Recommendation to Accept Report on Offer to Transfer a Portion of the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal From the Army Corp of Engineers to the City of Alameda at No Cost and Subsequent Disposition of Property.  (City Attorney 7120)
Madam Mayor and Council, this particular item is coming to you primarily from my office, Andre Pennock as an assistant city attorney in my office, and Jillian Blanchard of Rutter Law Group, who is an Alameda attorney, have been working very hard with the Army Corps of Engineers and other potential regional partners. This is another sticky wicket that's been around for a very long time that has just hard to get our arms around and try to solve some problems with. It's not the big ticket numbers that you've just been hearing about, but it has a lot of implications and frankly, has a lot of impact for quite a number of Alameda. And so I'm going to turn it over and let Andre go and Jillian walk you through it. Thank you. Thank you. City Attorney Kern. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Vice Mayor matter. Members of the City Council and members of the public. My name is Enrico Pinnick. I'm the assistant city attorney and I have with me Ms.. Julian Blanchard, outside counsel from the Ryder Law Group. We're here to provide you with an update on the potential transfer of a portion of the Oakland Inner Harbor Tunnel Canal from the US Army Corps of Engineers to the city of Alameda. It's not quite the OPEB discussion you've just had, but as Mr. Kernen has just mentioned, it is an important matter to many citizens here in the city of Alameda. I will provide you with a brief overview and history of the title canal. Discuss the existing conditions along the canal and highlight some of the issues related to the proposed transfer. I wouldn't turn it over to Miss Blanchard, who would discuss the possible transfer options and the consequences of no action. I would then conclude the presentation with a brief discussion of next steps. The Army Corps created the title canal in 1882 by dredging the Oakland estuary to San Leandro Bay. The total canal is 85 acres in total area, approximately 400 feet wide and 1.8 miles long. So it's approximately 1800 feet northwest of the Park Street Bridge and goes down to the entrance of the San Leandro Bay. As a result of accretion, which is the gradual accumulation of soil along the banks of the last century. Taro Kono now includes uplands areas. Note the area in red and blue on the current slide. That's the primary area that we're going to be talking about tonight. But there are other areas. The red line is known as the bulkhead line. Or the outer boundary of the original title canal. The blue line is called the pier hit line, as it generally follows the outer boundary of the existing piers. The area between the bulkhead and the pier line is the shoreline area is approximately 35 feet wide on average and currently contains private structures, docks and in some cases portions of houses. Part of the shoreline area also supports industrial uses. And as you can see from the map, from the slide, there are a lot of structures in between those two red and blue lines. There are approximately 90 residential properties and 14 commercial properties which are adjacent to the shoreline area. Portions of the shoreline area are dry, while other portions are partially or fully submerged like the rest of the total canal. The shoreline area is owned by the Army Corps. The history of the negotiations in 1990, the Water Resource Development Act, or Water authorized the Army Corps to transfer the Alameda side of the total canal to Alameda at no cost. Oakland was offered the same deal for the Oakland side of the Tidal Canal. The water only allows transfer at no cost to a public entity. The Army Corps has repeatedly stated that it wants to transfer the entirety of the canal as a package and has no interest in transferring to multiple private owners. In 2004, the Army Corps instituted a permitting moratorium for new construction, maintenance and repair. The moratorium remains in effect indefinitely. As a result, the city is unable to enforce its zoning and building code requirements. From about 2005 to 2012. Citizens and realtors in Alameda have expressed concern to the city regarding the moratorium and have requested that the city take action. The property owners along Burnside and Marina Avenue have formed a homeowners association called the Waterfront Homeowners Association, or Wahaha, to deal with this specific issue. Although the Army Corps has been authorized to dispose of this property since 1990, interest on both sides to pursue this transaction as waxed and waned over the last 20 years without much more progress. Then in 2013, the East Bay Regional Parks sent a letter of intent to the Army Corps expressing interest in taking the Oakland side of the tidal canal. Once upon him on September 2nd, 2014 and closed session, the City Council authorized the city attorney to send a letter to the Army Corps expressing the city's interest and also negotiating a possible transfer. With this renewed expression of interest, the city attorney asked Miss Blanchard. To continue to meet with the Army Corps and its representatives. And in addition with the representative of the homeowner's association. About the next steps to transfer the Alameda side of the tidal canal to the city. On February 3rd in closed session, the city attorney updated you in closed session on the status of the discussions. The City Council at that time directed city staff to present this item at an open meeting so as to inform the public and to allow the opportunity for public input. Well, there's a saying that if it were easy, somebody would have done it already. And true words were never spoken when it comes to this proposed transaction. It is not going to be easy. It is going to take a lot of support from all concerned to move this transaction forward. Current situation creates problems that affect the individual property owners. Industrial users and businesses along the tidal canal. Realtors in the area as well as the city as a whole. The per minute moratorium prevents any new construction, maintenance or repair of existing structures unless there's an emergency. Thus, the city is unable to properly enforce its zoning and building code requirements within the total canal area because the adjacent property owners have no authority to fix their dogs and other dilapidated structures. Moreover. There is no mechanism to clear title. Many of the adjacent residents and property owners have used the shoreline area as if it were their own. However, they pay no property taxes because the property is actually owned by the federal government. In many cases they pay no possess re interest tax because they do not have current leases with the Army Corps. In 1913. Taking a step back as to how we got to the situation, the assistant secretary of war authorized a license to construct nine permanent structures along the tidal canal for maritime use. Adjacent property owners took advantage of this license and started building structures between those red lines and those blue line. What did you see? That was Mr.. Billy. I'm sorry, ma'am. It's 1913. Going way back. One more. One until. Because it's the Secretary of war. And we never call them that anymore. However, the. After setting up this license regime, the Army Corps has changed his position several times on how it chooses to regulate the tidal canal. The Army Corps then imposed the moratorium in 2004. And now here we are, where structures were lawfully put in this shoreline area. But now the adjacent residents are prohibited from doing anything with them. The resident, the residential owners, but the residential owners, when it comes time to sell their property, there is no way to clear title for an area that they have improved in use but do not own. Is not because the adjacent property owners are unwilling to legitimize their use is because they're unable to do so given the status quo. As a result of the current situation. Property tax revenues. Building permit fees. Code enforcement fines that otherwise would be imposed if this were property anywhere else in the city go uncollected and the blighting condition continues. Although it's taken us a long time to get to this point, the discussions have only recently started in earnest. And there is still a lot of due diligence that staff has to do before we be prepared to come before you with a recommendation. In a moment, Julian will outline the possible transfer scenarios that Steph has considered thus far. However, any discussion has to consider some basic considerations, and this proposed transaction immediately raises three issues. Worse, the city cannot provide a gift to public funds. This issue is not related to the initial transfer between the Army Corps and the city, as that transfer will be at no additional cost apart from the recorder and escrow fees. This issue relates to any subsequent transfers of the property from the city to third parties, like the adjacent registered residential owners and commercial property owners. Under California law, a public agency cannot authorize a gift of money or value to a private individual. However, public funds may be used for a public benefit. Even if it results in an incidental benefit to an individual. Thus, at a minimum, the subsequent purchasers of the property must pay the transaction cost and the transfer must result in a public benefit. The proposed transaction will not move forward until we are certain that it can be structured in such a way as to avoid any gift to public funds. Secondly, the city cannot take unnecessary environmental ownership liabilities. There is contamination in the northwest. There's contamination northwest of the fruit belt, the Fruitvale Bridge. We know that from studies, contaminants such as petroleum and toxic heavy metals were found in soil samples from multiple locations along the commercial and industrial shoreline in higher concentrations than screening levels for industrial land use. The City Attorney's office, outside counsel and staff will be looking at ways to minimize the city's exposure to these liabilities through waivers, indemnification, pollution, liability insurance and discussions with the appropriate environmental regulators up front. Thirdly, there's the issue. There's the public trust question. The Army Corps has asserted that the tidal canal is not and has never been in the public trust. This argument has a certain logic because the Army Corps dredged this canal from what had been dry land and it remained in federal ownership ever since. However, the city needs to do due diligence. We will also research any potential restrictions on subsequent transfers associated with this issue. That's a brief overview of where we are today. I now turn it over the presentation over to Ms.. Blanchard to discuss the possible transfer options. Thank you, Mr. Penick, for that thorough presentation of the background and the history of the title canal. Good evening, Mayor Spencer, Vice Mayor, Motor City Council members and members of the public. My name is Jillian Blanchard. I am outside counsel, as Mr. Penick mentioned, with the Retter Law Group located here in Alameda. And I assist the city attorney's office on environmental and land use matters. And I have been tasked with the interesting assignment of trying to untie the Gordian knot that is, you know, Oakland, Inner Harbor, Tidal Canal. So our goal tonight is really to update council as well as the public on where we are at this point in our concept for a transfer. So this is our magic overview side of the current transfer concept. And as a backdrop, it's important to remember Mr. Penick mentioned this the fact that the Corps has repeatedly stated it will not transfer portions of the canal. Its goal is to transfer the entire title canal in one transaction. And so given the various issues at play and in consideration of the slightly differing set of concerns associated with different areas along the canal, at this point, we have proposed to split the parcels into three and still be three parcels that would all be transferred simultaneously from the core, but we would be disposed of in slightly different ways based on the needs of the public and relative constraints. So just as an overview, the three parcels are the orange, the residential parcel, and that includes a sliver of upland but mostly submerged land between, as Mr. Penick mentioned, the bulkhead line and we call the bulkhead line and the pier headline, which is the outer boundary essentially of the existing pier structures. This parcel we would propose at this point to transfer from the core and then immediately to the city and then immediately transfer from the city to the individual property owners along the canal of which there are approximately 90. And we'll get into additional details as we go through it. So it's late, so we'll try and keep it succinct. The second parcel is the commercial parcel that's in green, and again, it's just a sliver. It's approximately 35 feet wide on average. And it's between it's from Fruitvale Bridge just to in case that isn't clear, up to the northwest boundary of the tidal canal. And it would go from the bulkhead line to the pier headline. We would propose at this point to have this parcel transferred from the core to the city and then have the city hold the parcel pending further disposition. Again, we are looking at a variety of options as to what that would look like. But this is a an update on where we are in the process. The third parcel is the remaining piece, the open water parcel, and that's from the pier head line to what we call the 50 yard line set the center line of the canal. At this point, we're looking into options to transfer this parcel from the core, either directly to East Bay Regional Park District or to the city. And that will depend on upon further information that gets uncovered during the due diligence process. Okay. So here is just an overview side of the residential side where there are approximately 90 properties. The red line, of course, is the bulk headline. The blue line is the pure headline. It's approximately 35 feet on average. And as you can see, it includes mostly submerged lands, underlying existing docks. However, there are some there is some uplift. So let's get into the details here of where we are at this point. The residential parcel in our proposed transfer, as I mentioned, it would involve a simultaneous transfer from the core to the city and then to the individual property owners. In order to effect that type of a double simultaneous transfer. We would need to complete legal descriptions and all survey work on the 90 parcels in advance of any transfer from the core to the city. So effectively the proposal would be to have the city on the chain of title for this parcel for a conceptual nanosecond, effectively. And we've been working with representatives from the homeowners association. And we will continue need to continue working with all of the property owners within the residential parcel to confirm 100% participation in this deal. Staff would not come forward to the city and recommend moving forward with the transaction unless and until we had the assurances of all the residential parcels that they would be transferred. At this point, it is our understanding that there is a high level of interest among the property owners to participate in rectifying this ongoing issue. The question has been raised with respect to assessments and whether or not this transfer would trigger any tax reassessments under Proposition 13. I am not a tax attorney, nor do I pretend to be one, but I presume. And so just to be very clear, we are not providing any legal advice to the public on this issue. However, based on preliminary research and discussions, we anticipate that any reassessment would relate specifically to the sliver. At issue is this 35 or on average a foot wide piece and therefore would be minimal. Of course, we would encourage buyers, prospective buyers, to associated with the residential parcel, to do their own research, to figure out their own rights , their own tax liabilities, etc.. Mr. Penick brought up a very, very important point, which is served essentially as our guidepost in this transaction, which is the very clear fact that the city cannot provide a gift to public funds in any way, shape or form. So the property owners have been made aware of this fact and they understand their need to pay their fair share in order to buy into this program to obtain their sliver, if you will. We have completed only back of the envelope calculations at this point to figure out what those costs look like associated with the transaction. But at this point, we anticipate that the property owners will need to pay between 5 to $10000 to be able to buy into the program, if you will. And in addition to that, they would need to accept all future maintenance and any obligations related to ownership. So just to be very clear, the transaction cannot take place if there is any sort of gift of public funds on the part of the city. So and there is also the question associated with that of what is the public benefit? And we want to make clear that at this point, the city is unable to enforce its building code requirements, its existing code requirements on that adjacent sliver along the canal. So completing this transfer and the reason that is, as Mr. Penick identified, is because of the cause permitting moratorium. Property owners simply can't get the authority necessary to do necessary upgrades to docks and existing structures. So completing the transfer would result in the court lifting the permitting moratorium and then would clear any current and existing cloud on title and allow the city then to enforce its necessary building code standards, including any necessary safety setbacks from the water and would certainly prevent any future unauthorized construction. Here's an overview of the commercial side. Again, we're talking about the red lines and the blue lines, the bulk headline, the big headline on average, a 35 foot sliver. There are approximately 14 properties and they include marinas, industrial uses, redevelopment sites, streets, etc.. An overview of what we're looking at at this point for the concept of transfer. Again, it's a package deal from the core. So if you want to take the residential piece, you need to take the commercial piece, kind of figure out what that disposition looks like. As indicated previously, the court has refused to transfer it in pieces. So and as you could tell, as many of you are aware, there's been an existing industrial uses, I think back to World War Two or even before. So as you might imagine, and as Mr. Penick referenced, there are as a result of those industrial uses, there is contaminated sediment and soil within the commercial area. The Corps as part of their transfer process, has to complete a number of environmental reports in order to get to what's called a finding of suitability of transfer. And as part of that, they've completed a phase one and a Phase two environmental site assessments. And without going into too many details at this point, it's it's fair to say that the shoreline soil in the commercial piece is markedly more contaminated than the residential side. And they have identified soil at multiple locations on the residue on the commercial piece contaminated with petroleum toxic heavy metals in excess. As Mr. Penick mentioned, of regulatory benchmarks. So the reports that the Corps has provided at this point indicate that there is no imminent threat to human health or the environment. Owever, if there were any proposals to excavate through redevelopment, they would need to be remediated to acceptable screening levels. The Regional Board has been involved in the preparation of the Phase one and the Phase two reports and is currently reviewing the most updated version of the Phase two report. And the city myself in particular has been actively engaged with the Regional Board who by the way, has the exclusive jurisdiction with respect to contaminated sediment on the canal. So we've been actively engaged with them not only to determine the levels of contamination, the source of the contamination, which clearly is not from the city, and most importantly , methods of limiting the city's liability if they were to be entering into the chain of title. Because another clear guidepost is that the city cannot accept any potential contamination liability associated with this transfer. It's complicated, as Mr. Phenix said. If it was easy, it would have been done already. So what we're doing now and will continue to do is research these avenues for limiting liability, which could include and likely would include negotiating leases with the existing commercial operators, which would include detailed indemnities, hold harmless agreements, very specific environmental restrictions with respect to excavation, etc., possible transfers to the developers directly, which is similar to what we're proposing on the residential parcel piece. And then prospective purchaser agreements with the Regional Board potentially or any other regulatory agency as necessary to limit the city's liability with respect to environmental cleanup. Again, we're in process of researching these avenues. So we would staff would come back to council once we've completed further due diligence with a much more specific path, an avenue, an approach to limiting the city's liability. At this point, we're just providing an update as to where we are. The public benefit again here would be code enforcement, which at this point the city is unable to enforce along that sliver to the extent it's applicable. In addition, we would note that there's potential lease revenue from the leases that we mentioned associated with commercial operators in the area. Moving right along. We have the open water parcel, which is the remaining open water piece from the pier head line out to the 50 yard line, as we call it. At this point, it's still open and we're in the process of due diligence. But at this point, what we'd be proposing is to have this parcel transfer directly from the core to East Bay Regional Park District. They have stated their clear intent and interest in taking the Oakland side for purposes of creating the Bay Trail. And so it would be a natural extension to have East Bay Regional Park District take the rest of that open water piece. That said, of course, we need to complete additional due diligence and make sure and in particular the public trust issues to the extent there are any and make sure and we confirm the most prudent and beneficial course. It could be that it makes more sense for the city to take that piece and we will come back to council with progress on our discussions with East Bay Regional Park District as well as our further research on the issue. So as we've said a couple of times now, it's not easy. It's not clear. It's it's complicated. It's not a simple transaction. There are many constraints. There's a variety of moving parts that all need to hang together to complete this process. And many have immediately dismissed this as out of hand is saying it's too difficult. It's too complicated. And as a result, the properties along the canal have suffered. There is now blight along the canal. There are dilapidated docks and adjacent property owners really have no legal path to being able to improve their property. Unfortunately, the problem won't go away. It continues to rear its ugly head and it gets uglier with the more and more dilapidated dock situation. So if we cannot reach a resolution at this point or at some point property owners and realtors, I certainly would continue to lobby the city on this issue. We anticipate the Corps would continue its permitting moratorium, which would, of course, prevent the city from being able to prevent to enforce its building codes, to allow necessary upgrades to improve the waterfront as a whole. Docks and other structures may fall continue to fall into disrepair, and there's potentially continued unauthorized construction. So I guess. It's taken. I guess the last thing I would just impart to the public and and the council is that there's more work to do. It's taken many months to get to this point, just to have our concept of what the transfer strategy looks like. And we would propose to come back to city council once we have a lot more information, have completed our due diligence and really reach out more directly and effectively to the property owners, including the commercial operators, with a more detailed plan and a potential path to creating what could be a legacy along the waterfront and resolving the issue for generations to come. So with that, I would turn it over to back to Mr. Penick for details on next steps of long term and short term. Thank you for your time. But just before he goes. Well, Miss Blanchard, I think we have a question for you. Vice Mayor, he's going to ask a question real quick. In this transfer scenario, who is responsible for dredging? It's an excellent question and it depend. The answer depends on where you're talking about with respect to the navigation navigational channel, the federal navigational channel, which is effectively the open water piece. The Corps of Engineers would maintain its obligation of navigational servitude to dredge that channel for maintenance purposes. The good news is that it was created to be a tidal canal and it works. So there's effectively a lot of scour along that canal. And to our knowledge, to my knowledge, the Corps has not had to do very much if any maintenance dredging the side pieces would be any maintenance. Dredging attached to the residential side would be transferred to the individual property owners. But that's a really basic threshold question. And by the way, I just want to compliment you, Ms.. Blanchard and Mr. Pennetta on it. I think it's a fascinating report. I know the property owners would probably use a different word than fascinating, but you could take material that some might consider dry. Well, I know we're talking about water, but and make it and really make it fascinating. So thank you for that. When I was reading the report, I saw that in 1882, maybe this was dredged to create a tidal canal. Why? Why do you need a title? I ask the same question. Okay. If it was some sort of disease, mosquito borne disease that was festering in Lake Merritt, as I understand it. And so by scouring the tidal canal, it created the tidal action that affected Lake Merritt as well and alleviated the problem. Is Oakland owes anything for that. Member de Saag Thank you. Just a quick question on the transfer of the ball transferring, triggering the Prop 13 reassessment, will we have language that clearly says that this is a possibility and whatever agreement we strike with whomever, as we at the end of the day know if people are going to shell out 5 to $10000. We also don't want them to say, but I didn't I didn't realize that, you know, so this is a risk. And and if everyone is willing to bear that and recognize that on eyes wide open basis, and that's important to specify. Absolutely, I would agree. Councilmember de and we intend to have a number of disclosures attached to whatever transfer documents we provide to the property owners, and we'll engage in additional conversations with the assessor on that issue. Member. Brody. Quick question. Thank you also for the very detailed presentation, this Prop 13 thing. That's the thing that concerns me, too. So are we looking at. The sliver would be its own parcel. Yes. Yes, yes, yes. That's what the legal description would be for each of these property owners was would be a sliver. The sliver. And that's what they would be effectively purchasing for purposes of a Prop 13 reassessment. But again, we're not making we're not providing legal advice here. That is our current estimate of for. Which they end up with the two parcels be combined, or would they remain separate parcels? And if they're separate parcels, you know, we have various parcel taxes. I think that that's an excellent question. And I think that requires further research to determine what each individual property owner might do. And maybe it's a question for the property owners as well as in terms of what their next steps might be. Okay. Thank you. Member de SAC. Yes, thank you. Just a follow up question, and I want to be clear about the transfer of the property. So there are three elements to the transfer the residential, the commercial and the in the open water. Aren't those focusing on any on either of them? Well, let's focus on the residential when when and if the Army Corps of Engineers transfers the residential to us. Are we then automatically transferring it through the to the residence, though, so that we're not. We might get title to the property on a moment from the Army Corps of Engineers. Then suddenly we own it. That that's not going to happen, right? Right. That is part of our that is a huge part of our due diligence process is absolutely ensuring that everything is in place and teed up such that the transfer would go immediately from the core to the city to the property owners. The way worda is drafted, it's it's required to go effectively through the city. And so that's why the city is is in the process in the center of this process. But yes, absolutely. Councilmember Desai That would be a huge part of making sure everything is teed up before we take anything for. Thank you. Mayor Brody. Is there going to be a transfer tax on that for people or. A transfer taxes for tech? I wouldn't pretend to answer that question for I'm not I'm not certain, but we could certainly research that piece for you. And in regards to the open water parcel, it sounds like it may or may not go to East Bay Regional Park District and if the city keeps it, then my concerns would go to. I'd want to know the liabilities dredging, maintenance, environmental cleanup, maintenance of Fruitvale Railroad Bridge and any any potential loss that you would anticipate. Right. Thank you. Mayor Spencer. I think that's an important point. And at this point, we are proposing to have it go directly to East Bay Regional Park District. But to the extent that with respect to public trust issues, there is a need for the city to take it. We would do extensive research on that, on the issues of potential liability. I would add, though, that that with respect to any maintenance dredging, that certainly would stay with the Corps. And the other piece that we have at this point negotiated with the Corps is removing the Fruitvale Rail Bridge from the question of this transaction. So the city would not be taking the Fruitvale Rail Bridge. As we understand, that's raised concern and questions in the past. All right. I just want to reinforce, because I know there was some questions in some of the blogs and things. The idea is in the open water, the corps would retain dredging responsibility, not the city. Whether the city owned it or the East Bay Park District owned it. The Corps would retain dredging, and I would I would second the city attorney's sentiment, which is that the Corps is actually unable to transfer that dredging responsibility. They maintain the obligations of navigational servitude, so they cannot transfer that obligation. Thank you for clarifying that. Any other council comments at this point? Did you want to finish up this report? And we have 18 speakers, by the way. Thank you, Madam Mayor. In. Given the lateness of the hour, we're just going to conclude with our next steps, which is basically to move forward with the direction that the council has already given us in closed session, and that is to continue to negotiate with the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the possible transfer to reach out to our partners in the East Bay Regional Parks with regard to those transactions, as we've just previously discussed. We are also going to begin actively engaging the residents and the commercial property owners with regards to their interest in the subsequent transfer process. And of course, we will continue to update both the council and the public periodically on the citizen negotiations. So with that, I will conclude the presentation and we stand ready to answer your questions to the best of our ability, if and when you have them. At this point, I plan to call speakers. Thank you. Katie Braun, it appears you. You're going to see to your time or did you want to speak? I'm going to cede my time to Seth, who's the chairman of Wawa. And Seth, did you want to speak at the end where your slippers or did you. All right, Kurt Braun. Uh, Madam Mayor. Members. Managers. Staff. My name's Kurt Brown. I've been a resident of Alameda, actually. Native, uh, or close to 55 years now. And homeowner at three, three, six, five, four inside. And member of the Waterfront Homeowners Association. Katie and I moved to our present home at three, three, 654 inside in 1986. And we've seen numerous mayors and council members and managers come and go trying to tackle this issue. I've been attending council meetings and writing letters regarding this issue for almost 30 years now. And we'd like to offer some continuity to the current council and staff. Getting permits to repair decks, docks and other structures in our back yards from all the various agencies has always been a nightmare. And as the report said that since 2000, the Army has stopped issuing permits altogether. The city acknowledged the situation back in 1989 in a letter to waterfront homeowners. I've got some of this stuff here and and began a subdivision project with Kirkland engineering surveying the estuary and our backyards. That's. Mr. Kirkland's done a lot of work and I would say that survey, if you guys could dig it up, has a lot of the what we're going to need in the future to do the subdivision . It's been the work's been a lot of it, in fact, I'd say mostly done already. The 26 years later, we're still discussing this transfer of land the army and the city don't want and the homeowners need title to in order to repair, get repair permits and clear title to their product and to sell their properties. In 1993, Mayor Withrow at a council meeting suggested the city could take title and then immediately convey parcels the adjacent land. I see this has been going on a long time. Still no action. 96 we got the Water Resources Development Act. Amended, allowing direct transfer from the army to the homeowners. That was a little bit. I have to take a little bit issue there. So paragraph three of that does allow direct. Transfer, but the Army doesn't want to do that. So we still don't have any action despite direct, quick claims to adjacent homeowners in the past. In fact, the back of our house was done in a quick clean but claim that they had no line line drawn around it there. So that was back in 1941. So it has happened in the past. But they don't they don't want to do it anymore. So we're back to finishing the Kirkland survey, the city taking title and transferring to the homeowners. So I urge you to finally move ahead with the transfer. And you're welcome to contact me for further information. I've got an extensive file on this subject, so hopefully I don't have to be here in another 30 years dealing with this. Thank you. Thank you. And next is Ron Valentine. So you're planning to cede your time to Seth also. Okay. Then I'm going to move on to end of our 11. And then it'll be Michael. Michael Gorman and then Michael Fisher. Well, I lost my stuff, so hopefully I can remember. Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Council staff. My name is. And Balaban. I'm a resident and also a local realtor here in Alameda. And first, I. Also would like to thank. The council for that great presentation. This is not an easy thing to grasp. I know having sat through many presentations on this subject over over the last. Ten years or so, I suppose. So I'm here just to also encourage staff and council to really, you know, continue moving forward on this. This is something that is very important for our community. As a realtor, I see it impacting people as they are trying to sell their properties or those who are trying to buy properties. When you have any kind of clout on title, it makes things quite difficult. And to be able to declare it, to be able to clear that it would be very beneficial also for existing homeowners has been said to not be able to repair structures that are on your property is troublesome not only in the fact that you clearly these are these are particularly in water areas. Safety factors are huge. You want to make sure that people using these structures are safe. And then also on a personal level as to the environment, what happens to these structures when they finally do get to the point that they break away or whatnot or create problems within our waterways and and I'm sure our wildlife as well . So all of those things are quite important. I think. Most of the items are really. Well stated within the presentation. As far as you know, who takes on the. Cost of this. The homeowners have been notified. People are working. You certainly have many folks that want to see this happen. So I'm. Really just here to support and to encourage. The maybe. Final resolution of this, which would be really wonderful as it has been going on for some time. So thank you for your time and hopefully we'll get this done. And next up is former council member Michael Gorman. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Council members. I was privileged to sit up in that seat for several years back in the eighties. And I guess the first I'd like to say to you all is thank you very much for all you do for this city. I know what those 2:00 in the morning meetings were like over and over and over, and all the preparation is to go into it. We've been working on this for a long time. I'm a third generation resident and our family's been in the property on Fern side since 1950. I can allow your fears about the dredging, because since 1950 there's been no need to dredge. The water moves through there at such a rate that it just flushes it. And the mosquito deal as the original reason is a nice way to put it. I think it was really there was no sewage treatment back in the late 1800s and early 1900s. It all went into the estuary and there was nothing to flush that out. So the tidal canal was very effective around the time I was on the council in the eighties. Curt mentioned there was a survey done by Kirkland and this is a reduced copy of not only the survey, but a tentative map. The city filed a tentative map. It's in the file. Not sure where that office is right now, but I went and got these copies from it several years ago. The tentative map was never acted upon. So as he said, a lot of work had already been done on this. Even back in the eighties. Not too much happened over time. And then ten years ago in I think it was oh five, the Corps seemed to have a spurt of energy to do something about this. Hired Barbara Price at a meeting at Edison School with all of us homeowners. And we're going to transfer this property. That was February well, five. Here we are in 2015. And we the homeowners association and all of our. Neighbors along the street there really want to see this happen. So thank you for giving your staff direction to this point in time. And I hope they can keep keep it moving and we can get this resolved once and for all. Thank you and thank you for your service. Michael Fisher. And then Donna Fisher and then Troy Davis. Michael Fisher. Donna Fisher. Troy Davis. Hey. And Donna Rock that. Bauman. And Kevin Peterson. Good evening, Madam Mayor and council members. My name is Don Uruk. My husband Jim and I are waterfront homeowners who reside at 33274 inside Boulevard. And we are members of the Waterfront Homeowners Association. We moved to Alameda ten years ago, which means I guess we're newbies. Here or everybody else. And we moved. Here mainly because of the attraction of living on the water and living on an island. When we purchased our property, it was our understanding that the Army Corps of Engineers moratorium for new construction and maintenance or repair of our docks would be resolved shortly. I think our real estate. Agent told us within the next year. Now we're ten years from there and we're still unable to maintain our docks. With every big storm we see parts of dark structures around. Us falling. Into the estuary. We'll see a piling, you know, going by and we'll kind of look down there to see who. Lost part of the dock. The continuance of this moratorium when we're at a point where it can be stopped is counterintuitive. And the decision to support the transfer, in my opinion, as a no brainer. With the residential parcel, there's no cost to the city. All the transfer costs are going to be borne by the homeowners. The transfer promotes investment in the maintenance of our properties. The transfer protects the sensitive estuary environment. These are certainly public benefits. We're excited that this issue at long last has come before the city council and urge you to vote for the transfer of the residential parcel to the city from. The Corps and from the city to the waterfront. Homeowners. Thank you. You. Pop plowman. Left. And Kevin Peterson. And Ed Payne. Had asked when she left to give her time to Seth also. Better Mayor Council. Yeah. Mm hmm. And staff, I want to thank you for your time here and listening to this situation. And Kevin Peterson, a little bit. Three, 3494 Insight. My wife and I bought the home almost two decades ago. And as they expressed some of the situation about the realtor, I mean, that hits home with us because our home built in 1920 , technically about a third or a quarter that is over that and is technically in the Army Corps of Engineers land. So trying to represent a property like that or US future, I mean, this is kind of a hang up for us. Our backyard is literally part of this Army Corps. I mean, if you could put yourself in our situation and somebody telling you you can't do anything to your backyard for 15 years or longer that this moratoriums been on, it's been difficult. So at these docks we've been breaking down, a number of these older ones were made of creosote or. Other more harmful ingredients to being part of the environment. This last December, literally three docks within view of my home took it because they had fallen into disrepair and weren't or unable to do any upgrades in regards to this property. Um. Mr. Russo, I. Watched your presentation on the budget. I just want to make a comment that this is. No cost to the city. This is an opportunity to us, partner. With and share this to make this. A palatable. Resolution for both the city and the homeowners. That it allows us to invest in our property, allows us to do the proper upkeep to prevent any further damage to our environment. It's something that needs to happen. And we encourage you to accept this report and work through the details. I know there's some details to work through, but I don't think they're that complicated. And I think we're prepared to work with you to come to a good resolution. So I know it's late and I won't take up any more time, but I thank you for your time and encourage you to move forward. Thank you. Ed Payne. Then Susan Fitzgerald and then George Fitzgerald. Thank you for the opportunity to come and express my opinion on this on this matter. Good to see Vice Mayor Matarese again up there on the. As part of the council anyway. Yeah, I'm part of the Waterfront Homeowners Association. I'm actually the vice chairman. I've lived on Marina Drive for 39 years, and I got I didn't realize when I bought my home what I was getting myself into. I have to tell you, to be honest with you, I just bought. It because. I had a boat and I wanted some place to park it. Well, the very next year, I really. I was told, hey. You need a permit to build this dock. And then I started getting into all of the headaches, all of the red tape, the bureaucracy. And I've been fighting with that for a years. I've been dealing with that for years. And I have found that there's many, many other people have also dealt with those same problems. Over the last. 39 years. I've gotten to know them, and this has been the first time that this has offered me some glimmer of hope that that all of the problems they've talked about were displayed up here in the slides and possibly be resolved now. And it's exciting to me to know that that all the things we have been dealing with as homeowners now can possibly be addressed. We can. I have seen docks. My neighbor's dock just deteriorated to the point where the whole wharf fell in the water. The whole floating dock just deteriorated. But and I've seen people, you know, what's happened is they couldn't get permits and stuff. They so what did they do? They they're building them in the middle of the night or on the weekends. And so all kinds of legal, illegal structures here is an opportunity to do something that we all benefit from. The city benefits from it, the homeowners benefit from it. I believe that there's tax revenues can can be generated from this Corps of Engineers gets it gets us out of their hair, you know, so everybody benefits from this . I encourage you to move forward on this. This is something that has given me some sense of hope and to address the issues I've been dealing with for the last 39 years. So thank you. Susan Fitzgerald. George Fitzgerald of. That's all right. Winston. WESTERVELT And then Seth. 17. Winsome WESTERVELT. He's still here. W i n somi w e s trv vlt. All right. Looks like Seth is up. And I don't know if you're going to need all this time. One, two, three, or five, six, six people that have seated. So, I mean, including your own. And a mayor, vice mayor, council members and staff. Thank you so much for all of your time on this. I will not use all of the time ceded to me, but I think it's helpful to. Leave you with a couple of. Couple of thoughts on kind of. Who is this group has come in and spoken to. Unite. Who's this group that. That I'm representing here tonight? I'm the chair of the homeowner's association. And this is an organization that was started on a volunteer basis, unlike a lot of other homeowner's associations where you're just stuck as soon as you buy the property. This is actually a coming together of neighbors who actually all agreed on one really specific thing, which is that this situation needs to be resolved. But I think it's also really important for us to start out being really clear about something here. I think, you know, if you were to characterize us as a group, the first thing that you would want to say, we're incredibly grateful. I'm going to explain each one of these. We're also incredibly frustrated. But I start with the grateful because we know that we're in a special situation as well. We're asking for help. We are organized and we are a resource for the city to lean on to help make this go as smoothly as possible. And we're asking for speedy action as long as this is going on. It's time to bring it to a close. And we're actually at a point where that could really happen. And we're really heartened that this is being heard tonight, because, as Ed described, it feels like it's so close finally. I want to go back to each of these points very briefly on the grateful were incredibly grateful for all the work that the city has already done on this. The Corps is not here tonight because it's not really about the Corps, but they also have done a ton of work. But the city attorney's office especially has spent a lot of time unraveling the Gordian knot as well. And it makes all the difference. We have a really clear path to move forward on. We are admittedly frustrated, as you've heard from a lot of folks. This is just a really bizarre situation to be in, to have at one point been granted permission by the adjoining property owner, built structures, started using them, and then decades later, find ourselves in a position where we cannot maintain, cannot fix. And it's it's embarrassing, frankly. We recognize that a lot of people see us as they come across the high street and frail bridges, and we would like to take better care of our structures. We really care deeply about the estuary. Some of the people who came up to speak tonight have spent hundreds, maybe thousands of their own hours, both figuring this out and also figuring out ways to get funding to help remove sunken vessels and do other things to help protect the estuary. We think of us as the first line of defense really in a lot of ways. I want to emphasize again the gratefulness. We recognize that we're in a really lucky position. I think some people might throw stones at us as a group and say, you know what, a bunch of whiners, you know, here they are. They're so lucky to be on the water. We don't deny that. But we also paid for it. We bought them. And I think a lot of the concern that you heard about the property tax issue, we've spent time talking to the assessor's office. And what the assessor found back in the eighties when this was first considered, was that the value was already paid. The property owners actually thought they had use of this structure and paid full value. And now we're just trying to reconcile the legal property boundaries. But we are incredibly grateful. We recognize these are very special properties. We would like to maintain them so they they appear special to the outside world as well. We're frustrated because honestly, during this time, you know, people measure life by milestones. I have a son who wasn't born when this started and is now ten years old. And I'm not even the one who's who's endured the longest part of this. But when you think about it and this is sound a little bit ridiculous, but and maybe I'm playing the child card too much, but, you know, you think about it, that's ten years where I can't safely take him out onto that dock. Like the things fallen apart. And I just want to fix it. Not asking for something special. I just want to fix it. We've lost members during this time, frankly. I mean, it's very morbid, but like when ten years go by or 30 years go by, when an issue is at hand. People's lives go on. And so I know that it's easy to say, like, it was very complicated and maybe we don't tackle it, but, you know, it doesn't matter to us. That's why we're here tonight and we're asking for help. And I know that a lot of times the city is doing much bigger issues. But we're prepared to make it as painless a path as we possibly can. And that's why we're organized. So I ask that you lean on us for assistance during this process. And I ask that you move as quickly as you can. We are very close. The Corps has done what I believe is probably all the work that they're going to do on this. And at this point, they need a willing counterparty to bring this transaction to a close. And so the one thing I would ask is I know that oftentimes you want more time to study an issue, more time to ask the what ifs. But at some point for this issue that has been going on for 30 years, and so we're asking let's just get to a speedy resolution. We're not asking for it to be done the wrong way or sloppily. You know, anything worth doing should be done. Right. But it's time. So thank you very much. Thank you. And we have two more speakers, Adam Stone and then Paul Mabry. And here comes our closer. You want to speak? This is your last chance. Please turn your slip. Council. Mayor, thank you very much. My name is Paul Maybury and I'm probably the newest owner of the firm site Homeowner's Association. And I would like to add just a little twist to what Seth left you with, and that is I have a four month old, so I am in Seth's shoes ten years ago. And I really would like to have my both my sons I have a four year old and a four month old. I'd like to have both those boys grow up and fully enjoy the waterfront. I also in my day job, I'm a California licensed attorney and a professional and surveyor, and I am working on probably the largest redevelopment projects in the region on Treasure Island and Candlestick Point, Hunters Point Shipyard. And as you know, there's a lot of Navy owned properties there as well. So. Seth offered the homeowners association as as a resource you can lean on. And I would like to just kind of clarify that, that the homeowners association, by virtue of my particular skills, also has some very unique. Qualifications that have to do with this type of Navy transfer. The title issues, the land survey issues, writing legal descriptions, all of those things that will be the nitty gritty. We do have resources here that we would volunteer to provide to the city and help you out as much as we can. Thank you very much. Thank you. Council Commons member Ashcraft. Thank you, Mayor Spencer. And I want to thank all of the speakers, all the homeowners who spoke and property owners and the ones who just attended and the ones who couldn't stay this late. And I want to disclose at the outset that I outset that I did have a phone conversation this afternoon with Mr. Hamelin. And first of all, I don't think of you all as whiners at all. It's really rather horrifying to hear what you've gone through. It's it really is a catch 22. I do want to, you know, send a shout out to our city attorney's office because Janet Kern, her very capable staff, very capable outside counsel. Ms.. Blanchard, they tackled this. And I think we're going to be the counsel that's going to bring this to a resolution to I for one, I'm not speaking for my count, my colleagues, they'll speak for themselves. But I think we've had some really thorough presentations. I understand that there's still a few more details. This is no doubt complicated, but I don't think we need to study this to death. I think we need to move it forward and bring a resolution to you. So I really commend everybody who's working on this. And the other thing I would love to see are cohesive neighborhoods like yours. You make us a better city and you make it a very nice place to live in in your neighborhood because you were all and again, this wasn't mandated. You got yourselves together, which is just kind of a great example of volunteerism. You're volunteering. You all have your special skills. None of us has a lot of extra time, but you're willing to to step forward and help out your neighbors and yourselves. And so I, I think that we just want to see are the the attorneys and city staff who are working on this to continue to bring it back to us as soon as it's possibly ready. And and I do think this is the council that's going to put an end to the nightmare that you've endured. So hang in there just a little longer. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll try to be brief. First, I want to thank the city attorney for prioritizing this. It's complicated, but there's really no action item. But I would say the action item for us, at least speaking for myself, is let's get this done. The one just just three brief points. And I don't think any of the residents here are asking for anything special. They're just asking for the benefit of the bargain when when they purchase their homes and they're asking their government to work for them. And that's our responsibility. And I think we need to do it. All right. Any other member comments? Vice Mayor. Two questions. Oh, when is our next step? What's the next milestone that we're going to be made aware of and enter the community? And second, um, I'm glad this is an open session. I think it's very important. Because we're dealing with another agency that's tax supported that we make sure the public knows what's going on as well . And I'd also like to have them whatever follow up that you do is to consider either the pros and cons of the commercial portion of the transfer to go to the best for public the Tidelands Trust under the state and see if that option benefits the city or liability. All right. I just got a question and a question, Mr. Panic. I'd like you to ask. I think I heard either you or Ms.. Blanchard say that you can't move forward with this agreement until you have consensus of all of the property owners. And my question is, what if you have a holdout or a recalcitrant property owner, especially for the residential folks? What if you don't have 100% buy in? I think there's maybe some out of town owners that or others that just don't see the value of this I've heard. So how would you address that? Through the mayor again, Enrico Penick, assistant city attorney. If I may, I'd like to take councilmember as he asked Kraft's question first, because I think it's the easier of the two. The the current. Concept that we're working on here is if there had been any holdouts, the homeowners association would take title to that holdout property, and then it would be up to the homeowners association to work out any deals with the individual holdout members so the city staff would not be prepared to come to the council to recommend this transfer unless we had either 100% participation from the residents or assurances from the homeowners association that they would cover the cost of any holdout members . Again, that's conceptual. We will have to get those assurances from the association. But you've heard from their representative and you can see that there is some strong. Interest on the part of the homeowners association. So we're confident that those details can be worked out. Two Mayor, two vice mayor matter raises questions. The next milestones from the city's perspective would be to start reaching out to the East Bay Regional Parks, to talk to them with regards to their issues. Also to steward working in earnest to do that survey and mapping work. Although there may have been some work that has been done in the past, just taking a survey down the canal. There are a lot of structures that sit offset from the main houses. So the the idea would be to draw a line from the adjacent property all the way down to the waterfront. In some cases, that may or may not be able to be done. You may have to that line may have to shift because of existing, existing structures. So I think one of our major task would be to do some survey work, get some preliminary mapping work, and then take that back to the homeowners and to resolve any conflicts between adjacent property owners on exactly where those lines might be drawn. Once we have that and we have an agreement in concept from the Army Corps, I think we'd be in a position to be able to come back to you to report some real progress. Approximate time. I wish I could give you a timeframe on when that could be accomplished. I would venture a guess that. Sure a member matter. One piece that we're we're up against is, of course, we're one party. We have to have the cause engagement on a very real level. And while they've have done some work, there is more work that they do need to do. So we're we're working with them. And I think with city council strong support in favor of moving forward, I think that will motivate the Corps to take more active action. So we are reliant on them as well as responses from the Regional Board on their review of existing environmental reports. So we will again push those resource agencies. They have tight staffing constraints, but we will push them and with a more clear green light, we would begin pushing even harder to try and get more immediate responses. And then, as I understand it, in regards to East Bay Parks, that's another part of you don't have a. Middle for. That. You're absolutely right, Madam Mayor. We we we we have to. We have yet to reach out to the East Bay regional parks. So we have no idea where they currently stand on their negotiations with the Army Corps and how prepared they are to move forward and how quickly. So one of my concerns then is to make sure that there's not any liabilities that the city would hold. And as it's approaching 1030, we actually have three items that are still pending 60, 60 and nine A and I would need a motion and approval by four to proceed past the. To take up these. We have a motion to move. Okay. Any comment? All those in favor. Hi. A motion passed unanimously. Thank you. I think the city attorney want to weigh in on you. Yes. I was just going to suggest, Madam Mayor and council that it while it's true, we don't know exactly the timeline because we have other agencies. I think what we will do, though, is make a commitment to the council and to the folks who are here and listening, that we are going to continue to proceed with all deliberate speed. And we can make a promise to you that we can get some sort of report back to you. I would say three months. So the 1st of July. Is that adequate? Vice Mayor First of all, I thought I heard that you were looking for maybe I misunderstood a green light from the council or some song sentiment that you can take to the other agencies saying, We're gung ho on this, but even though this is not scheduled for action, we can all nod our head and give a sense that there's unanimous support to move this thing forward. So we can give direction. We give direction. So I'd like to hear from member so. I have a separate question altogether. So I just want I just wanted to check. Is that correct? She's not. Yes. You may do that. Into what I was. I remember day. Thank you. Two comments. First is on an overview comment. Several weeks ago the city council close the loop on a matter with regard to undergrounding of of. Lines, overhead lines coming up with a citywide strategy. And that was a matter that I dealt with in my first go around and. 11 years ago on 24. Sometimes the wheels of city hall runs very slow. All right, Councilmember Gorman, about that. This being 30 years or so. So hopefully we can get things going. I think the question that I have is I just want to make sure that technically and narrowly understood that we've exercised all our due diligence report gathering information. Or is there still outstanding work to be done? That's the that's the plan. If I could go back to to the vice minister. QUESTION We I think that three months, if that's acceptable, is a good timeframe. But we would also commit to coming back to you sooner if we have material progress report in the meanwhile. Thank you. Any other comments? So I want to thank staff residents for coming out here and I look forward to the updates. Thank you very much. Thank you. Six C presentation on the city's economic development programs and initiatives and status of the Economic Development Strategic Plan and recommendation to establish the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel in lieu of re establishing an Economic Development Commission. And we're going to take a few minutes here, but people are exiting the room. Well, we're going to take a short recess. Okay. There she is. All right, so now we're done.