Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Eminent Domain topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board authorizes eminent‑domain resolutions for Meekland bridge and an Oakland flood‑control project
Summary
The Board opened and closed public hearings and adopted resolutions of necessity authorizing County Counsel to begin eminent‑domain proceedings for a bridge replacement on Meekland Avenue and a nearby flood‑control restoration project in Oakland; property owners raised concerns about notice, valuation and impacts to tenants.
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors on June 18 adopted resolutions of necessity to permit the county to commence condemnation proceedings, if necessary, for two Public Works projects: a Meekland Avenue bridge replacement and a flood‑control restoration near Hegenberger and Baldwin streets in Oakland.
Public Works staff described both projects as necessary public improvements intended to increase safety and multimodal access. For the Meekland Avenue bridge project they asked the board to authorize County Counsel to begin eminent‑domain proceedings and to allow the auditor to deposit roughly $40,300 for temporary construction easements so the project can proceed while negotiations with owners continue.
A representative for property owners at the Meekland site, Ali Rasheed, said the county’s communications had been piecemeal and that the property owners had suffered tenant losses and prospective‑tenant withdrawals after notices of easements. Rasheed asked for fuller documentation of scope, ingress/egress assurances, indemnities and a more detailed valuation methodology covering loss of rent and leasehold impacts.
Public Works Director and staff responded that the resolution of necessity does not finalize price or permanent acquisition but allows the county to proceed in the public interest while continuing negotiations; if the parties cannot agree, the courts will determine compensation. The board voted to close the hearings and adopt the resolutions, authorizing County Counsel to commence proceedings and the auditor to draw the necessary warrants.
County staff said the temporary construction easements are expected to be limited in duration (about 24 months) and that negotiations remain ongoing. Board members asked staff to confirm statutory compliance and to work to protect property rights in negotiations while also moving forward on projects the county characterized as necessary for public safety and infrastructure resilience.
The flood‑control resolution for the Oakland site followed a similar process; property counsel in that matter said they did not object to the finding of necessity but reserved valuation to litigation if necessary. Both resolutions were adopted by the Board after roll calls.
