Preview
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon (SBN 127969) FILING FEE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO
E-mail: mkenyon@ bwslaw.com GOVERNMENT CODE§ 6103
Kevin D. Siegel (SBN194787)
E-mail: ksi el@ bwslaw.com
Albert Tong (SBN 208439)
E-mail: atong@bwslaw.com
Maxwell A. Blum (SBN 299336)
E-mail: mblum@bwslaw.com
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
1 Califomia Street, Suite 3050
San Francisco, Califomia 94111-5432
Tel: 415.655.8100 Fax: 415.655.8099
Attorneys for Defendant
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
11
12 FRANCESCA FAMBROUGH, CHRIS Case No. 17C1IV 05387
TAVENNER, NINA PESCHCKE-KOEDT,
13 EMILIO DIAZ, DAN SLANKER, DAWN Assigned for All Purposesto the
SLANKER, BRENDA SMITH, THUMPER Honorable Marie S. Weiner, Dept. 2
14 SMITH,
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER —
15 Plaintiffs, PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION
16 Vv
17 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, Action Filed: November 22, 2017
18 Defendant.
19
ALISON MADDEN, WILLIAM MICHAEL
20 FLEMING, EDWARD STANCIL, JEDRICK
HUMPHRIES, ALBA LUCIA DIAZ,
21 JONATHAN REID, TINA REID, AND JOHN
CHAMBERS,
22
Plaintiffs-Intervenors,
23
Vv
24
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY,
25
Defendant.
26
27
28
BURKE, WILLIAMS &
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTOR 1
SAN Fr NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on April 17, 2023, the Court in the above-entitled matter
issued the Proposed Statement of Decision After Court Trial that is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Dated: April 20, 2023 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
By’
pot
M elle Marchetta Kenyon
Kevin D. Siegel
Albert Tong
Maxwell A. Blum
Attorneys for Defendant
10 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BURKE, WILLIAMS &
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTOR 2
SAN Fr NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER ~ PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION
PROOF OF SERVICE
County of San Mateo
Fambrough, et al. vs. City of Redwood City
Case No. 17C1V05387
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. Iam
employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. My business address is 1 California
Street, Suite 3050, San Francisco, CA 94111-5432.
On April 20, 2023, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as:
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER - PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION
on the interested parties in this action as follows:
10 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
11 BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the
document(s) to be sent from e-mail address pmruiz@ bwslaw.com to the persons at the e-mail
12 addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the
transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
13
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
14 foregoing is true and correct.
15 Executed on April 20, 2023, at San Francisco, California.
16
17
Paola 2 Mendez-Ruiz a
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BURKE, WILLIAMS &
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTOR 3
SAN Fr NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER ~ PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION
SERVICE LIST
County of San Mateo
Fambrough, et al. vs. City of Redwood City
Case No. 17C1V05387
VincentJ. Bartolotta,
Jr., Esq. Attomeys for all Plaintiffs/Intervenors, except
Karen R. Frostrom, Esq.
Audrey Kennedy, Esq.
Thorsnes Bartolotta McGuire LLP
2550 Fifth Avenue, 11" Floor
San Diego, CA 92103
E-Mail: frostrom@ tbmlawyers.com;
kennedy@ thmlawyers.com
Alison M. Madden (pro per) Attomey
for Plaintiff-Intervenor
Alison.
P.O. Box 620650
Woodside, CA 94062
10 E-Mail: maddenproper@ gmail.com
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BURKE, WILLIAMS &
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4
SAN FRANCISCO NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER ~ PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION
EXHIBIT A
FILED
SAN MATEO COUNTY
APR 2023
dg OZ
GER
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFOR
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO —
FRANCESCA FAMBROUGH, et al, Civil No. 17C1V05387
Plaintiffs, Assigned for All Purposes to
Hon. Marie s. Weiner, Dept: 2
vs.
PROPOSED STATEMENT OF
REDWOOD crry, DECISION AFTER COURT TRIAL
Defendant.
ALLISON MADDEN; WILLIAM .
MICHAEL FLEMING; EDWARD
STANCIL; JEDRICK HUMPHRIES;
ALBA LUCIA DIAZ; JONATHAN
REID; TINA REID; and JOHN.
CHAMBERS,
Plaintifiés in Intervention,
vs.
CITY OF REDWOOD cITY,
Defendant.
/
Pursuant to Case Management Order #17 filed September 17, 2020 the Court
noted that the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention had two causes of action, namely
(1) violation.of and/or request for recovery under the California Relocation Assistance
Law; and (2) Inverse Condemnation.
A claim for inverse condemnation is adjudicated in two parts: first, a
court trial of whether there is a “taking”, and if so, second,a jury trialof
damages. The statutory claim under the first cause of action is subject to
court trial. Accordingly, the trial of the claims is BIFURCATED, such
that. all claims and defenses subject to Court Trial shall be adjudicated first
ina single Phase One Court Trial. If Plaintiffs prevail on the inverse
condemnation claim, a Phase Two Jury Trial will be scheduled thereafter
for adjudication of the damages phase.
On August 2, 2021, the Phase One Court Trial commenced in Department 2 of
this Court before the Honorable Marie S. Weiner. Karen Frostrom of Thorsnés Bartolotta
McGuire LLP. appeared on behalf of all Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention. except
Madden; Albert Tong, Kevin Siegel and Maxwell Blum of Burke Williams.& Sorensen
LLP appeared on behalf of Defendant Redwood City; and Alison Madden appeared on
behalf of herself as an Intervenor Plaintiff. The presentation of evidence concluded on
September 20, 2021. Oral Closing Arguments were presented on September 27, 2021.
Thereafter counsel and the parties presented Written Closing Arguments, concluding
November 18, 2021.
Upon due consideration of the briefs, evidence presented including the
Administrative Record in 17CIV04680, the arguments of counsel, the Court issued a
Tentative Decision after Court Trial. The parties requested a Statement of Decision.
Subsequently, Plaintiff Allison Madden settled with Defendant and dismissed her claim.
IT IS HEREBY TENTATIVELY DECIDED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, as
the Court’s Proposed Statement of Decision after Phase One Court Trial as follows:
The first cause of action for monetary benefits, compensation, and reimbursement
of expenses under the California Relocation Act, Government Code Section 7260 et seq.,
and/or under federal Uniform Relocation Assistance statutes, 42 US.C. §4620 et seq., is
DENIED AND DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as procedurally defective for
failure to serve a prelitigation government claimin conformity with the requirements of
California Government Code Section 915.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention Nina Peschcek-Koedt,
Emilio Diaz, Dan Slanker, Dawn Slanker, William Michael Fleming, Edward Stancil,
Jedrick Humphries, Jonathan Reid and Tina Reid, and John Chambers have proven their
second cause of. action for inverse condemnation by a preponderance of the evidence
against Defendant City of Redwood City, as to liability. A Phase Two Jury Trial will be
scheduled for adjudication of damages for inverse condemnation — unless the parties
choose to waive a jury and proceed by Court Trial. The claim for award of attorneys’
fees will be briefed and addressed after determination of damages in the Phase Two Jury
Trial.
THE COURT FINDS, as its Proposed Statement of Decision, as follows:
The Parties
Several Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention resolved and dismissed their
claims asserted in this lawsuit; and the remaining Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention
at trial are: Nina Peschcek-Koedt, Emilio Diaz, Dan Slanker, Dawn Slanker, William
Michael Fleming, Edward Stancil, Jedrick Humphries, Jonathan Reid-and Tina Reid, and
John Chambers. The operative complaints are the First Amended Complaint filed
February 27, 2018 (as to which class certification was denied, and the claim for
declaratory relief dismissed) and the Complaint in Intervention filed
January 10, 2020. The only Defendant is City of Redwood City.
Prelitigation Claims and Administrative Exhaustion
Despite any dispute by Defendant, the evidence.demonstrates, and it is not subject
to legitimate dispute, that Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention made claims under the
California Relocation Assistance Act, Government Code Sections 7260 er seq.,
(hereinafter “Relocation Act”), and that Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention filed
appeals with Defendant Redwood City (or its authorized agents) and sought review of
denial of benefits. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention exhausted
administrative remedies under the Relocation Act — particularly as Defendant refused to
provide any benefits under the Relocation Act, nor establish an administrative procedure
thereunder.
Yet, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention brought claims in this lawsuit for
monetary compensation and monetary benefits under the Relocation Act (and the related
federal statute). Defendant Redwood City asserts failure to comply with Government
Code Section 905, i.e., failure to submit a prelitigation government claim. The Court of
Appeal in Baiza vy. Southgate Recreation and Park District (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 669,
held that where a displaced person is seeking monetary benefits under the Relocation Act
against a public entity, that person must exhaust administrative remedies under the
Relocation Act and comply with the prelitigation government claim statute under the
Government Claims Act, Government Code Section 905 ef seg. “The two statutes,
4
general and specific, are not in conflict and must therefore be harmonized and applied
together.” Baiza,i, at p. 674 fn. 4. Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in
Intervention failed to submit any government claim under Section 905, and thus have no
right to relief nor the Court Jurisdiction to grant relief under the Relocation Act.
It is undisputed that no prelitigation government claim is required for Plaintiffs’
and Plaintiffs in Intervention’s claim for inverse condemnation. Government Code
§905.1.
Plaintiffs and Plaintifis in Intervention attempt to skirt the issue by declaring that
they are only seeking to compel Defendant to adopt and implement a Relocation Act
“plan”. Such an assertion raised for the first time at the Pretrial Conference is belied by
the allegations of the First Amended Complaint and the Complaint in Intervention, which
explicitly seek monetary benefits and compensation.
The inquiry is whether the written “claims” made by Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in
Intervention to Defendant demanding monetary benefits under the Relocation Act, are
sufficient to constitute a “claim” under the Government Claim Act.
At the very least, the prelitigation government claim statutory requirement is
subject to the doctrine of substantial compliance. In that regard, there is substantial
compliance where each of the elements of a claim have been complied with, even if
defectively; but there is not substantial compliance where there is no effort to comply
with the requirements of a government claim at all. Santee v. Santa Clata County Offic
of Education (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 702, 713.
“The doctrine of substantial ‘compliance requires no more than that the
governmental entity be apprised of the claim, have an opportunity to investigate and
settle it and incur no prejudice as a result of plaintiffs failure to strictly comply with the
claims act.’ [Citation.]” Johnson v. San Diego Unified School District (199) 217
Cal.App.3d 692, 700; see also Santee, at p. 713.
As the Supreme Court stated in City of San Jose v. Super rior Court (1974) 12
Cal.3d 447, 456-457: “[W]e conclude that to gauge the sufficiency of a particular claim,
Two tests shall be applied: Is there Some compliance with All of the statutory
requirements; and, if so, is there compliance sufficient to constitute Substantial
compliance?” The elements of a prelitigation government claim are set forth in
Government Code Section 910.
On the other hand, if the written communication makes it clear that it is a claim
for compensation against the public entity and that failure to satisfy the demand will
result in the filing of a lawsuit, then the public entity has an affirmative obligation under
Government Code Section 911 to notify the claimant of any deficiencies, defect or
omission in their claim as presented. Otherwise “any defense as to sufficiency of the
claim” is “waived” by the defendant. The evidence is that there was no such Section 911
notification by Defendant to any of the Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs in Intervention.
Upon review of the evidence, the Court finds that Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in
Intervention did comply or did substantially comply with the prelitigation government
claim requirement of Government Code Sections 905 and 910.
But that is not enough. The written claim must also be delivered or mailed to the
public entity in conformity with the requirements of Section 915. Substantial compliance
with Section 915 is not legally sufficient. DiCampli-Mintz vy. County of Santa Clara
(2012) 55 Cal.4% 983. That statute requires that the written claims be presented by
“delivering it to'the clerk, secretary or auditor” of the public entity, or “mailing it to the
clerk, secretary, auditor, or to the governing body at its principal office”. The Supreme
1
Court held in DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara.(2012) 55 Cal.4" 983 that the
statute is to be applied literally and strictly, in that it must be delivered or mailed to the
clerk, secretary, auditor, or governing body itself — and not someone else. The evidence
is undisputed that none of the Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs in Intervention presented their
written “claim”to the City Clerk of Redwood City or to the City Council of Redwood
City directly.
Alternatively, the statute provides that presentation is. fulfilled if the claim “is
actually received by the clerk, secretary, auditor or board of the local public entity.”
Govt. Code §915(e)(1). In our case, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention failed to
present any evidence that their claims were forwarded by the addressees to the City Clerk
or to the City Council or its Chairperson. There is no evidence that these authorized
persons/entities “actually received” the claims of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention.
Accordingly, the first cause of action for violation of the Relocation Act is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with the Government Claims
Act, Government Code Section 905 et seq, and specifically service under-Section 915,.
prior to the filing of this lawsuit.
Premature Claims under Relocation Act -
The Relocation Act is clear that monetary benefits thereunder are not triggered
until the resident actually moves out. This lawsuit for monetary benefits under the
Relocation Act was filed by Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention before they moved
out of the Docktown Marina or out of their residential boats berthed there — indeed they
still have not moved out.
Under the Relocation Act, a “displaced person” is defined as “any person who _
moves from real property, or who moves his or her personal property from real
property”. Thus, the person has to move out in order to triggered the Relocation Act. ©
“The operative date for eligibility under CRAL is the moving date of the
displaced person.” Superior Strut & Hanger Co. v. Port of Oakland (1977) 72
Cal.App.3d 987, 999; Kong v. City of Hwaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002)
101 Cal.App.a® 1317, 1326; see'also BiRite Meat & Provisions Co. v. City of Hawaiian
Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2007) 156 Cal.App.4" 1419, 143 1. “It is the moving
date of the displaced person which determines his eligibility under the mandatory
relocation assistance provisio Albright y. State of California (1979) 101 Cal. App.3d.
14, 21.
Accordingly, there appears no procedural barrier for them to proceed with timely
filing a prelitigation government claim under the Government Claim Act, asserting
violation of thé Relocation ‘Act and seeking remedies thereunder for monetary benefits
and compensation, after they move out.
Inverse Condemnation
The Court finds that Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention have proven their
cause of action for inverse condemnation against Defendant Redwood City.
This dispute arises from the following situation: For decades, people have been
allowed to have live aboard boats! and houseboats” at the Docktown Marina in Redwood
City. Docktown Marina has two types of agreements: (i) monthly berthing license
agreements for non-live-aboard vessels, and (ii) live aboard leases for one year then
monthly. In 2013, Redwood City took over the management of the Docktown Marina. A
lawsuit was filed in 2015 alleging that the waterway at the Docktown Marina was subject
to the Public Trust, and sought to terminate all residential use of the Docktown Marina.
Pursuant to settlement of that lawsuit - of which the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in
Intervention were not parties — the Docktown Plan was adopted by Redwood City in
2016, establishing a plan to displace and remove all residential use of Docktown,
including the requirement that vessels be physically moved (or subject owners to
nuisance abatement) and providing certain benefits if residents cooperated in leaving.
Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention refuse to voluntarily leave.
This case presents the unusual situation of homeboats
in leased marina slips. The
lease is not for residing in an immovable structure; rather the tenant owns the immovable
structure. By.the inverse condemnation conduct of Redwood City, the tenants have lost
the use of basic amenities and habitability of the marina itself while leasing the dock, and
thereafter by their eviction, will lose or have lost their houseboat property.
Even if they could be moved by towing, there is no place in the area for them to
go — there are no available marina slips for live-aboard ‘boats or houseboats. Redwood
1 A live-aboard boat is a boat that is used or capable of being used for active self-
propelled navigation, that is moored for an extended period, and that is used during the
period of mooring as a private principal place of residence.
2 A houseboat is a boat that is used for a residential or other non-water-oriented
purpose and that is not used for active navigation.
9
City had the Opportunity to mitigate the situation by providing live-aboard slips in
another marina in Redwood City, and even made representations to Docktown Marina
residents that such a move would-be available, but instead those few available slips were
given to non-Docktown persons.
Indeed, evidence was presented that Redwood City paid $800,000 to the Port of
Redwood City for improvements to its Municipal Marina, thus an eye to having the
Docktown Marina tenants move there.
Leaseholders have rights to compensation for the value of the lease (use of the
land and its structures) and any tangibles or intangibles lost or forfeited by the “taking” of
real property by the government for public use. Chhour v. Community Redevelopment
Agency of Buena Park (1996) 46 Cal.App.4" 273; Almota Farmers Elevator and
Warehouse £0. v. United States (1973) 409 U.S. 470; Redevelopment Agency of San
Diego v. Attisha (2005) 128 Cal.App.4"* 357, 366-367; City ol Vista v. Fielder (1996) 13
Cal.4"" 612, 617-618; C.C.P. §1265.150.
City’s Intentional Neglect and Destruction of |Docktown Marina
Evidence was presented of the intentional neglect and destruction of the
Docktown Marina by Redwood City while Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention were
leasing and living at Docktown Marina.
Evidence was presented that Redwood City has been focused upon closing down
marinas in the “inner harbor” to facilitate the building of new condominium complexes
with views of the water. Something called the Inter Harbor Task Force was created by
the City in the past to work out a plan. There was active participation of the community,
including Downtown Marina residents, and part of that plan was to allow existing tenants
10
living at the marinas to be able to stay (for at least 15 years) but that no new live-aboard
leases would be issued. Somehow the deal between the City and the marina owners fell
apart, and it was never adopted. In this regard Pete’s Harbor was pressed to sell out, and
the Peninsula Marina was shut down, and approximately 300 marina slips no longer exist.
That left Docktown Marina as the only place allowing live-aboards at the time.
Redwood City asserts that it-has been informed by the State that the Docktown
Marina is on Redwood Creek, that Redwood Creek is subject to Public Trust, and that
boat-owners cannot live on . Public Trust land. On.this basis, Redwood City took the
position that houseboats can no longer berth at Docktown Marina, and that there can be
no live-aboard leases. But there is no Public Trust restriction upon having an active
marina at Docktown, and the City publicly asserted that a marina for navigable boats
would still be available
Reid Boggiano of the California State Lands Commission testified at trial that
Redwood Creek was granted to the City of Redwood City by the Legislature in 1945 and
1954, and that Redwood City makes all management decisions thereon. He opined that
what is land subject to public trust is submerged land — and solid land above mean high
tideline is not part of the grant to the City. The State Lands Commission is not and does
not require that Docktown Marina stop being a marina — indeed, he testified that
recreational boating is an approved use of public trust land. Further, in California,
generally up to 10% of the slips in a marina on public trust land can be live aboards
Typically, it is based upon necessity for operation of the marina, including general safety
measures.’ It is up to the City to decide, and the State Commission has no authority over
3 Multiple Plaintiffs testified that there is now frequent break-ins and vandalism at
Docktown Marina now that the City has reduced the number of vessels and the number of
i
marina leases. Redwood City can make a decision without any permission from the State
Lands Commission, and the State is not involved in the management of Docktown
Marina. Further, Redwood City decided the time frame for evicting Docktown residents,
and the State was not involved. He also stated that in his opinion houseboats are nor
legal on public trust lands, and that was the concern raised by the State with Redwood
City — not live-aboard boats in general. He testified that the analysis is the same, i.e., not
different, whether the Docktown Marina was run by a private marina company or
whether it was directly managed by Redwood City. So nothing actually changed legally
when the City took over management of the Docktown Marina in 2013, but rather the
State is understaffed so the-Staté Lands Commissioner doesn’t usually know about
alleged violations unless it is affirmatively brought to their attention — like the City
apparently did here.
The conduct of the City belies their official statements, and reflects that the City
is intentionally allowing the Docktown Marina to be unusable:by anyone and will not be
available as a general marina. Evidence was presented that the City has even obtained a
bid to remove all docks and take out all pilings at Docktown Marina — yet the City has
not drafted, circulated, or vetted any official plan for Docktown Marina. This has
everything to do with brand new building projects and public access trails being built
along Redwood Creek — that would otherwise overlook and have the view of the
Docktown Marina.
Before there was any Docktown Plan adopted by Redwood City, the City engaged
in conduct designed to destroy the Docktown Marina without declaring any official
live aboards at the marina. But the City does nothing to repair the damage done or
provide security.
12
formal public project. During the relevant time period, the Docktown Marina club house
was torn down, and Docktown Marina users are left to use a bathroom trailer. Dock
“fingers” have been torn down or left to float or sink away. The boardwalk is badly
damaged due to natural conditions, making the dock hazardous to users. Infrastructure
for utilities were ripped out while people were still living at Docktown Marina.
In December 2016, Redwood City passed a Resolution for the Docktown Plan, to
provide funds for relocation assistance — but not that provided under CRAL — and to
terminate all residential use of Docktown. No official decision was made as to use of the
Docktown Marina after all residerits were gone — which Plaintiffs claims is so that the
City avoids legal obligations triggered by proposing and implementing an official public
project.
. John Chambers ©
Plaintiff John Chambers has lived at Docktown Marina for over 15 years, and
presently has a 31 foot sailboat. His slip is located new the launching dock. It has been
“quite awhile” since he actually sailed the sailboat — he bought it for $1 already in the slip
back in approximately 2009.
The City forced him to signa lease under duress in 2012. Trial Exhibit 197.
Chambers testified that the land all around Redwood Creek and Docktown Marina
is being prepared for building new condos. The Yacht Club, laundry, bathroom, showers,
Harbor Master, mailboxes, and parking are all gone, except for a small part of the parking
lot. The parking lot now only has 15 spaces. The marina itself has deteriorated. The
docks are in such poor condition that he fell through the dock and hurt his back, requiring
medical attention.
13
Mail delivery became a huge problem, once the building with the mailboxes was
torn down. Now the mailbox is on a post that keeps being moved by the City, and the
mail doesn’t get delivered.
Despite the position of the City that the Docktown Plan is only to get rid of live-
aboards, but not navigable boats, Docktown Marina is not actually functioning as a
marina for any vessels. No new boat owners have come into Docktown. The marina is
in such terrible shape that no one would want to rent there.
Emilio Diaz
Plaintiff Emilio Diaz, age 76, has been living at Docktown Marina since 1998.
He has a 46 foot sailboat, in Slip 12, which is his primary residence.
Diaz testified that the City required a new written lease and that he was forced to
sign under duress. Although the lease is for the time period July 2013 to June 2014, but
that the City did not sign and return the lease in 2013, but instead waited until after the
expiration in 2014. Trial Exhibit #40.
Diaz testified to the difference in the Docktown Marina from when he moved in
to the destruction over recent years. Diaz testified that there is no longer any Harbor
Master overseeing the Docktown Marina. The Yacht Club and the Harbor Master’s
office are gone: Three*bathrooms, showers, and laundry facilities are gone. Now there is
only a portable building for showers and one bathroom. Water lines are often broken.
The boardwalk and docks are in disrepair, with board sticking out. One Docktown
resident (Chambers) slipped and fell due to broken docks and had to go to the hospital.
Diaz-was offered. $35,000, including $15,000 for his boat, and to leave Docktown,
which he rejected. Diaz built the boat himself with teak exterior work, mahogany interior
14
wood, and oak floors — and that $15,000 was not a fair value. He testified that the
relocation people hired by the City lied to him by saying that he did not have to appeal,
and then told him it was too late to appeal the appraisal. He testified that-no Bay Area
marina will rent him a slip to live-aboard because his boat does not look in good shape.
William Fleming
Plaintiff William Fleming moved to Docktown Marina in 1988. He lived on a
Catalina sailboat, and had a live aboard lease with Docktown. In 2013, the management
of the Docktown Marina was turned over to Redwood.City. The long-time Harbor
Master retired, and told Fleming that the City was planning to get rid of all live-aboards.
Fleming had prior leases starting in 1988 through the prior marina operator. The
City required a new written lease. Trial Exhibit #214.
After adoption of the Docktown Plan, the City’s relocation agent did nothing to
help him find a different place to live. He was paid nothing by the City under the
Docktown Plan. At the time, Fleming was retired, living on Social Security, and had
serious health problems (with all of his doctors located in Redwood City). Fleming
ended up having to move far away to the Delta, in Dutch Slough in Oakley, where he
bought a vacant lot near the water. He moved his boat and it is at a dock at the Oakley
property.
Jed Humphries
Plaintiff Jed Humphries resides at Docktown Marina in a.sailboat berthed in Slip
16. He started living at Docktown in the Fall of 2014 with his girlfriend on a different
boat in Slip 96, but she sold out. The sailboat he lives on he bought from James
15
Samuelson in around 2016. The lease for that slip is Trial Exhibit #168, in Samuelson’s
name, but Humphries paid all the bills and berthing. Rent includes a live-aboard license
fee, berthing, and utilities.
After adoption of the Docktown Plan by the City, Humphries looked into
relocating his boat, but the municipal marina would not allow a live-aboard. More
specifically, Humphries applied for a live-aboard permit at the Municipal Marina, and the
Harbor Master refused to give him one.
Humphries has looked to find a marina that allows live-aboards that is available.
He found that Emeryville Cove charges $40,000 for a live board permit. The City
offered Humphries $28,000 to move out of Docktown, of which $11,000 was the
appraisal for the value of his vessel. Trial Exhibit #263. Humphries rejected the City’s
offer, because there are no other marinas in the San Francisco Bay Area that will permit
live-aboards for $28,000.
Humphries testified to the destruction of Docktown Marina by the City. The
marina is run down, docks destroyed. The City tore down the Yacht Club. The electrical
system is out of Code — the City tore out the electrical lines that were servicing the docks,
and now have temporary electric poles with less wattage. The electricity is unreliable,
and is now 150 amp, not 220 amp. Electrical lines are falling into the water. Floats
underneath the docks are missing. The main walkway is leaning into the water. Water
supply for use of Docktown Marina tenants is not proper. Water is now available only
through PVC hoses instead of reinforced rubber, so the hoses cannot withstand regular
flexing, and are easily broken. These water lines now lay on top of the docks, which is
out of Code.
16
Humpries testified that there are “extreme issues” with parking, most of which
has been taken away. The parking lot is blocked off, and a gate has been installed. The
part of the parking lot where Humphries’ parking space is located (that he rents) got
locked in. His vehicle was locked into the area, and he could not get to work, and then it
was illegally impounded. Although he retrieved his car, his trailer is still locked up in the
lot. The City moved. the mailboxes to an area that is in dispute as to whether or not the
City even owns it.
Nina Peschcke-Koedt
Plaintiff Nina Peschcke-Koedt has lived at Docktown Marina since September
2008. She owns a houseboat/floating home in Slip 69 (she called it a “converted
houseboat”), which has been her primary residence in 2009. ‘At present, her vessel is not
movable, because it is no longer connected to an engine. She had several leases with
Docktown over the years. The last one with the City was never signed by the City and
was never return to her: Trial Exhibit #22. A copy was only provided to Peschcke-
Koedt much later, after this dispute arose.
Because she was in Wyoming helping her. aunt at the time the Docktown Plan was
implemented, the City did not treat Peschcke-Koedt as a live-aboard resident, and thus
did not provide her with any information regarding benefits under the Docktown Plan.
Indeed, when she presented evidence that she was a live aboard, the City told her that she
did not have-a live aboard agreement, because the City received the lease from her but the
City never actually signed it.. The City told her that she would have to go through an
appeals process. Peschcke-Koedt went through the appeal process, and the City’s appeal
official held that she was indeed a live aboard under the Docktown Plan.
17
Back in 2008 when Peschcke-Kodet first started living at Docktown Marina, it
had reliance water, electricity, propane fill-up, and a pump out station for sewage. There
were laundry, bathroom, and shower facilities. There was a Harbor Master and a harbor
master office. Mailboxes were available and reliable for delivery. There was a Yacht:
Club and social gatherings were regularly held. “There was abundant parking located by
each of the multiple ramps from the land to the dock. Items in need of repair were
maintained. Now all of these things are gone.
She testified about the state of disrepair and also presented photos as Trial Exhibit
#513.
All of the ramps from the land to the docks are gone or inaccessible except for
one on the very end by the little parking area, So tenants have to walk the full length of
o
the now-broken docks to get on and off the marina.
There is no laundry facility at all now. The mail delivery is not reliable. No
repairs are done. No maintenance is done. The marina is dilapidated and falling apart.
There are less boats in the slips to hold the docks together. Cleats on the dock fingers are
broken or missing. The wooden boards are deteriorating. These conditions cause boats
to get loose and cause further damage by smashing into docks and other boats. Pilings
are breaking. Sharp metal is exposed. Docks float up on “king tides”, causing them to
move and subside on another spot, like on top of a piling! Floats under the docks are
coming loose. Docks are cracked up and buckled. It is difficult to walk over to get ‘e the
boats. One of the dock fingers sticks straight up inthe air now. The marina is not
dredged, so vessel sit on the mud during low tide.
Formerly, dock lights were located every three slips. Most are now have burnt-
out light bulbs — some of which Peschcke-Koedt has personally replaced for safety, and
18
otherwise people can fall in the dark. Light fixtures on the docks are bent, fallen, missing
tops and/or have wires exposed.
Water source has changed that it is now delivered through PCV pipes that lay on
the dock. They often break and leak. There are instances of water being sut-off without
prior notice. Tenants are now without water “fairly often”, occurring at least twice a
month.
Electricity is available sporadically, with or without notice. The WiFi boxes have
been disassembled. The electricity was redone by the City to accommodate the building
condos and townhouses along the land where Docktown Marina is located. Indeed, the
new building activities have caused a wind tunnel into the Docktown Marina, causing
further damage.
The bathrooms and showers for use of marina tenants is now in a white building
that is only accessible by walking through the parking lot and then through a gate/fence.
See Photo 41 of Trial Exhibit #513.
The mailboxes keep being moved by the City. Packets are simply left out in the :
open as the mailboxes are on a post sitting in the parking lot area.
" Peschcke-Koedt discussed the disrepair and lack of facilities with Terrance Kyaw
(“TK”) at the City Public Works department. She walked around the Downtown Marina
to show him. This occurred multiple times during 2019 and 2020.
City’s relocation agent did not help her find a place to live. Originally she was
told that she could relocate to the Municipal Marina, but then told that it does not accept
“flat tops” or pets. All other marinas in the Bay Area refuse to take houseboats, and
refuse live aboards and pets (except Half Moon Bay).
19
The City has offered zero to Peschcke-Koedt for her boat, and has only offered
moving expenses. The City refused to give her an appraisal, so she got her own appraisal
and gave it to the City. Trial Exhibit $248. The City saidit would not give her anything
unless she waived all rights and claims against the City first.
Tina Reid
Tina Reid moved to Docktown in 2012,.and lives in a houseboat with her
husband. She was originally in Slip 96 but more recently moved to Slip 91 because the
City had moved very large boat next to her, and it was dangerous. She had a live aboard
lease with the City. Trial Exhibit #134.
Reid received no offer from the City under the Docktown Plan.
Reid testified to.the various amenities and services available at Docktown back in
2012, and that things were kept in good condition back then. She then testified to the
deterioration of the Docktown Marina under the management of the City. Trial Exhibit
#267 has a photo of exposed wires on the dock. There are now electricity problems and
outages ona “very. regular basis”. The bilge pumps rely on electricity, so sewage cannot
be pumped out if there is none. The facilities trailer for bathroom and shower is
unusable. Trial Exhibit $267, photo 3, shows ‘that the shower is clogged and covered in
urine. The facility is not cleaned daily by the City.
Photo 4 showed broken Pvc water pipes that have fallen into the water. PVC is.
not appropriate for use on a dock, and it leaks and sprays. Phot 5 shows the dock finger
sticking up in the air. Photo 6 shows a dock in bad condition since at least 2019 — it is
buckled and dangerous, but Reid has to walk on it in order to get to her boat, from the
only ramp remaining at Docktown Marina.
20
Reid’s last lease with the City, Trial Exhibit #134 states a term of July 1, 20213 to
June 30, 2014, but is dated 2016. She had been living under the former lease for years.
The City forced Reid to enter into a new lease in 2014, or she would have to leave.
There are no other marinas within 35 miles that will accept live aboards.
Daniel and Dawn Slanker
Plaintiffs Slanker moved from Wisconsin to California for a job opportunity, but
could not afford California rental prices. They could afford to live on a boat at Docktown
Marina, and moved in March 2012. Dan and Dawn Slanker raised their two sons on a
houseboat in Slip 43, along with a cat, a bird, and two dogs. Trial Exhibits #252 and
#269.
Dan Slanker testified to the prior sense of “community” at Docktown. The club
house was activity used, and was the location for many dinners, weddings, and funerals.
Docktown had 135 slips. There were facilities
for slip-holders, including laundry and
bathrooms. Parking was available, The marina had.a Harbor Master.
Then came the Inter Harbor Task Force to faze out live aboards at marina. It was
discussed that live aboards would be allowed to stay. A lawsuit was filed by Ted Hannig
to get rid of all live-aboard use at the marina, which was settled (Trial Exhibit #73)
without any input from the Docktown Marina boat owners, and the Docktown Plan
adopted.
Slankers had prior leases with Docktown over the years. The City insisted upon a
written lease, Trial Exhibit #2, but the City extremely delayed in signing and returning
that lease until October 2014.
21
After adoption of the Docktown Plan, the Slankers planned to move to the
Municipal Marina, based upon representations made by the City. So the Slankers did not
apply to get an appraisal or ask to be paid for leaving Docktown under the Docktown
Plan. Despite prior representations made about availability, the City’s relocation agent
now told the Slankers (in May 2017) that the Municipal Marina would not accept’any
houseboats.
The City then offered $20,000 to the Slankers. The Slankers got appraisals for
$30,000 to $35,000, but the City would not agree to pay. The Slankers were stuck. The
City served a three-day eviction notice — the family moved out of the houseboat in
September 2018 but it was still left in the slip. The family lived in a motel for three or
four weeks while looking to find a place to live. In February 2019, they bought and
moved into a one bedroom trailer in Sunnyvale (Santa Clara County). This caused the
family to break up because it was not working out living together in the small trailer, and
having to commute. Dawn Slanker worked as a special education teacher in Milpitas.
Dan Slanker Jost his job in February 2020 and the Pandemic hit, so he moved back into
the houseboat at Docktown.
Edward Stancil
Plaintiff Edward Stancil testified that he moved into Docktown Marina in 1996,
and then move in an additional vessel (Fairliner) in 1999 or 2000. In 2001, he bought a
vessel already docked at Docktown. Some different vessels were purchased and moved
in during 2014.
Stancil testified that people have been living at Docktown Marina since at least
1968. Redwood Creek was never dredged, so Docktown Marina is/was not good for use
22
as a regular marina. Instead houseboats and live-aboard boats were allowed at _
Docktown. Stancil testified that he raised his two sons living on a boat at Docktown.
Stancil had his mailing address at Docktown Marina, and used a postal box at the
Docktown. Marina club house, until it was torn down. Then he had to use a.physical
mailing address of his girlfriend’s daughter who live in a different county.
Stancil testified that previously existing amenities for Docktown Marina boat
owners were all torn down, including the yacht club, the community room, ‘the weight
room, showers, bathrooms, laundry room, and the Harbor Master office. The exiting
parking lots were made unusable with blocking and fencing. The boardwalk of the
Docktown Marina itself is now broken, twisted, and unmaintained by the City. There are
leaking underground tanks. Water sources and electricity are unreliable. No
maintenance is done, and the docks are falling apart. The only available bathrooms are in
a trailer, and only one key is provided per slip. There is no on-site manager anymore.
Redwood City demanded that Stancil enter into new written leases. Trial Exhibits
#156, $157, #256, #258, and #259. Although Stancil signed the lease. for Whisper in slip
29 9Trial Exhibit #155), the City did not sign it at the time. Instead, the City held on to
the lease, waited one year before signing it, and the fully executed lease was not
Preview
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon (SBN 127969) FILING FEE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO E-mail: mkenyon@ bwslaw.com GOVERNMENT CODE§ 6103 Kevin D. Siegel (SBN194787) E-mail: ksi el@ bwslaw.com Albert Tong (SBN 208439) E-mail: atong@bwslaw.com Maxwell A. Blum (SBN 299336) E-mail: mblum@bwslaw.com BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 1 Califomia Street, Suite 3050 San Francisco, Califomia 94111-5432 Tel: 415.655.8100 Fax: 415.655.8099 Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF REDWOOD CITY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 11 12 FRANCESCA FAMBROUGH, CHRIS Case No. 17C1IV 05387 TAVENNER, NINA PESCHCKE-KOEDT, 13 EMILIO DIAZ, DAN SLANKER, DAWN Assigned for All Purposesto the SLANKER, BRENDA SMITH, THUMPER Honorable Marie S. Weiner, Dept. 2 14 SMITH, NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER — 15 Plaintiffs, PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION 16 Vv 17 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, Action Filed: November 22, 2017 18 Defendant. 19 ALISON MADDEN, WILLIAM MICHAEL 20 FLEMING, EDWARD STANCIL, JEDRICK HUMPHRIES, ALBA LUCIA DIAZ, 21 JONATHAN REID, TINA REID, AND JOHN CHAMBERS, 22 Plaintiffs-Intervenors, 23 Vv 24 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, 25 Defendant. 26 27 28 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP ATTOR 1 SAN Fr NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on April 17, 2023, the Court in the above-entitled matter issued the Proposed Statement of Decision After Court Trial that is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Dated: April 20, 2023 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP By’ pot M elle Marchetta Kenyon Kevin D. Siegel Albert Tong Maxwell A. Blum Attorneys for Defendant 10 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP ATTOR 2 SAN Fr NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER ~ PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION PROOF OF SERVICE County of San Mateo Fambrough, et al. vs. City of Redwood City Case No. 17C1V05387 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. Iam employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. My business address is 1 California Street, Suite 3050, San Francisco, CA 94111-5432. On April 20, 2023, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER - PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION on the interested parties in this action as follows: 10 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 11 BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address pmruiz@ bwslaw.com to the persons at the e-mail 12 addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 14 foregoing is true and correct. 15 Executed on April 20, 2023, at San Francisco, California. 16 17 Paola 2 Mendez-Ruiz a 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP ATTOR 3 SAN Fr NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER ~ PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION SERVICE LIST County of San Mateo Fambrough, et al. vs. City of Redwood City Case No. 17C1V05387 VincentJ. Bartolotta, Jr., Esq. Attomeys for all Plaintiffs/Intervenors, except Karen R. Frostrom, Esq. Audrey Kennedy, Esq. Thorsnes Bartolotta McGuire LLP 2550 Fifth Avenue, 11" Floor San Diego, CA 92103 E-Mail: frostrom@ tbmlawyers.com; kennedy@ thmlawyers.com Alison M. Madden (pro per) Attomey for Plaintiff-Intervenor Alison. P.O. Box 620650 Woodside, CA 94062 10 E-Mail: maddenproper@ gmail.com 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4 SAN FRANCISCO NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER ~ PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION EXHIBIT A FILED SAN MATEO COUNTY APR 2023 dg OZ GER SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFOR COUNTY OF SAN MATEO — FRANCESCA FAMBROUGH, et al, Civil No. 17C1V05387 Plaintiffs, Assigned for All Purposes to Hon. Marie s. Weiner, Dept: 2 vs. PROPOSED STATEMENT OF REDWOOD crry, DECISION AFTER COURT TRIAL Defendant. ALLISON MADDEN; WILLIAM . MICHAEL FLEMING; EDWARD STANCIL; JEDRICK HUMPHRIES; ALBA LUCIA DIAZ; JONATHAN REID; TINA REID; and JOHN. CHAMBERS, Plaintifiés in Intervention, vs. CITY OF REDWOOD cITY, Defendant. / Pursuant to Case Management Order #17 filed September 17, 2020 the Court noted that the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention had two causes of action, namely (1) violation.of and/or request for recovery under the California Relocation Assistance Law; and (2) Inverse Condemnation. A claim for inverse condemnation is adjudicated in two parts: first, a court trial of whether there is a “taking”, and if so, second,a jury trialof damages. The statutory claim under the first cause of action is subject to court trial. Accordingly, the trial of the claims is BIFURCATED, such that. all claims and defenses subject to Court Trial shall be adjudicated first ina single Phase One Court Trial. If Plaintiffs prevail on the inverse condemnation claim, a Phase Two Jury Trial will be scheduled thereafter for adjudication of the damages phase. On August 2, 2021, the Phase One Court Trial commenced in Department 2 of this Court before the Honorable Marie S. Weiner. Karen Frostrom of Thorsnés Bartolotta McGuire LLP. appeared on behalf of all Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention. except Madden; Albert Tong, Kevin Siegel and Maxwell Blum of Burke Williams.& Sorensen LLP appeared on behalf of Defendant Redwood City; and Alison Madden appeared on behalf of herself as an Intervenor Plaintiff. The presentation of evidence concluded on September 20, 2021. Oral Closing Arguments were presented on September 27, 2021. Thereafter counsel and the parties presented Written Closing Arguments, concluding November 18, 2021. Upon due consideration of the briefs, evidence presented including the Administrative Record in 17CIV04680, the arguments of counsel, the Court issued a Tentative Decision after Court Trial. The parties requested a Statement of Decision. Subsequently, Plaintiff Allison Madden settled with Defendant and dismissed her claim. IT IS HEREBY TENTATIVELY DECIDED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, as the Court’s Proposed Statement of Decision after Phase One Court Trial as follows: The first cause of action for monetary benefits, compensation, and reimbursement of expenses under the California Relocation Act, Government Code Section 7260 et seq., and/or under federal Uniform Relocation Assistance statutes, 42 US.C. §4620 et seq., is DENIED AND DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as procedurally defective for failure to serve a prelitigation government claimin conformity with the requirements of California Government Code Section 915. The Court finds that Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention Nina Peschcek-Koedt, Emilio Diaz, Dan Slanker, Dawn Slanker, William Michael Fleming, Edward Stancil, Jedrick Humphries, Jonathan Reid and Tina Reid, and John Chambers have proven their second cause of. action for inverse condemnation by a preponderance of the evidence against Defendant City of Redwood City, as to liability. A Phase Two Jury Trial will be scheduled for adjudication of damages for inverse condemnation — unless the parties choose to waive a jury and proceed by Court Trial. The claim for award of attorneys’ fees will be briefed and addressed after determination of damages in the Phase Two Jury Trial. THE COURT FINDS, as its Proposed Statement of Decision, as follows: The Parties Several Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention resolved and dismissed their claims asserted in this lawsuit; and the remaining Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention at trial are: Nina Peschcek-Koedt, Emilio Diaz, Dan Slanker, Dawn Slanker, William Michael Fleming, Edward Stancil, Jedrick Humphries, Jonathan Reid-and Tina Reid, and John Chambers. The operative complaints are the First Amended Complaint filed February 27, 2018 (as to which class certification was denied, and the claim for declaratory relief dismissed) and the Complaint in Intervention filed January 10, 2020. The only Defendant is City of Redwood City. Prelitigation Claims and Administrative Exhaustion Despite any dispute by Defendant, the evidence.demonstrates, and it is not subject to legitimate dispute, that Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention made claims under the California Relocation Assistance Act, Government Code Sections 7260 er seq., (hereinafter “Relocation Act”), and that Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention filed appeals with Defendant Redwood City (or its authorized agents) and sought review of denial of benefits. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention exhausted administrative remedies under the Relocation Act — particularly as Defendant refused to provide any benefits under the Relocation Act, nor establish an administrative procedure thereunder. Yet, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention brought claims in this lawsuit for monetary compensation and monetary benefits under the Relocation Act (and the related federal statute). Defendant Redwood City asserts failure to comply with Government Code Section 905, i.e., failure to submit a prelitigation government claim. The Court of Appeal in Baiza vy. Southgate Recreation and Park District (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 669, held that where a displaced person is seeking monetary benefits under the Relocation Act against a public entity, that person must exhaust administrative remedies under the Relocation Act and comply with the prelitigation government claim statute under the Government Claims Act, Government Code Section 905 ef seg. “The two statutes, 4 general and specific, are not in conflict and must therefore be harmonized and applied together.” Baiza,i, at p. 674 fn. 4. Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention failed to submit any government claim under Section 905, and thus have no right to relief nor the Court Jurisdiction to grant relief under the Relocation Act. It is undisputed that no prelitigation government claim is required for Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiffs in Intervention’s claim for inverse condemnation. Government Code §905.1. Plaintiffs and Plaintifis in Intervention attempt to skirt the issue by declaring that they are only seeking to compel Defendant to adopt and implement a Relocation Act “plan”. Such an assertion raised for the first time at the Pretrial Conference is belied by the allegations of the First Amended Complaint and the Complaint in Intervention, which explicitly seek monetary benefits and compensation. The inquiry is whether the written “claims” made by Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention to Defendant demanding monetary benefits under the Relocation Act, are sufficient to constitute a “claim” under the Government Claim Act. At the very least, the prelitigation government claim statutory requirement is subject to the doctrine of substantial compliance. In that regard, there is substantial compliance where each of the elements of a claim have been complied with, even if defectively; but there is not substantial compliance where there is no effort to comply with the requirements of a government claim at all. Santee v. Santa Clata County Offic of Education (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 702, 713. “The doctrine of substantial ‘compliance requires no more than that the governmental entity be apprised of the claim, have an opportunity to investigate and settle it and incur no prejudice as a result of plaintiffs failure to strictly comply with the claims act.’ [Citation.]” Johnson v. San Diego Unified School District (199) 217 Cal.App.3d 692, 700; see also Santee, at p. 713. As the Supreme Court stated in City of San Jose v. Super rior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 456-457: “[W]e conclude that to gauge the sufficiency of a particular claim, Two tests shall be applied: Is there Some compliance with All of the statutory requirements; and, if so, is there compliance sufficient to constitute Substantial compliance?” The elements of a prelitigation government claim are set forth in Government Code Section 910. On the other hand, if the written communication makes it clear that it is a claim for compensation against the public entity and that failure to satisfy the demand will result in the filing of a lawsuit, then the public entity has an affirmative obligation under Government Code Section 911 to notify the claimant of any deficiencies, defect or omission in their claim as presented. Otherwise “any defense as to sufficiency of the claim” is “waived” by the defendant. The evidence is that there was no such Section 911 notification by Defendant to any of the Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs in Intervention. Upon review of the evidence, the Court finds that Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention did comply or did substantially comply with the prelitigation government claim requirement of Government Code Sections 905 and 910. But that is not enough. The written claim must also be delivered or mailed to the public entity in conformity with the requirements of Section 915. Substantial compliance with Section 915 is not legally sufficient. DiCampli-Mintz vy. County of Santa Clara (2012) 55 Cal.4% 983. That statute requires that the written claims be presented by “delivering it to'the clerk, secretary or auditor” of the public entity, or “mailing it to the clerk, secretary, auditor, or to the governing body at its principal office”. The Supreme 1 Court held in DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara.(2012) 55 Cal.4" 983 that the statute is to be applied literally and strictly, in that it must be delivered or mailed to the clerk, secretary, auditor, or governing body itself — and not someone else. The evidence is undisputed that none of the Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs in Intervention presented their written “claim”to the City Clerk of Redwood City or to the City Council of Redwood City directly. Alternatively, the statute provides that presentation is. fulfilled if the claim “is actually received by the clerk, secretary, auditor or board of the local public entity.” Govt. Code §915(e)(1). In our case, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention failed to present any evidence that their claims were forwarded by the addressees to the City Clerk or to the City Council or its Chairperson. There is no evidence that these authorized persons/entities “actually received” the claims of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention. Accordingly, the first cause of action for violation of the Relocation Act is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with the Government Claims Act, Government Code Section 905 et seq, and specifically service under-Section 915,. prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Premature Claims under Relocation Act - The Relocation Act is clear that monetary benefits thereunder are not triggered until the resident actually moves out. This lawsuit for monetary benefits under the Relocation Act was filed by Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention before they moved out of the Docktown Marina or out of their residential boats berthed there — indeed they still have not moved out. Under the Relocation Act, a “displaced person” is defined as “any person who _ moves from real property, or who moves his or her personal property from real property”. Thus, the person has to move out in order to triggered the Relocation Act. © “The operative date for eligibility under CRAL is the moving date of the displaced person.” Superior Strut & Hanger Co. v. Port of Oakland (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 987, 999; Kong v. City of Hwaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 101 Cal.App.a® 1317, 1326; see'also BiRite Meat & Provisions Co. v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2007) 156 Cal.App.4" 1419, 143 1. “It is the moving date of the displaced person which determines his eligibility under the mandatory relocation assistance provisio Albright y. State of California (1979) 101 Cal. App.3d. 14, 21. Accordingly, there appears no procedural barrier for them to proceed with timely filing a prelitigation government claim under the Government Claim Act, asserting violation of thé Relocation ‘Act and seeking remedies thereunder for monetary benefits and compensation, after they move out. Inverse Condemnation The Court finds that Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention have proven their cause of action for inverse condemnation against Defendant Redwood City. This dispute arises from the following situation: For decades, people have been allowed to have live aboard boats! and houseboats” at the Docktown Marina in Redwood City. Docktown Marina has two types of agreements: (i) monthly berthing license agreements for non-live-aboard vessels, and (ii) live aboard leases for one year then monthly. In 2013, Redwood City took over the management of the Docktown Marina. A lawsuit was filed in 2015 alleging that the waterway at the Docktown Marina was subject to the Public Trust, and sought to terminate all residential use of the Docktown Marina. Pursuant to settlement of that lawsuit - of which the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention were not parties — the Docktown Plan was adopted by Redwood City in 2016, establishing a plan to displace and remove all residential use of Docktown, including the requirement that vessels be physically moved (or subject owners to nuisance abatement) and providing certain benefits if residents cooperated in leaving. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention refuse to voluntarily leave. This case presents the unusual situation of homeboats in leased marina slips. The lease is not for residing in an immovable structure; rather the tenant owns the immovable structure. By.the inverse condemnation conduct of Redwood City, the tenants have lost the use of basic amenities and habitability of the marina itself while leasing the dock, and thereafter by their eviction, will lose or have lost their houseboat property. Even if they could be moved by towing, there is no place in the area for them to go — there are no available marina slips for live-aboard ‘boats or houseboats. Redwood 1 A live-aboard boat is a boat that is used or capable of being used for active self- propelled navigation, that is moored for an extended period, and that is used during the period of mooring as a private principal place of residence. 2 A houseboat is a boat that is used for a residential or other non-water-oriented purpose and that is not used for active navigation. 9 City had the Opportunity to mitigate the situation by providing live-aboard slips in another marina in Redwood City, and even made representations to Docktown Marina residents that such a move would-be available, but instead those few available slips were given to non-Docktown persons. Indeed, evidence was presented that Redwood City paid $800,000 to the Port of Redwood City for improvements to its Municipal Marina, thus an eye to having the Docktown Marina tenants move there. Leaseholders have rights to compensation for the value of the lease (use of the land and its structures) and any tangibles or intangibles lost or forfeited by the “taking” of real property by the government for public use. Chhour v. Community Redevelopment Agency of Buena Park (1996) 46 Cal.App.4" 273; Almota Farmers Elevator and Warehouse £0. v. United States (1973) 409 U.S. 470; Redevelopment Agency of San Diego v. Attisha (2005) 128 Cal.App.4"* 357, 366-367; City ol Vista v. Fielder (1996) 13 Cal.4"" 612, 617-618; C.C.P. §1265.150. City’s Intentional Neglect and Destruction of |Docktown Marina Evidence was presented of the intentional neglect and destruction of the Docktown Marina by Redwood City while Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs in Intervention were leasing and living at Docktown Marina. Evidence was presented that Redwood City has been focused upon closing down marinas in the “inner harbor” to facilitate the building of new condominium complexes with views of the water. Something called the Inter Harbor Task Force was created by the City in the past to work out a plan. There was active participation of the community, including Downtown Marina residents, and part of that plan was to allow existing tenants 10 living at the marinas to be able to stay (for at least 15 years) but that no new live-aboard leases would be issued. Somehow the deal between the City and the marina owners fell apart, and it was never adopted. In this regard Pete’s Harbor was pressed to sell out, and the Peninsula Marina was shut down, and approximately 300 marina slips no longer exist. That left Docktown Marina as the only place allowing live-aboards at the time. Redwood City asserts that it-has been informed by the State that the Docktown Marina is on Redwood Creek, that Redwood Creek is subject to Public Trust, and that boat-owners cannot live on . Public Trust land. On.this basis, Redwood City took the position that houseboats can no longer berth at Docktown Marina, and that there can be no live-aboard leases. But there is no Public Trust restriction upon having an active marina at Docktown, and the City publicly asserted that a marina for navigable boats would still be available Reid Boggiano of the California State Lands Commission testified at trial that Redwood Creek was granted to the City of Redwood City by the Legislature in 1945 and 1954, and that Redwood City makes all management decisions thereon. He opined that what is land subject to public trust is submerged land — and solid land above mean high tideline is not part of the grant to the City. The State Lands Commission is not and does not require that Docktown Marina stop being a marina — indeed, he testified that recreational boating is an approved use of public trust land. Further, in California, generally up to 10% of the slips in a marina on public trust land can be live aboards Typically, it is based upon necessity for operation of the marina, including general safety measures.’ It is up to the City to decide, and the State Commission has no authority over 3 Multiple Plaintiffs testified that there is now frequent break-ins and vandalism at Docktown Marina now that the City has reduced the number of vessels and the number of i marina leases. Redwood City can make a decision without any permission from the State Lands Commission, and the State is not involved in the management of Docktown Marina. Further, Redwood City decided the time frame for evicting Docktown residents, and the State was not involved. He also stated that in his opinion houseboats are nor legal on public trust lands, and that was the concern raised by the State with Redwood City — not live-aboard boats in general. He testified that the analysis is the same, i.e., not different, whether the Docktown Marina was run by a private marina company or whether it was directly managed by Redwood City. So nothing actually changed legally when the City took over management of the Docktown Marina in 2013, but rather the State is understaffed so the-Staté Lands Commissioner doesn’t usually know about alleged violations unless it is affirmatively brought to their attention — like the City apparently did here. The conduct of the City belies their official statements, and reflects that the City is intentionally allowing the Docktown Marina to be unusable:by anyone and will not be available as a general marina. Evidence was presented that the City has even obtained a bid to remove all docks and take out all pilings at Docktown Marina — yet the City has not drafted, circulated, or vetted any official plan for Docktown Marina. This has everything to do with brand new building projects and public access trails being built along Redwood Creek — that would otherwise overlook and have the view of the Docktown Marina. Before there was any Docktown Plan adopted by Redwood City, the City engaged in conduct designed to destroy the Docktown Marina without declaring any official live aboards at the marina. But the City does nothing to repair the damage done or provide security. 12 formal public project. During the relevant time period, the Docktown Marina club house was torn down, and Docktown Marina users are left to use a bathroom trailer. Dock “fingers” have been torn down or left to float or sink away. The boardwalk is badly damaged due to natural conditions, making the dock hazardous to users. Infrastructure for utilities were ripped out while people were still living at Docktown Marina. In December 2016, Redwood City passed a Resolution for the Docktown Plan, to provide funds for relocation assistance — but not that provided under CRAL — and to terminate all residential use of Docktown. No official decision was made as to use of the Docktown Marina after all residerits were gone — which Plaintiffs claims is so that the City avoids legal obligations triggered by proposing and implementing an official public project. . John Chambers © Plaintiff John Chambers has lived at Docktown Marina for over 15 years, and presently has a 31 foot sailboat. His slip is located new the launching dock. It has been “quite awhile” since he actually sailed the sailboat — he bought it for $1 already in the slip back in approximately 2009. The City forced him to signa lease under duress in 2012. Trial Exhibit 197. Chambers testified that the land all around Redwood Creek and Docktown Marina is being prepared for building new condos. The Yacht Club, laundry, bathroom, showers, Harbor Master, mailboxes, and parking are all gone, except for a small part of the parking lot. The parking lot now only has 15 spaces. The marina itself has deteriorated. The docks are in such poor condition that he fell through the dock and hurt his back, requiring medical attention. 13 Mail delivery became a huge problem, once the building with the mailboxes was torn down. Now the mailbox is on a post that keeps being moved by the City, and the mail doesn’t get delivered. Despite the position of the City that the Docktown Plan is only to get rid of live- aboards, but not navigable boats, Docktown Marina is not actually functioning as a marina for any vessels. No new boat owners have come into Docktown. The marina is in such terrible shape that no one would want to rent there. Emilio Diaz Plaintiff Emilio Diaz, age 76, has been living at Docktown Marina since 1998. He has a 46 foot sailboat, in Slip 12, which is his primary residence. Diaz testified that the City required a new written lease and that he was forced to sign under duress. Although the lease is for the time period July 2013 to June 2014, but that the City did not sign and return the lease in 2013, but instead waited until after the expiration in 2014. Trial Exhibit #40. Diaz testified to the difference in the Docktown Marina from when he moved in to the destruction over recent years. Diaz testified that there is no longer any Harbor Master overseeing the Docktown Marina. The Yacht Club and the Harbor Master’s office are gone: Three*bathrooms, showers, and laundry facilities are gone. Now there is only a portable building for showers and one bathroom. Water lines are often broken. The boardwalk and docks are in disrepair, with board sticking out. One Docktown resident (Chambers) slipped and fell due to broken docks and had to go to the hospital. Diaz-was offered. $35,000, including $15,000 for his boat, and to leave Docktown, which he rejected. Diaz built the boat himself with teak exterior work, mahogany interior 14 wood, and oak floors — and that $15,000 was not a fair value. He testified that the relocation people hired by the City lied to him by saying that he did not have to appeal, and then told him it was too late to appeal the appraisal. He testified that-no Bay Area marina will rent him a slip to live-aboard because his boat does not look in good shape. William Fleming Plaintiff William Fleming moved to Docktown Marina in 1988. He lived on a Catalina sailboat, and had a live aboard lease with Docktown. In 2013, the management of the Docktown Marina was turned over to Redwood.City. The long-time Harbor Master retired, and told Fleming that the City was planning to get rid of all live-aboards. Fleming had prior leases starting in 1988 through the prior marina operator. The City required a new written lease. Trial Exhibit #214. After adoption of the Docktown Plan, the City’s relocation agent did nothing to help him find a different place to live. He was paid nothing by the City under the Docktown Plan. At the time, Fleming was retired, living on Social Security, and had serious health problems (with all of his doctors located in Redwood City). Fleming ended up having to move far away to the Delta, in Dutch Slough in Oakley, where he bought a vacant lot near the water. He moved his boat and it is at a dock at the Oakley property. Jed Humphries Plaintiff Jed Humphries resides at Docktown Marina in a.sailboat berthed in Slip 16. He started living at Docktown in the Fall of 2014 with his girlfriend on a different boat in Slip 96, but she sold out. The sailboat he lives on he bought from James 15 Samuelson in around 2016. The lease for that slip is Trial Exhibit #168, in Samuelson’s name, but Humphries paid all the bills and berthing. Rent includes a live-aboard license fee, berthing, and utilities. After adoption of the Docktown Plan by the City, Humphries looked into relocating his boat, but the municipal marina would not allow a live-aboard. More specifically, Humphries applied for a live-aboard permit at the Municipal Marina, and the Harbor Master refused to give him one. Humphries has looked to find a marina that allows live-aboards that is available. He found that Emeryville Cove charges $40,000 for a live board permit. The City offered Humphries $28,000 to move out of Docktown, of which $11,000 was the appraisal for the value of his vessel. Trial Exhibit #263. Humphries rejected the City’s offer, because there are no other marinas in the San Francisco Bay Area that will permit live-aboards for $28,000. Humphries testified to the destruction of Docktown Marina by the City. The marina is run down, docks destroyed. The City tore down the Yacht Club. The electrical system is out of Code — the City tore out the electrical lines that were servicing the docks, and now have temporary electric poles with less wattage. The electricity is unreliable, and is now 150 amp, not 220 amp. Electrical lines are falling into the water. Floats underneath the docks are missing. The main walkway is leaning into the water. Water supply for use of Docktown Marina tenants is not proper. Water is now available only through PVC hoses instead of reinforced rubber, so the hoses cannot withstand regular flexing, and are easily broken. These water lines now lay on top of the docks, which is out of Code. 16 Humpries testified that there are “extreme issues” with parking, most of which has been taken away. The parking lot is blocked off, and a gate has been installed. The part of the parking lot where Humphries’ parking space is located (that he rents) got locked in. His vehicle was locked into the area, and he could not get to work, and then it was illegally impounded. Although he retrieved his car, his trailer is still locked up in the lot. The City moved. the mailboxes to an area that is in dispute as to whether or not the City even owns it. Nina Peschcke-Koedt Plaintiff Nina Peschcke-Koedt has lived at Docktown Marina since September 2008. She owns a houseboat/floating home in Slip 69 (she called it a “converted houseboat”), which has been her primary residence in 2009. ‘At present, her vessel is not movable, because it is no longer connected to an engine. She had several leases with Docktown over the years. The last one with the City was never signed by the City and was never return to her: Trial Exhibit #22. A copy was only provided to Peschcke- Koedt much later, after this dispute arose. Because she was in Wyoming helping her. aunt at the time the Docktown Plan was implemented, the City did not treat Peschcke-Koedt as a live-aboard resident, and thus did not provide her with any information regarding benefits under the Docktown Plan. Indeed, when she presented evidence that she was a live aboard, the City told her that she did not have-a live aboard agreement, because the City received the lease from her but the City never actually signed it.. The City told her that she would have to go through an appeals process. Peschcke-Koedt went through the appeal process, and the City’s appeal official held that she was indeed a live aboard under the Docktown Plan. 17 Back in 2008 when Peschcke-Kodet first started living at Docktown Marina, it had reliance water, electricity, propane fill-up, and a pump out station for sewage. There were laundry, bathroom, and shower facilities. There was a Harbor Master and a harbor master office. Mailboxes were available and reliable for delivery. There was a Yacht: Club and social gatherings were regularly held. “There was abundant parking located by each of the multiple ramps from the land to the dock. Items in need of repair were maintained. Now all of these things are gone. She testified about the state of disrepair and also presented photos as Trial Exhibit #513. All of the ramps from the land to the docks are gone or inaccessible except for one on the very end by the little parking area, So tenants have to walk the full length of o the now-broken docks to get on and off the marina. There is no laundry facility at all now. The mail delivery is not reliable. No repairs are done. No maintenance is done. The marina is dilapidated and falling apart. There are less boats in the slips to hold the docks together. Cleats on the dock fingers are broken or missing. The wooden boards are deteriorating. These conditions cause boats to get loose and cause further damage by smashing into docks and other boats. Pilings are breaking. Sharp metal is exposed. Docks float up on “king tides”, causing them to move and subside on another spot, like on top of a piling! Floats under the docks are coming loose. Docks are cracked up and buckled. It is difficult to walk over to get ‘e the boats. One of the dock fingers sticks straight up inthe air now. The marina is not dredged, so vessel sit on the mud during low tide. Formerly, dock lights were located every three slips. Most are now have burnt- out light bulbs — some of which Peschcke-Koedt has personally replaced for safety, and 18 otherwise people can fall in the dark. Light fixtures on the docks are bent, fallen, missing tops and/or have wires exposed. Water source has changed that it is now delivered through PCV pipes that lay on the dock. They often break and leak. There are instances of water being sut-off without prior notice. Tenants are now without water “fairly often”, occurring at least twice a month. Electricity is available sporadically, with or without notice. The WiFi boxes have been disassembled. The electricity was redone by the City to accommodate the building condos and townhouses along the land where Docktown Marina is located. Indeed, the new building activities have caused a wind tunnel into the Docktown Marina, causing further damage. The bathrooms and showers for use of marina tenants is now in a white building that is only accessible by walking through the parking lot and then through a gate/fence. See Photo 41 of Trial Exhibit #513. The mailboxes keep being moved by the City. Packets are simply left out in the : open as the mailboxes are on a post sitting in the parking lot area. " Peschcke-Koedt discussed the disrepair and lack of facilities with Terrance Kyaw (“TK”) at the City Public Works department. She walked around the Downtown Marina to show him. This occurred multiple times during 2019 and 2020. City’s relocation agent did not help her find a place to live. Originally she was told that she could relocate to the Municipal Marina, but then told that it does not accept “flat tops” or pets. All other marinas in the Bay Area refuse to take houseboats, and refuse live aboards and pets (except Half Moon Bay). 19 The City has offered zero to Peschcke-Koedt for her boat, and has only offered moving expenses. The City refused to give her an appraisal, so she got her own appraisal and gave it to the City. Trial Exhibit $248. The City saidit would not give her anything unless she waived all rights and claims against the City first. Tina Reid Tina Reid moved to Docktown in 2012,.and lives in a houseboat with her husband. She was originally in Slip 96 but more recently moved to Slip 91 because the City had moved very large boat next to her, and it was dangerous. She had a live aboard lease with the City. Trial Exhibit #134. Reid received no offer from the City under the Docktown Plan. Reid testified to.the various amenities and services available at Docktown back in 2012, and that things were kept in good condition back then. She then testified to the deterioration of the Docktown Marina under the management of the City. Trial Exhibit #267 has a photo of exposed wires on the dock. There are now electricity problems and outages ona “very. regular basis”. The bilge pumps rely on electricity, so sewage cannot be pumped out if there is none. The facilities trailer for bathroom and shower is unusable. Trial Exhibit $267, photo 3, shows ‘that the shower is clogged and covered in urine. The facility is not cleaned daily by the City. Photo 4 showed broken Pvc water pipes that have fallen into the water. PVC is. not appropriate for use on a dock, and it leaks and sprays. Phot 5 shows the dock finger sticking up in the air. Photo 6 shows a dock in bad condition since at least 2019 — it is buckled and dangerous, but Reid has to walk on it in order to get to her boat, from the only ramp remaining at Docktown Marina. 20 Reid’s last lease with the City, Trial Exhibit #134 states a term of July 1, 20213 to June 30, 2014, but is dated 2016. She had been living under the former lease for years. The City forced Reid to enter into a new lease in 2014, or she would have to leave. There are no other marinas within 35 miles that will accept live aboards. Daniel and Dawn Slanker Plaintiffs Slanker moved from Wisconsin to California for a job opportunity, but could not afford California rental prices. They could afford to live on a boat at Docktown Marina, and moved in March 2012. Dan and Dawn Slanker raised their two sons on a houseboat in Slip 43, along with a cat, a bird, and two dogs. Trial Exhibits #252 and #269. Dan Slanker testified to the prior sense of “community” at Docktown. The club house was activity used, and was the location for many dinners, weddings, and funerals. Docktown had 135 slips. There were facilities for slip-holders, including laundry and bathrooms. Parking was available, The marina had.a Harbor Master. Then came the Inter Harbor Task Force to faze out live aboards at marina. It was discussed that live aboards would be allowed to stay. A lawsuit was filed by Ted Hannig to get rid of all live-aboard use at the marina, which was settled (Trial Exhibit #73) without any input from the Docktown Marina boat owners, and the Docktown Plan adopted. Slankers had prior leases with Docktown over the years. The City insisted upon a written lease, Trial Exhibit #2, but the City extremely delayed in signing and returning that lease until October 2014. 21 After adoption of the Docktown Plan, the Slankers planned to move to the Municipal Marina, based upon representations made by the City. So the Slankers did not apply to get an appraisal or ask to be paid for leaving Docktown under the Docktown Plan. Despite prior representations made about availability, the City’s relocation agent now told the Slankers (in May 2017) that the Municipal Marina would not accept’any houseboats. The City then offered $20,000 to the Slankers. The Slankers got appraisals for $30,000 to $35,000, but the City would not agree to pay. The Slankers were stuck. The City served a three-day eviction notice — the family moved out of the houseboat in September 2018 but it was still left in the slip. The family lived in a motel for three or four weeks while looking to find a place to live. In February 2019, they bought and moved into a one bedroom trailer in Sunnyvale (Santa Clara County). This caused the family to break up because it was not working out living together in the small trailer, and having to commute. Dawn Slanker worked as a special education teacher in Milpitas. Dan Slanker Jost his job in February 2020 and the Pandemic hit, so he moved back into the houseboat at Docktown. Edward Stancil Plaintiff Edward Stancil testified that he moved into Docktown Marina in 1996, and then move in an additional vessel (Fairliner) in 1999 or 2000. In 2001, he bought a vessel already docked at Docktown. Some different vessels were purchased and moved in during 2014. Stancil testified that people have been living at Docktown Marina since at least 1968. Redwood Creek was never dredged, so Docktown Marina is/was not good for use 22 as a regular marina. Instead houseboats and live-aboard boats were allowed at _ Docktown. Stancil testified that he raised his two sons living on a boat at Docktown. Stancil had his mailing address at Docktown Marina, and used a postal box at the Docktown. Marina club house, until it was torn down. Then he had to use a.physical mailing address of his girlfriend’s daughter who live in a different county. Stancil testified that previously existing amenities for Docktown Marina boat owners were all torn down, including the yacht club, the community room, ‘the weight room, showers, bathrooms, laundry room, and the Harbor Master office. The exiting parking lots were made unusable with blocking and fencing. The boardwalk of the Docktown Marina itself is now broken, twisted, and unmaintained by the City. There are leaking underground tanks. Water sources and electricity are unreliable. No maintenance is done, and the docks are falling apart. The only available bathrooms are in a trailer, and only one key is provided per slip. There is no on-site manager anymore. Redwood City demanded that Stancil enter into new written leases. Trial Exhibits #156, $157, #256, #258, and #259. Although Stancil signed the lease. for Whisper in slip 29 9Trial Exhibit #155), the City did not sign it at the time. Instead, the City held on to the lease, waited one year before signing it, and the fully executed lease was not