pages: CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2006-11-21 | 7 | transfer to individual, adjacent property owners ; the Army Corps of Engineers is concerned that individual transactions would result in a checker board. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Army Corps of Engineers would need to negotiate with individual property owners if the City does not want to accept the property, to which the project Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Gilmore requested an explanation of the PGP inquired whether the City would become permit central for the Army Corps of Engineers. The District Counsel responded the land transfer is not connected to PGP necessarily; stated a PGP is issued by the Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act; Water Boards, localities, cities, and counties often want control over regulatory activities; the City would need to get some type of real estate interest, such as an easement, lease, or license which would expire after a certain period of time; the permit could be extended for five years; the Public Works Department would be permit central for docks and other structures along the waterfront; the Army Corps of Engineers would work with the City to help structure the PGP : ; only certain activities fit within the PGP . the Army Corps of Engineers would help the City define what would be allowed and ensure activities are not environmentally damaging; the statute states that the Army Corps of Engineers has enforcement authority when things are not going well. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the moratorium goes away with the PGP , to which the District Counsel responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson thanked the Army Corps of Engineers for the information presented stated residents have a high level of interest in the issue; the main issue is the ability to perform on- going maintenance and repair. Councilmember Matarrese stated it is important to have a strategy for the Congressional delegation to start working on enabling legislation for the Northern Waterfront redevelopment area, including but no limited to, the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge inquired when an analysis would be available outlining different options such as obtaining a strip of land or the whole land, ensuring that the waterway is maintained and dredged, and running the permit process well. The City Manager stated staff has been working with the homeowners Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 November 21, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf |