Correspondence - Updated 7-16 — Alameda City Council, July 16, 2024

From: Trish Spencer
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: Council Meeting 7/16/24 - Agenda Item 7C - Submerged Parcels Date: Monday, July 15, 2024 10:49:33 PM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rob Barics <[email protected]>
Date: Jul 15, 2024 10:48 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Council Meeting 7/16/24 - Agenda Item 7C - Submerged Parcels To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>,Tony Daysog <[email protected]>,Tracy Jensen <[email protected]>,Trish Spencer <[email protected]>,Malia Vella <[email protected]>,Michael Roush <[email protected]>,Manager Manager <[email protected]>,Amy Wooldridge <[email protected]>
Cc:
***Please add this letter to the correspondence for Agenda Item 7C - Submerged Parcels for the 7/16/24 City Council meeting - Thank you***
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Council Members,
Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the city council meeting tonight and be there in person to comment on agenda item 7C regarding the sale of 6 submerged parcels. Originally, this item was on the agenda two weeks ago, when I was in attendance and ready to speak.

My wife, Bethany Polentz, and I own the property at 3267 Fernside Blvd. Parcel 5, situated directly behind our property and adjacent to the public walkway, is at the center of this issue.

Allow me to provide some background. In 2016, then-city council member John Knox White raised concerns about “pocket parks” being taken by property owners. Through social media groups and the local city paper, he stirred public sentiment without properly conducting historical research or consulting city attorneys for land use assessments before alleging the homeowners’ intentions along the three designated Fernside public walkways.

During this period, the council was negotiating with 90 waterfront property owners and several commercial property owners to transfer parcels of mud from federal ownership to the City of Alameda, leading to the sale of these parcels to the residential and commercial owners. The initial agreement stated that all residential owners would be offered the same deal—$10,000 plus closing costs up to $200—regardless of the structures, usage, or size of the individual lots.

Due to former council member Knox White’s irresponsible actions, the 6 property owners adjacent to these public walkways were excluded from that sales agreement. This exclusion was not our desire but the city’s decision. The city indicated that while investigating the land usage issue, the 6 property owners would be held out of the original parcel transfer, while the remaining 84 property owners proceeded with their purchases.

We were repeatedly assured by city attorneys and two city councils that we would receive the same offer, in good faith, once the transfer for the 84 other property owners was completed. We complied and waited patiently.

Fast forward to today, we have been waiting for the past 8 years. Now, we are informed that not only are we not being offered the same deal as the other 84 property owners, but each pair of submerged lots is priced differently. The one walkway where all improvements seem to have been made is the only one offered at the original price of $10,000. Our walkway is priced at $12,500, and the one off Fairview is priced at $14,500. This breaks the original agreement and insults the property owners who have shown patience with the city while this issue remains unresolved, with minimal communication and a revolving door of city attorneys.

At this point, we are not willing to accept the city’s current offer based on the aforementioned criteria. However, we are prepared to accept the original offer of $10,000 plus closing costs up to $200. We will sign that agreement immediately, and this issue will be resolved.

Please extend to us the same courtesy the city has shown to 84 other property owners by honoring the commitment made to the 6 property owners in Alameda.

Thank you,
Rob Barics & Bethany Polentz
3267 Fernside Blvd
From: Trish Spencer
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: City of Alameda hearing regarding submerged parcel purchase from owners of 3301 Fernside Blvd Date: Sunday, July 14, 2024 4:46:30 PM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sherry Powers <[email protected]>
Date: Jul 14, 2024 4:18 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] City of Alameda hearing regarding submerged parcel purchase from owners of 3301 Fernside Blvd
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>,Tony Daysog <[email protected]>,Tracy Jensen <[email protected]>,Trish Spencer <[email protected]>,Malia Vella <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected],Amy Walker <[email protected]> Alameda City Council Members,
My name is Sherry Powers. My sisters, Lauren Reinkens, Amy Walker, and I are co- beneficiaries and joint owners of 3301 Fernside Blvd - Lot 5.

Lot 5 is one of the six lots (of 90) whose status regarding submerged parcel ownership was not resolved along with the other 84 in 2016. The property has been part of our family since our father, Monte C. Walker, purchased it in 1986.

As an Oakland native and longtime SF East Bay resident, I spent as much time as possible at 3301 Fernside before and after relocating to Southern California in the Nineties. My children spent as much time as possible at "grandpa's house" as well, where they enjoyed fishing, boating and frolicking on and near the dock. Our father relished sharing this wonderful oasis with his family and intended for the entire property, from the front sidewalk to the dock above the submerged parcel in back, from one side to the other, to remain with us long after his passing.

Before dad's 2014 death, he maintained the entire property--including the deck, gangway and dock (along with our stepmother, Lonnie Walker, who died in January of this year). My sisters and I want to restore the property to its condition as it was at the time of dad's death, to include once again a fully functioning dock connecting the dry land to the submerged parcel.

We were made aware through Attorney Michael Roush, that we were unable to undertake that restoration project until the submerged parcel was transferred.

Therefore, the three beneficiaries agreed to set aside the previously-agreed purchase price of $10,000 plus estimated closing costs and costs to rebuild the dock to its original condition--as we remembered and enjoyed it.

For the past eight years or so the City of Alameda has taken over our shared driveway and yard by suddenly claiming an easement and declaring it as a "parklet" (which I understand was originally designed back at the turn of the 20th century strictly as a "fire engine path and turnaround bulb" - a usage that has been obsolete for many decades). During this time, we watched as our 84 neighbors purchased their submerged parcels. While we were held out of the transfer along with five others due to "unresolved ownership issues" we were confident the same agreement would eventually be upheld for us that was agreed upon with the 84 others.

My sister moved into our family home in January and is now faced with security concerns, including people walking up and down the driveway at all hours of day and night, with evidence of lingering and various activities on the property, in the backyard right up to the house. We are looking forward to finally purchasing the submerged parcel for the agreed-upon $10,000 enjoyed by our 84 other neighbors and working with the City to enforce the "No Public Access" ordinance from dusk until dawn.

Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter.

Respectfully,

SHERRY POWERS
Residential & Commercial
DRE 02002017
Phone: 949.394.3685
SherryPowers.com
[email protected]

This home has been in our family since XXXX (year) when our father purchased it; and growing up in East Oakland, we have memories of enjoying being on the dock and accessing the water from this house on the Estuary. It was our father’s dream to get the submerged parcel.

Our father lived there until his passing in XXXX. During this time, he and our step-mom maintained our family house. Being told that we were unable to maintain our dock and structure over the submerged parcel until the property was transferred, and knowing that this was in the works for over 10 years - we complied with the City’s edict..My sisters and I agreed to set aside funds from the trust for the promised $10,000 purchase of the Parcel as well as the money necessary to bring the dock back to the way we remembered it.

Over the past 8 years since the City of Alameda has taken over our shared driveway and yard by suddenly claiming an Easement and declaring it a park, we watched as 84 of our neighbors purchased their submerged parcels. We understood that while we were held out of the parcel transfer at that time due to “unresolved ownership issues,” - we were confident that we would get our turn to acquire the submerged parcel for $10,000.

My sister moved into this family home earlier this year - she is now faced with security concerns, with people walking down her driveway at all hours of the day and night. We are looking forward to finally purchasing our Parcel for the promised $10,000 price enjoyed by 84 of our neighbors and working with the City to enforce the “no Public Access” from dusk until dawn.

Thank you,
From: Lauren Reinkens
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Letter to Councilors for 7/16/24
Date: Friday, July 12, 2024 3:42:57 PM
Dear Members of The City of Alameda City Council
Michael Roush has kept myself and other property owners informed that that this item is to be addressed early on the agenda on July 16, 2024. I am unable to attend the meeting in person. Please receive this in lieu of in person comment and enter it into the record.

As trustee of a family owned property of one of the submerged parcels being offered for sale, 3301 Fernside Blvd., I was surprised to learn eight years ago in 2016, when The City of Alameda sold off the 84 or so submerged parcels, that there were Six parcels including ours that had been excluded from that option to buy. As owner of the property, The Monte C. Walker trust at the time would have happily purchased our submerged parcel, along with the other buyers, for the then price of $10,000.

I have followed with interest as the long process of bringing this parcel to market for the owners of the Six “carved out” properties was processed. I have read all of the updates and emails to have tried to understand the whole issue. When it was decided to appraise the properties at their current market value, I was very concerned about the ethics of this. I understand land appreciation is real, however, it is highly irregular to discriminate against Six buyers who have little influence over the “ownership issues” and conditions laid forth in their land predating their ownership.

To add insult to injury, the premise of this Six parcel "carve out" seems to be ownership issues related to the adjacent public water access easement on these excluded properties. Rather than adding value to the land, the existence of these public water access easements adjacent to, and therefore part of the concern of these parcels, has had a diminishing value effect on parcel utility, usefulness, security and therefore property value. These easements not only reduce the value of the primary parcel, but also reduce the value of the submerged parcel. The appraisal does not appear to reflect this unique reality.

Since the City of Alameda declared our driveway "a park" on a historically ignored easement, our family has recorded a large assortment of disturbance and a deterioration of value due to the following to name but a few:
-> Individuals using it as a bathroom; a Sanitation and Life Safety Issue. -> Individuals using it as a place to masturbate.
-> Verbal and hand gesture threats to home owners and their guests -> Garbage strewn, glass broken
-> Drug and alcohol users throwing parties
-> Minors loudly loitering and causing disturbance
-> Peeping Toms Sneaking around and leering at residents in our private backyard and through windows in the home
-> Frequent unauthorized after-hours use
-> Noise intrusion preventing quiet enjoyment of private property & yard -> Hostile yelling and vitriol directed at home owners and guests -> Prohibition of owners using our own driveway, which was a right utilized from the original City-Permitted construction up to the more recent “Public Access Granting” of this land being a “park."
I recognize that the public access easement was initially inserted here to provide water access limited to the residents of the subdivision. This intent has never been fulfilled. Its entire past usefulness was limited to car driveway access to our permitted garage. There has literally been no community benefit to the subdivision’s inhabitants since inception, with the exception of the above bullet points, which arguably are not benefits but behaviors discouraged at healthy actual public parks.

Moreover, this easement is nothing more than an attractive nuisance which The City of Alameda, by its ownership, necessarily holds the liability for. I have concerns for our family inheriting the additional liability of owning the submerged parcel which lies in the direct path of the Public Access Easement. There is an approximately twelve foot drop onto rocks at the end of the easement, which is unmanaged, unmaintained and dangerous. At high tide, the rocks are obscured and a submerged hazard to any member of the public falling into the water. Ostensibly to address this, The City of Alameda installed a cyclone fence at the end point rendering shoreline access impassible. It is weed choked, obscures the “view” and works directly at odds with the purpose of the easement. Do these conditions really seem to merit our paying a penalty price of 40-50% more than the $10,000 we would have had to pay at time of the original 84 parcel sale in 2016? It is reasonable that this singular situation should result in a reduction of appraised value, not an increase. The appraisal does not consider this unique circumstance and it behoves the City Council to make an exception to these six parcels and decrease the price to below that of the original $10,000.

Additionally, I’m not aware of what mitigation efforts the City of Alameda plans to enact with regard to sea level rise, however, our easement, relative to the residential backyards to either side, is essentially a much lower "breach in the levee” of the two properties on either side. This strip of land, which borders the shoreline on one end and Fernside Blvd. on the other, is a direct low-conduit for water encroachment during sea level rise. The two properties on each side of this strip will be undermined and radically eroded under these future circumstances, next rendering the destruction of the homes and overrunning the entire Fernside Blvd. roadway and neighborhood.

I sincerely appreciate the City Council’s time and attention to this very unique issue. I hope you vote in favor of a much reduced price for us to acquire the submerged parcel commensurate with what our neighbors had been able to in 2016 minus the loss of property value, so we might begin secure, long term enjoyment of our backyard shoreline at a common sense price point.

Sincerely,
Lauren Reinkens,
Trustee of the Monte C Walker Trust, Owner of 3301 Fernside Blvd. Alameda, CA From: Trish Spencer
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] For Item 7-F in 7/2/24 City Council Meeting Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 12:01:08 PM
Attachments: scan 72.pdf
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dona Fisher <[email protected]>
Date: Jul 1, 2024 2:28 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] For Item 7-F in 7/2/24 City Council Meeting To: Malia Vella <[email protected]>,Trish Spencer <[email protected]>,Tony Daysog <[email protected]>,Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft
<[email protected]>,Tracy Jensen <[email protected]> Cc: Michael Roush <[email protected]>,Michael Fisher <[email protected]> City Council - in advance of tomorrow’s City Council Meeting, we are sending you 3 requests to consider regarding the submerged parcel behind 3341 Fernside. Please let me know if you have any questions, thanks!!

1. We request that Alameda City Council consider holding their promise to offer the remaining 6 submerged parcels at the promised $10,000 price:

The City of Alameda is not honoring the promised price of $10,000 that other parcels paid and we were promised repeatedly starting in 2016
The other 84 submerged parcels were purchased for $10,000 each in 2016. At that time, the remaining six were promised that the $10,000 price would hold when our submerged parcels were finally sold. This promise was reiterated verbally at every meeting we had with City representatives on this issue over the past 8 years.

Several supporting documents are attached (listed below).

Alameda City Council Minutes from 4/18/17 meeting (attached) Alameda City Council Meeting Notes from 4/18/17 (attached) Excerpt from Michael Roush 10/25/23 email: "In 2016, the City Council approved Final Map 8337 that created 99 submerged parcels and sold 84 of them to adjacent residential property owners for a price of $10,000 for each parcel. (The property owners also paid for title insurance and closing costs up to $1,000, with the City paying costs above that, roughly $200.) The agenda report concerning the Final Map for 8570 contemplated that these six parcels would likewise be sold to the adjacent residential property owners for a price of $10,000 per parcel, with the property owners paying for title insurance and closing costs and the City paying any additional costs above $1000 but with a cap of $200.

The City’s 8-year delay should not lead to a 40% price increase for our Parcel.

2. While the City has delayed what they are referring to as Phase 2 of the Submerged Parcel transfer - the Surplus Lands Act has been amended and now requires that the City register these parcels for potential sale to public entities or Affordable Housing buyers before selling them to us. We request that the City apply for exemptions before opening our parcel up for sale to the public.

Exemptions are available for various things including land that is encumbered or has easements.

3. Should we not receive an exemption, we request that the City disclose all issues that make our property unsaleable:

Coastal Commission approval required for any building on the Parcel We will not be selling our dock/deck that were unconditionally permitted and take up most of the buildable portion of the Parcel
Portion of parcel near the seawall cannot safely support construction), Parcel is accessible by water only
Parcel contains a view corridor (if the City removes this from the Parcel, then it needs to be removed from our Relinquishment of Rights Agreement)
Thanks,
Dona and Michael Fisher
3341 Fernside

From: Trish Spencer
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-F in 7/2/24 City Council Meeting Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 12:03:44 AM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kevin Peterson <[email protected]>
Date: Jul 1, 2024 8:56 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-F in 7/2/24 City Council Meeting To: Trish Spencer <[email protected]>,Tony Daysog
<[email protected]>,Tracy Jensen <[email protected]>,Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>,Malia Vella <[email protected]> Cc:

Dear City Council,
I am Kevin Peterson and live on Fernside Blvd. and was on the executive committee of the WHOA (Waterfront Home Owners Association) that worked for more than a decade with the Army Corps. BCDC, and the City of Alameda to help facilitate the transfer of land from the Army Corp. to the City of Alameda then to the adjacent homeowners. Some of you were involved with this process back in 2016.

Unfortunately there was 6 properties that was held out of the process for the City to do more research. I am glad to see the city is completing their promised completion of this agreement.

Before the transfer this land was a problem for the Army Corps. to manage and the City of Alameda had no control over building that had an open permit from the Army Corps to build upon. The goal from all parties was to clean this up so one agency would have oversight for the building that had happened and was happening. To make this process as clean and easy as possible the decision was make to price all these lots at the same price of $10,000 to cover the “transfer cost”. Each of these lots varied in size and what was built on it or not because it was a common belief that what ever was there was already baked into the purchase price of the home. These homes were originally sold with the promise of access to the water and the ability to build wharfs.

Now that the City has done their extensive research on these six unique properties I would hope the city continues with the promise I clearly remember of completing the transaction at the same price once things was sorted out.

I appreciate your service to our community.

Sincerely,
Kevin Peterson
(510) 915-3901
From: Michael Roush
To: Lara Weisiger
Cc: Amy Wooldridge; Jennifer Ott
Subject: Fw: [EXTERNAL] Re: Sale of Submerged Parcels--Update Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 10:24:24 AM
Correspondence from one of the property owners re sale of submerged. parcels. No need to attach my email that triggered this email.

From: Rob Barics <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2024 12:56 PM
To: Bethany Polentz; Michael Roush
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Sale of Submerged Parcels--Update Mr. Roush,
“At long last” is an understatement, and underscores our annoyance that the process has taken so much time.

We will be present at Council this coming Tuesday to tell the Council we believe it is ridiculous to increase the cost of our mud parcel from $10,000 to $12,500. The agreement was ALL waterfront owners would receive the same deal, $10k. The city has changed those terms after holding us out of the original agreement because of a land issue, instigated by one former Council member- a problem the city has thus far failed to remedy.

Nowhere in the appraisal report does information exist that justifies an increase in value. The appraisal recommends three different values per location. All mud parcels were treated the same in the original agreement. How do we have $10k, $12,5k, and $14,5k values now? We are willing to entertain the original $10k offer the other waterfront owners received. We are not willing to accept the $12,500 offer as-is.

We have been more than fair, patient, and measured in our relationship with the city over this matter, for years.

Regards,
Rob & Bethany - 3267 Fernside
From: Trish Spencer
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: Important - related to 7/2 City Council Meeting, agenda item 7-F Date: Friday, June 28, 2024 4:51:05 AM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dona Fisher <[email protected]>
Date: Jun 27, 2024 6:38 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Important - related to 7/2 City Council Meeting, agenda item 7-F To: Trish Spencer <[email protected]>,Malia Vella
<[email protected]>,Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>,Tony Daysog <[email protected]>,Tracy Jensen <[email protected]> Cc: Michael Roush <[email protected]>,Amy Wooldridge <[email protected]>,Michael Fisher <[email protected]> Dear City Council -
This is a copy of the most recent email sent to Michael Roush regarding Surplus Land Act implications, full disclosure requirement on offer for sale, and exemption request required for 3341 Fernside …. re: submerged parcels.

Thanks,
Dona and Michael Fisher
3341 Fernside
Hi Michael,
What adjoining property is owned by the City? The City does not own the Estuary nor our house; the Federal Government owns the Estuary. Our neighbor on one side already owns their parcel, and you are selling the other adjoining parcel. I think maybe you are referring to the 4 parcels closest to High Street; for those the City does have adjacent open space.

As a reminder, the City relinquished ALL RIGHTS to any adjoining land to our submerged parcel. To obtain this Relinquishment - we gave the City a View Corridor as consideration, knowing that the City had committed to WHOA (our homeowners’ association) and us that the City would soon be selling our parcel to us. The City did this because our property was different, the City no longer had any ownership. Resultantly, the City promised that our Property would now be treated separately, since there was now nothing holding up the sale. In short - it makes total sense to apply for an exemption for our parcel, since there is NO ADJACENT OPEN SPACE held or controlled by the City.

Regarding shortest path - it is interesting that the City is now trying to hurry after delaying for over 8 years. By the way - we’ve been told that the City should file for an exemption - which would most likely be quicker, rather than the 5-month wait in offering this parcel for sale (2 month wait for parties to show interest, followed by 3 months of negotiating in good faith). In addition - the BCDC would almost necessarily slow down the process even further. This is in contrast to our purchasing the property which is seamless and will not require any BCDC approval.

Regarding the cost of any private improvements being included in the sale - are you implying that the City would intend to eminent domain our property? I will remind you that we have no intention of selling our dock or deck, or entertaining the idea; the selling of these would reduce the value of our property measurably. Please cite the law are you referring to that would allow the City to sell our deck and dock out from under us? (Please remember - our dock was fully permitted with unconditional permits during the time that this was allowed. We were told that we were one of the few that got in during this window.) If the City does not apply for exemption, and therefore offers this up for purchase - the City would be required to disclose in advance that the sale DOES NOT INCLUDE the dock and deck. Based on the Relinquishment of Rights, it should also be noted that there can be no access via land to this parcel. Further - you should disclose that the people who own the property have full rights to use the deck and dock that they rightfully own, as well as the water leading up to it. In short - this submerged parcel is pretty much unsellable.

Otherwise, you would be required to Eminent Domain the whole house and property - we are not only seniors, but I was assaulted last July 17th, and am under medical care suffering with PTSD. Having someone living in your yard would be impossible for me.

We have been told our home is worth in excess of $3million, and have just finished spending $40,000 to install Air Conditioning and 35,000 to redo the driveway and make repairs that the City neglected to do for years when they believed they owned it.

We should discuss - because it appears you have decided not to apply for the exemption based on misinformation.

Thanks,
Dona and Michael Fisher
PS - We find it impossible to understand why the City keeps changing the rules and going back on their commitments.

From: Trish Spencer
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: Revised: Important - related to 7/2 City Council Meeting, agenda item 7-F Date: Friday, June 28, 2024 4:50:38 AM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dona Fisher <[email protected]>
Date: Jun 27, 2024 6:57 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Revised: Important - related to 7/2 City Council Meeting, agenda item 7-F
To: Trish Spencer <[email protected]>,Malia Vella
<[email protected]>,Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>,Tony Daysog <[email protected]>,Tracy Jensen <[email protected]> Cc: Michael Roush <[email protected]>,Amy Wooldridge <[email protected]>,Michael Fisher <[email protected]> Re-sending to add 2 more items for context - here are 2 excerpts from an email from Michale Roush to my husband and myself earlier today:

Excerpt 1:

From Michael Roush:
"Dona and Michael, Thank you for your email. We recognize the exemption for parcels less than half an acre but that exemption applies only when it "is not contiguous to land owned by a...local agency that is used for open space..." Gov Code, section 54221(f)(1) (B). Open space purposes means the use of land for pubic recreation, enjoyment of scenic beauty, or conservation or use of natural resources. Section 54221 (e). Local agency includes the a charter city. Section 54221 (a)(1). The property that adjoins the submerged parcels is owned by the City and certainly qualifies as open space, as defined. “ From us:

As you will not below - there seems to be some confusion - however the submerged parcel abutting our property is not contiguous to land owned by a local agency that is used for open space…”
Excerpt 2:

From Michale Roush:
"And as indicated to you previously, in the unlikely event the City were to receive serious inquiries about third parties' purchasing these parcels, the cost of any private improvements on the property would necessarily need to be part of such sales. “ From us:

It appears that City is seeking Eminent Domain, since they cannot offer our property for sale without eminent domain or an Agreement with us.

On Jun 27, 2024, at 3:38 PM, Dona Fisher <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear City Council -
This is a copy of the most recent email sent to Michael Roush regarding Surplus Land Act implications, full disclosure requirement on offer for sale, and exemption request required for 3341 Fernside …. re: submerged parcels.

We should discuss - because it appears you have decided not to apply for the exemption based on misinformation.

Thanks,
Dona and Michael Fisher
PS - We find it impossible to understand why the City keeps changing the rules and going back on their commitments.

From: Michael Roush
To: Lara Weisiger; Amy Wooldridge
Cc: Dona Fisher
Subject: Fw: [EXTERNAL] For tomorrow"s meeting
Date: Thursday, June 20, 2024 12:20:02 PM
Attachments: Submerged Parcel - 7.2.24 .dotx
scan-2.pdf
Lara, At the request of the Fishers, owners of property adjacent to one of the submerged parcels, please include these two documents as correspondence concerning the agenda report for the sale of the submerged parcels. thanks Michael
From: Dona Fisher <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2024 2:58 PM
To: Michael Roush
Cc: Michael Fisher
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] For tomorrow's meeting

Hi Michael - thanks for the update. I have attached a 3-page outline of comments for City Council, and also a 7-page PDF of excerpts from City Council Agenda Notes. Please forward these materials to the City Council in advance of the 7/2 meeting. Let me know if you have any questions, thanks! Dona Fisher
3341 Fernside

On Jun 19, 2024, at 10:33 AM, Michael Roush <[email protected]> wrote:

Dona and Michael, The proposed sale of the submerged parcels is scheduled for CC consideration of July 2. After discussion with other City staff, sttaff's recommendation will be that the parcels be sold at the appraised value. Concerning the materials that you sent to me in support of your reasons why the parcel adjacent to your property should be sold for $10,000 rather than $14,000, do you want me to include some or all of that with the agenda materials that will be published or would you prefer that I just forward the materials to the CC (or neither). If materials are to be included with the agenda, let me know what documents I should include. Thanks Michael From: Dona Fisher <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 1:43:38 PM
To: Michael Roush
Cc: Michael Fisher
Subject: [EXTERNAL] For tomorrow's meeting

Hi Michael,
The following are attached in preparation for our meeting tomorrow, 5/28, at 10AM via Zoom:

Submerged Parcel PDF - detailed outline for discussion
Scan-1 PDF - copies of documents, City Council Minutes,… to support points made on the outline Executed Relinquishment PDF - a copy of the Relinquishment of Rights filed by City of Alameda Photos of our driveway and City-maintained view corridor between Lots 4 and 5 Feel free to email any questions in advance.

Both Michael and I are looking forward to our meeting tomorrow.

Thanks,
Dona Fisher
3341 Fernside Blvd.

Zoom Meeting Log-On Instructions:

Topic: Submerged Parcel, Lot 7
Time: May 28, 2024 10:00 AM Pacific Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/6859279618?
pwd=d205ZXM4N3B6VzRPdFlTSHhnSjJUQT09&omn=83831867013
Meeting ID: 685 927 9618
Passcode: 0000
---
One tap mobile
+16694449171,,6859279618#,,,,*0000# US
+13462487799,,6859279618#,,,,*0000# US (Houston)
---
Dial by your location
• +1 669 444 9171 US
• +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
• +1 719 359 4580 US
• +1 720 707 2699 US (Denver)
• +1 253 205 0468 US
• +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
• +1 564 217 2000 US
• +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
• +1 646 931 3860 US
• +1 689 278 1000 US
• +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
• +1 305 224 1968 US
• +1 309 205 3325 US
• +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
• +1 360 209 5623 US
• +1 386 347 5053 US
• +1 507 473 4847 US
Meeting ID: 685 927 9618
Passcode: 0000

City Maintained View Corridor, no water view
Our View Corridor - 3341 Fernside
Comments pertinent to 7/2 City Council Meeting discussion on Submerged Parcels Prepared by: Dona and Michael Fisher, 3341 Fernside
1 x Introduction
o We purchased and moved into house in March 2010 (3341 Fernside) o We agreed to 7-ƱČŪŘô purchase price which was comparable to other Alameda Estuary properties at the time ÍĲîϙŘôƲôèťôîϙ(ŜťŪÍŘƅϙŽĖôſϙÍĲîϙdock (we were aware there was an active Association (WHOA) working for homeowners to purchase the submerged parcels).
o Researched all documents and recordings prior to purchase to ensure dock was fully permitted and legal
x History
o 6 Parcels, including ours, were excluded from the 2016/2017 sale, pending îôťôŘıĖĲÍťĖĺĲϯèĺĲƱŘıÍťĖĺĲϙĺċϙĺſĲôŘŜēĖŕ.
o At that time, a $10K per-parcel value/price was established based on an Appraisal-determined Fair Market Value for all 90 parcels (includes the 6 submerged parcels being held back) (page 3 in the attachment, from the 9/20/16 City Council Agenda notes).
o We were promised by both City Council and City Attorneys that this $10K per- parcel price would hold (one such example is page 7 of the attachment, from the City Council 4/8/17 Agenda Notes).
o Also – as recently as 10/5/23, an email from the City Attorney stated: “The agenda report concerning the Final Map for 8570 contemplated that these six ƉĂƌĐĞůƐǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞǁŝƐĞďĞƐŽůĚƚŽƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŽǁŶĞƌƐĨŽƌĂ ƉƌŝĐĞŽĨΨϭϬ͕ϬϬϬƉĞƌƉĂƌĐĞů͕ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŽǁŶĞƌƐƉĂǇŝŶŐĨŽƌƟƚůĞŝŶƐƵƌĂŶĐĞ ĂŶĚĐůŽƐŝŶŐĐŽƐƚƐĂŶĚƚŚĞŝƚǇƉĂǇŝŶŐĂŶǇĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƐĂďŽǀĞΨϭϬϬϬďƵƚǁŝƚŚĂ ĐĂƉŽĨΨϮϬϬ͘ “
o Throughout this process, we were also strongly supported by our Fernside neighbors who did get to buy their parcels.
o Subsequently, in 2018 - two years after the submerged parcel sale to 84 homeowners - the City of Alameda èĺĲƱŘıôîϙťēÍť they did not own the “pathway. ”
The City did a title search in 2018, and found that as we had been saying, the “pathway” bordering our house had never been owned by the City.
The
ĖťƅϙƱīôîϙÍϙRelinquishment of Rights for our property, recorded on 6/22/21; we agreed to a View Corridor in lieu of incurring additional legal costs to re-prove our ownership.

Comments pertinent to 7/2 City Council Meeting discussion on Submerged Parcels Prepared by: Dona and Michael Fisher, 3341 Fernside
2 o This submerged parcel sale for the 6 properties held out of the 2016 transfer, continued to not be a priority for Alameda, and was delayed 6 additional years to 2024.
o Through this 8-year tedious process – we worked with 4 or 5 îĖƯôŘôĲťϙ Ėťƅ
Attorneys; it appears that this èĺĲťĖĲŪÍīϙēÍĲîĺƯϙıĺŜťϙīĖħôīƅϙèĺĲťŘĖæŪťôîϙťĺϙ City of Alameda not remembering the well-documented $10K promise. o This 8-year delay was through no fault of any of the 6 homeowners held out of the 2016 transaction, and we should not now be punished with a 40% price increase as a result.
o The City’s 8- year delay should, in no way, lead to us paying thousands more for submerged parcels ťēÍťϙťēôϙ
ĖťƅϙĲôŽôŘϙſÍĲťôîϙĖĲϙťēôϙƱŘŜťϙŕīÍèôϙand only
purchased as a passthrough from the Army Corp of Engineers to the Homeowners.
o Further – based on this delay and the moratorium on our doing repairs on the City’s seawall, it has continued to deteriorate and requires costly repairs (this was not considered on the recent Appraisal).
o Prior to the City releasing rights, the whole driveway deteriorated and was dangerous to both us and trespassers. Due to the City’s lack of maintenance and a small child falling on his bike in one of the sinkholes, our insurance broker warned us that we may lose our insurance.
o Once we received the 2021 Relinquishment of Rights, ſôϙſôŘôϙƱĲÍīīƅϙÍæīôϙťĺϙ move forward with the needed repairs, maintenance ÍĲîϙæôÍŪťĖƱèÍťĖĺĲϙ– spending $30,000+ (the City, paid for this work to be done for the remaining Parcels).

x Financial Impact on City
o Based on City Council agenda notes from 9/20/16 – assuming all of the commercial submerged parcels were sold – the City “ …would recognize positive èÍŜēϙƲĺſϙĖĲϙťēôϙŘÍĲČôϙĺċϙ $7 - $900,000. ” (page 4 of Attachment)

x 2024 Appraisal
o Watts, Cohn and Partners prepared both the 2016 and 2024 Appraisals; îĖƯôŘôĲťϙĖĲŜťŘŪèťĖĺĲŜϙſôŘôϙgiven, ÍĲîϙîĖƯôŘôĲťϙèĺıŕϙıôťēĺîĺīĺČies were used.
o The August 2016 methodology “valued the FMV of fee simple interest of 90 lots, as a single entity… ” To this end, the one overall FMV was evenly divided by number of parcels (the 6 holdouts were included as part of this calculation).

Comments pertinent to 7/2 City Council Meeting discussion on Submerged Parcels Prepared by: Dona and Michael Fisher, 3341 Fernside
3 WHOA homeowners agreed to everyone being charged the same price – regardless of size, location, …
o The “revised” April 2024 Appraisal came up with a per parcel FMV using a methodology that assumed 1)ĺŘĖČĖĲÍīϙŕŪŘèēÍŜôϙŕŘĖèôϙîĖîϙĲĺťϙŘôƲôèťϙ property being view property on the water, and 2)parcels in an upscale yacht club on the San Francisco Bay with amenities, were comparable.

They valued the subject parcels “at their highest and best use. ” o Based on thĖŜϙƲÍſôî 2024 methodology – we would, in essence, be paying twice for our water location and view.

x Summary
o Lot 7 (and maybe others) was (were) held out of the original 2016 sale due to the City’s ownership questions that were resolved in 2018. It is now 6 years later, and we/our property are still hitting needless roadblocks. o The City is now requesting $14,000 for our parcel, rather than honoring the previously agreed $10,000 price.
o We would like to resolve this and complete the transaction before yet another City Council is put in place.
o We request your assistance in correcting and expediting this situation.

Alameda City CouncilJuly 16, 2024

Alameda City Council
July 16, 2024