thence
northwesterly along said centerline of Virginia Avenue to the centerline of
High Street; thence southwesterly along said centerline of High Street to the
centerline of Brookdale Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline of
Brookdale Avenue to the centerline of 35th Avenue; thence northeasterly along
said centerline of 35th Avenue to the centerline of Brookdale Avenue; thence
northwesterly along last said centerline of Brookdale Avenue to the centerline
of Capp Street; thence northeasterly along said centerline of Capo Street to
the centerline of Nicol Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline of
Nicol Avenue to the centerline of Fruitvale Avenue; thence southwesterly along
said centerline of Fruitvale Avenue to the centerline of East 27th Street;
thence northwesterly along said centerline of East 27th Street to the
centerline of 23rd Avenue; thence southwesterly along said centerline of 23rd
Avenue to the centerline of East 22nd Street; thence northwesterly along said
centerline of East 22nd Street to the centerline of 13th Avenue;
-4-
EXHIBIT e>'- H
(
thence southwesterly along said centerline of 13th Avenue to the centerline of
East 14th rStreet; thence northwesterly along said centerline of East 14th
Street to the centerline of 1st Avenue; thence southwesterly along said
centerline of 1st Avenue to the centerline of 12th Street; thence
northwesterly along said centerline of 12th Street to the centerline of Lake
Merritt Canal; thence northeasterly along said centerline of Lake Merritt
Canal and its production northeasterly thereof to the centerline of Lake
Merritt; thence northeasterly along said centerline of Lake Merritt to the
direct production southwesterly of the centerline of Lakeshore Avenue between
El Embarcadero and MacArthur Boulevard; thence northeasterly along said direct
production southwesterly and said centerline of Lakeshore Avenue to the
centerline of State Freeway 04 ALA 580 (MacArthur); thence southeasterly along
said centerline of State Freeway 04 ALA 580 (MacArthur) to the centerline of
Park Boulevard; thence northeasterly along said centerline of Park Boulevard
to the centerline of Grosvenor Place; thence northeasterly along said
centerline of Grosvenor Place to the centerline of Sunnyhills Road; thence
northeasterly along said centerline of Sunnyhills Road to the boundary line
dividing the City of Oakland and the City of Piedmont; thence in a general
northwesterly and general northeasterly direction along said dividing line to
the most southerly corner of Mountain View Cemetery; thence in a general
northwesterly direction along the southwesterly boundary lines of Mountain
View, Jewish and St. Mary Cemeteries, and continuing northwesterly along the
southwesterly boundary line of Claremont Country Club to the centerline of
Clifton Street; thence northwesterly along said centerline of Clifton Street
to the centerline of Broadway; thence southwesterly along said centerline of
Broadway to the centerline of College Avenue; thence northerly along said
centerline of College Avenue to the boundary line dividing the City of
Berkeley from the City of Oakland; thence in a general northerly direction
along said dividing line to the aforesaid general northerly boundary line of
the County of Alameda; thence in a general southeasterly direction along said
general northerly boundary line to the point of commencement.
SECTION VI
The boundaries of the fifth supervisorial district shall comprise all that
certain territory in the County of Alameda, State of California, described as
follows:
All of Parcel 1 (being the City of Albany), all of Parcel 2 (being a
portion of the City of Berkeley), and all of Parcel 3 (being the City of
Emeryville), of Peralta Township, and all of that portion of the City of
Berkeley not situated in Peralta Township, and a portion of Oakland Township,
described as follows:
COMMENCING at the most westerly corner of the County of Alameda in the Bay
of San Francisco, said corner being the most westerly terminus of the general
northerly boundary line of the County of Alameda, and running thence in a
general northeasterly and general southeasterly direction along said general
northerly boundary line to the boundary line dividing the City of Berkeley
from the City of Oakland; thence in a general southerly direction along said
dividing line to the centerline of College Avenue; thence southerly along said
centerline of College Avenue to the centerline of Broadway; thence
northeasterly along said centerline of Broadway to the centerline of Clifton
Street; thence southeasterly along said centerline of Clifton Street to the
southwesterly boundary line of Claremont Country Club; thence continuing
southeasterly along said southwesterly boundary line of Claremont Country Club
and the southwesterly boundary lines of St. Mary, Jewish, and Mountain View
Cemeteries to the most southerly corner of Mountain View Cemetery, said
southerly corner being also a point on the boundary line dividing the City of
Oakland from the City of Piedmont; thence southwesterly and southeasterly
along said dividing line to the centerline of Sunnyhills Road; thence
southwesterly along said centerline of Sunnyhills Road to the centerline of
Grosvenor Place; thence southwesterly along said centerline of Grosvenor Place
to the centerline of Park Boulevard; thence southwesterly along said
centerline of Park Boulevard to the centerline of State Freeway 04 ALA 580
(MacArthur);
EXHIBIT
thence northwesterly along said freeway centerline to the centerline of
Lakeshore Avenue; thence southwesterly along said centerline -of Lakeshore
Avenue and the direct production southwesterly of the centerline of Lakeshore
Avenue between El Embarcadero and MacArthur Boulevard to the centerline of
Lake Merritt; thence southwesterly along said centerline of Lake Merritt to
the direct production northeasterly of the centerline of Lake Merritt Canal;
thence southwesterly along said northeasterly production and said centerline
of Lake Merritt Canal to the boundary line dividing the City of Alameda from
the City of Oakland; thence southwesterly and northwesterly along said
dividing line to the general southwesterly boundary line of the County of
Alameda; thence northwesterly along said general southwesterly boundary line
to the point of commencement.
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and
after the date of its passage and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days
after its passage it shall be published once with the names of the members
voting for and against the same in The Inter-City Express, a newspaper
published in the said County of Alameda.
ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda, State of
California, onOctober 11, 1983, by the following called vote:
AYES: SUPERVISORS Bort, Cooper, Excell and Santana - 4
NOES: SUPERVISORS Chaj
EXCUSED: SUPERVISORS None
SECTION VII
County of Alameda, State of California.
ATTEST: WILLIAM MEHRWEIN, Clerk of
the Board of Supervisors of the Countyr
Approved as to form, RICHARD J. MOORE,
County Counsel
1589B
. I
EX
HI
BI
T
C