pages: CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2006-11-21 | 5 | six years restricting homeowners on the Alameda side of the Estuary from making any improvements; three signature property improvements went very quickly along the Channel; the number one concern is for property owners on the Alameda side of the Estuary continued dredging and regulating of the Canal is also a concern; no action was taken for the Canal obstructions along the Dutra property a couple of years agoi three tug boats were sunken and no one wanted to take responsibility; it took three years to get rid of the three tug boats; he has big concerns that reluctant responsibility will be no responsibility; the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge is needed more than ever because of transportation issues; staff should be directed to be aggressive and talk to the Congressional delegates to change the orders under which the Army Corps of Engineers is operating; consideration should be given to compensating Alameda for the moratorium's affect on deferred maintenance over the years. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated water reached up to docks at one time deferred maintenance has resulted in more mud than water; it appears that the Army Corps of Engineers would do the dredging as long as it is commercially navigable. the homeowners would be left high and dry; the Army Corps of Engineers may dredge the Channel years from now; commercial ships would be able to go in and out the homeowners or the City would be stuck dredging the portion of the land to allow homeowners' boats to get out; questioned why the City would want to take the land. The District Counsel stated the Army Corps of Engineer's authority to dredge is under the WRDA; Congress has set a standard where the cost benefit ratio has to be greater than one in order to spend federal dollars; the land transfer is a different real estate issue than dredging. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the City would be responsible for the dredging if the City takes the land; stated residents would be looking to the City so that docks could be used; questioned why the City would want to take on the responsibility for dredging; stated the Army Corps of Engineers would be responsible for dredging even if funds are not available. The District Counsel stated that no legal mechanism is available for the property owners to force the City to dredge private docks. Mayor Johnson inquired how the cost benefit analysis could be brought to Level One in order to have the Army Corps of Engineers dredge. The District Counsel responded staff would be provided with Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 November 21, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf |