Share to Facebook Share to Twitter Bookmark and Share
File #: 2018-5515   
Type: Council Referral
Body: City Council
On agenda: 6/19/2018
Title: Consider Directing Staff to Provide Background Information on the Crab Cove Property Prior to Any Council Actions on the Property. (Mayor Spencer) [Not heard on May 15, 2018 or June 5, 2018]
Attachments: 1. Settlement Agreement, 2. April 26, 2018 Notice of Intent and Full Text, 3. Correspondence



Consider Directing Staff to Provide Background Information on the Crab Cove Property Prior to Any Council Actions on the Property.  (Mayor Spencer)  [Not heard on May 15, 2018 or June 5, 2018]





The Council can take any of the following actions:

1) Take no action.

2) Refer the matter to staff to schedule as a future City Council agenda item.

3) Take dispositive action if sufficiently noticed such that the public and Council have been provided sufficient information by the published agenda, and no formal published notice of a public hearing is required.


Name of Councilmember requesting referral: Mayor Spencer


Date of submission to City Clerk (must be submitted before 5:00 p.m. on the Monday two weeks before the Council meeting requested): April 24, 2016


Council Meeting date: May 15, 2018


Brief description of the subject to be printed on the agenda, sufficient to inform the City Council and public of the nature of the referral:


At the last Subcommittee meeting of the City Council and East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) on April 12, 2018 (a public meeting), EBRPD shared that as part of their agreement with the Federal Government to receive the adjacent parcel to expand Crab Cove, EBRPD agreed to not contest the usage of this part of the parcel (I’m paraphrasing here).  That was the first time I’d heard of this agreement and, as far as I know, it was the first time this was shared with City Staff and the public. Staff obtained a copy of the Settlement Agreement which is attached hereto.


It’s my understanding that the subject property was one parcel when the voters, in November, 2008, overwhelmingly supported Measure WW, a $500 Million bond extension, which included, “Crown Beach - Improve visitor center, restore beach, complete park boundary  -  $6.5 million to replace and expand the Crab Cove interpretive center, currently located in an outdated military building. Expand and restore Alameda Beach to increase space for beach recreation and protect the shoreline. Acquire appropriate surplus federal property if it becomes available.” <>


I would like Council to give direction to staff to obtain copies of all documents pertaining to the Settlement Agreement, and to the possible splitting or dividing of the parcel.  Staff should fully research the history of the parcel(s) in question, including a timeline of the events pertaining to the parcel purchased by EBRPD as well as the parcel to be conveyed to APC and representations by EBRPD to the public regarding which parcel(s) would be improved with Measure WW bond funds and which parcel(s) EBRPD intended to acquire from the federal government, to the extent staff is able to obtain such information.  I would like staff to provide this information to Council before it considers APC’s application for removal of the Government Overlay and amendment of the General Plan.  It is critical that Council, staff, and the community have clarity of the facts before any further decisions are made. 


This issue is of significance to the community. On April 19, 2018 there was a letter to the editor stating, “In 2008 East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) sponsored Measure WW, which passed by 71.9 percent of the vote. It was supported by the San Francisco Bay Sierra Club, League of Women Voters, Doug Siden and many others. Measure WW included Project 18 which allocated $6.5 million to “replace and expand the Crab Cove interpretative center, expand and restore Alameda Beach to increase space and protect shoreline and acquire surplus federal property if it becomes available.” At the time, there was only a single parcel with federal buildings on McKay.”  <>  There’s also a group looking into this issue that is advocating that, “We voted for ONE parcel in 2008 and NOT 2 parcels that was recorded in 2015. Crab Cove was designated the first California estuarine marine reserve. We voted for this protected land for future generations. We cannot go against the will of the voters!” <>


A notice of intent to circulate an initiative petition and full text of the measure was filed on April 26, 2018 (attached).  The intent of the initiative is to rezone the subject property to Open Space.  I would like to ask City staff to review the initiative petition as required by the California Elections Code.  In addition, staff should provide, as part of the analysis requested above, an assessment of the Findings.


Priority Ranking:


 ↑ Urgent







Important →


____ 1 = Not urgent, not important

____ 2 = Urgent, not important

_X _ 3 = Urgent and important

____ 4 = Not urgent, important