Consider Directing Staff to Prepare a Report on the City of Alameda Acquiring/Taking Title to the Uncompleted Strip of Shoreline Park next to Harbor Bay Parkway.  (Mayor Spencer) [Not heard March 21 or April 4, 2017]
Thank you all so much. Thanks to the entire city council for staying and including this and the nine, A, B, and C, thank you to the city staff for staying so late. And thank you to my sisters from the Golden Gate, Audubon Society. So there were some visuals, maybe that we don't need. There was a map that might be helpful, basically. Right. This is to us to ask the staff to prepare a report on just two places geographically for you. You know, maybe you have the map in front of you. It's essentially 23, 50 Harbor Bay Parkway. It's a small piece of land. It's actually two parcels. Right. And on one side is Shoreline Park, small, you know, grassy park with the bathrooms. The other side is a concrete extension of that park shoreline part of the map. So I don't know if we can pull up the map item. I mean, I don't want to lengthen things. There's also a darling 10/2 video of a girl on a bike. So anything you want to do. But it is helpful to place it geographically. Parcel one personal one is 1.17 acres. It's zoned commercial for an office building or a restaurant. Right. That's clear. Parcel four is what we're talking about. It's a strip of land right in front of the bay. And I sent you all a memo, and I don't know if you remember reading it. I certainly wouldn't imagine that you would remember it at this moment at 130 on or whatever the heck time it is on on Wednesday. But I did write up the memo. I went through planning documents and went through B, C, C amendment agreements and amendments. And I did that precisely to ask that you when you directed staff to prepare the study, that you put a timeline and a deadline on it. We're in possession of these documents in. One of the things I cited is actually a public document. It was a letter from Dan Reidy of Harbor Bay Associates when they zoned parcel one to be commercial. He literally referred to this parcel four as parcel one is next to the strip of land reserved for the Shoreline Park. So I truly believe this parcel is dedicated land to our city. And if I wrote the memo, hopefully to hasten that study, I think it's in our hands. Our staff has written many of the B, C, D, C amendments. So I think we could set that. The other thing I wanted to say is I wanted to ask that you make this a high priority and why would I do that? You have all these priorities. This well, this is why I was going to put this more diplomatically to city council meetings ago at 11 at night. But it's too late. To be that diplomatic OC. Why should this be a priority? Parcel one is owned by Mina Patel. She is its own commercial. The last commercial development she brought to our planning board was for a five story building. Our planning board okayed that. She planted that building right on the property line of parcel four. Now, if that's a public park, I don't think we allow that. And the former city council approved that plan. So I think it's time to really clarify. This is Parkland. You know, Patel still owns the other parcel. Let's make it clear, it's adjacent to a public park, if that's what the study brings back. Thank you. Thank you, Cindy Margolis. She's our last speaker on this item. In case you're not sick of me yet. I am Cindy Margolis, the executive director of Golden Gate Audubon. And I strongly urge the city to take this under consideration. What Pat has just talked about, this is really important. You almost had a giant, ugly motel planted in the middle of one of almeida's gems of a shoreline park with a vista facing the bay. And in San Francisco. And it would have obstructed that entire shoreline. If you don't take proper possession of that land and claim that for the city, with all of the covenants that would govern how a park property would be treated, you, that could happen again. But for the grace of a decision by Bccdc, the city was spared that decision, and it shouldn't be up to Bccdc to make those decisions that should be up to our city. So I encourage you to do that. Thank you very much. And we appreciate your time tonight. Thank you. Um. Member matters. Do I think we should do it? I want to know. So I move the referral. And the utilities. The rest of us have made comments. What did you want to set a priority in your motion? I want to hear some rationale. For any specific. So I spoke to our city planner, Andrew Thomas, about this because I wanted more information. What he informed me is that this is actually this strip of Shoreline Park and the city attorney may have even more clarity on. It is something that the city would require the developer of the adjacent property to pay for developing as parkland and improving and maintaining. And so we have had some pretty lively discussions about our budget, our upcoming budget and the fact that it's not unlimited, that we'd like to do things with it and we need to do things with it. So I could not support the city taking on a responsibility that rightfully will belong to a developer. But I would love to hear the city attorney's amplification. If I may, just briefly and frankly, I didn't go back and look at all of my notes on this, but we have done some some preliminary research and all of the documents as well. And first of all, this that's why I want some clarity from you all what we're looking at, because this strip of land that has been mentioned is actually already to be dedicated to the city. So we have there is already a public access easement across it. So we have our public has free and unfettered use of this property. There are minor improvements on it. But the idea is that when a developer, as we've done throughout throughout this area, when a developer develops the adjacent property, we typically require that they do some additional improvements to this this strip of land, which is why we have not yet taken the property. We can take the property, we can accept the property. We all again, we have an easement already, but it has just as councils have determined that they wanted to wait until they had a developer who could add some improvements before we accepted the fee title. Never matter. I think one of the original format of this council referral was to direct staff to bring back a report on the request. And I, I appreciate the the explanation, but it's buried in the minutes. And it's also maybe it's not what you would do if you were writing a report. So I again, I would like to know. And the referral says direct staff to if you read the referral, it says direct staff. Find out what steps it would take to acquire this property and what considerations are. And we would get that in a report. And then we can decide what to do with it, that we're not deciding whether to take it tonight or not. We're seeing what the rules are around it, and we're saying that we're interested. So, Councilman Madras, my my point was and I'm sorry, maybe I was unclear because it's so late is I'm just trying to understand if you're interested in it. Only that strip. If you're looking in some at some broader piece of property. That's what I want to get clarification. That strip. Just the strip. Okay. And because you want cost estimates of a purchase, I mean, that's more. Well, I understand you can take title. All right. So I'd like the analysis of what the status is. All right. Vice Mayor? No, I think I think the the other thing that would be helpful is just what is the you know, if we take title, which it seems like we can as as right. We can take title what the costs would be to fix up the park or maintain it or both. And then also, you know, if if we lose the ability to get those improvements from somebody who develops the property later on. Yeah. I guess that's what I'm concerned about. Thank you. I guess that's what I'm concerned about, too. I mean, in my day job, every couple of months, the city of San Leandro wants to take title to East 14th Street, but they want Caltrans to improve it and make it pristine. So, I mean, the question to me is then, I mean, if we already have a right to take this title, I'd rather take title when it's developed and then we're not paying for it to be developed. Then take it now when it's raw and then we have to pay and foot the bill to to develop it. So, you know, that's my concern. I'd rather take something that we don't have to spend any money on. So. So I was hoping to be able to have staff give us the information of what the status is, what the you know, the questions that vice mayor raised and then have that discussion and then we would give direction. At this point, we wouldn't be making a decision on the merits. Is it? QUESTION Thank you. Is it is this issue even right? Because I thought that we've heard that the hotel owner is planning to make another application. I mean, I've heard it. That could be part of the information you provide. But this isn't supposed to be a discussion on the merits right now. This is actually just supposed to be that we would be directing staff. To decide whether whether we direct them to or not. And. Yeah. And what priority we would assign it. I know we are. We are. We are happy if three of you are directing us to do that, to come back with a report on what the current status is, that's not a problem. I just wanted to make sure that we were looking at the right amount of property. So it's only the strip. Okay. And it wasn't just the currency, as I like other questions. So if if there's if there is a new proposal that's submitted, perhaps we could roll this report in. Presentation that is made relative and that application. Rather than asking staff to spend. Staff if if. If. A new application. So my concern honestly was when I went back DC My recollection of the hotel and the presentation. Really suggested that this is not property, that the city has access to, that their gift to the community for their trade, their benefit to the community was this. And it wasn't really made clear that this is actually something the city already has a right to. And they weren't separating that right to this property and the additional benefits they were making it seem as though this whole strip was a gift to the city, which isn't true, which is why I think it's important that that's actually my in bringing this, because I think it's very important that if a developer is going to be supposed to be giving us a gift because it's for the public benefit, because they're within 100 feet of the water, that it actually be a real gift and not something that we already can take right frame to. So. So perhaps what we're also seeking is it appears as though there's our our city attorney's interpretation is different from the developer's interpretation. So I think it would be helpful to get guidance of that in either case. So such time as the project comes back now. So the priority I would agree that it be. So I don't want to wait until they this developer I if they end up doing an application of that, like you said, then then we can look at if it makes sense to include it then. But otherwise I would like us to resolve this issue. So that's very clear. That's very clear. So that we as a community know, is this our. Property, whatever the cost? I have a question for city. Do we have a timeline on how you have this information readily available that you would be basing your analysis off of in terms of whether or not we we actually could take it by. Right. Or. You know. Yes, we started doing we started pulling together the document so we could do it relatively quickly, at least to confirm to you what the city's rights are. If you want us to do additional analysis about us of potential improvements or things like that. We haven't begun that. Analysis. I mean, I'm sorry. But then my my concern then is, you know. The last in line now bumps the others. So, I mean, I, I don't know if this is any higher priority than any of the others that we've we've approved, especially given the fact that some of those have of lingered for months. So, I mean, I don't know which one I would push aside in order to do this one. Maybe my colleagues could suggest one. I don't know. Well, that council member matter. I made a motion. Why don't we see where that goes? That might. Well, I just want to make sure I will appreciate the motion. That includes the question the council member, Villa Vice Mayor Villa asked, and also it considers the question if we take title to it, does the A future developer still have to provide land to the improvement to it? Or could they. Or could we compel them to or could they provide that as a as a benefit, a public benefit? So that's emotion. That is there. Well, are we going to discuss where it goes priority in terms of priority? That's the second version. I'm going to suggest a priority if you go back to that. I don't think this is more important than homeless homelessness or social services or the other or the Amex development. Those are those are front line issues. And I think it's a medium. Miriam? Yes. Okay. So there's emotions there. Second. A second. But all those in favor. I. I. No. I suppose I can afford one motion carries. Thank you though. Was our motion to continue going through all these referrals or is it just the first three? So you did. Okay. A full agenda. Okay. The nine are that it. But before we did that. Okay. So you make your notes. Yes. I'm going to make a motion that we adjourn at this time and bring back these other referrals. It's 135 member matter. I see. Um, can I make a motion first to table the remaining? However you want a word that. I'd like to suggest and make a motion that we table. Um, what. Is to. Nine DNF? Okay. What does that mean then? When do we hear those? You know what? I'm actually I want it. And if it's a motion for reconsideration, definitely have to be someone who voted against it, considering that. No, the motion to adjourn because before you you all voted to hear all the agenda items and I voted no. How is the work as a. So as city attorney, I. I didn't. Okay. So you do need it does need somebody who would be changing their position, which could potentially change the result, who has to bring a motion for reconsideration. There was this a motion for reconsideration. And we're at 1:30 a.m. to adjourn at this point to table this points. I think the if I'm successful in getting a motion to table the remaining agenda items. Then we can adjourn without having to vote on. A motion for reconsideration, a motion to table. I think you could I think with the council member matter, he said is correct. If you vote to table, then there's you finished your agenda. So that was a motion motion to table. And I want a discussion, though, on this, because we have kept the housing authority executive director here all evening long and her item is next. And I actually think that we would do well to 90 here. 90. Okay. So you have a motion that very. Okay so if you want to. In and. 90 and then we table. The rest. I'm willing to do that. I withdraw my motion. To the motion to hear 90 and then table the rest the second. Second. All those in favor I any oppose. Okay, we'll do 90. Okay. This was my referral. Um, the referral is to propose to return the City Council to its role as the Board of Commissioners for the City of Alameda Housing Authority. And my request is that a request that the city council direct the city manager and city attorney to present to the Council the steps necessary to reinstate the