Environmental groups are celebrating an historic decision on what is now destined to become a model for shoreline ecological adaptation around San Francisco Bay.
At issue was whether to keep Building 25, a 55-foot-tall hangar, as a source of lease revenue, or remove it to maximize natural habitat.
On November 7th, ten years after the De-Pave Park concept was first introduced, the City Council approved moving forward with a plan to remove the building to make way for a park that will welcome sea level rise. The term “de-pave” refers to the removal of paving. The paving will be recycled on site to provide the elevated observation overlook and the elevated entrance. The decision was the latest step in the process of developing a Master Plan that will provide the foundation for receiving a multitude of regulatory permits and construction grant funds.
For years, the Sierra Club, Golden Gate Bird Alliance, San Francisco Baykeeper, and Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda have been advocating for removing all the buildings in the project area. They wrote letters and spoke at the meeting about the wildlife benefits of having a natural landscape uninterrupted by buildings and the added capacity for carbon sequestration and sea level rise adaptation.
Speakers also drew attention to the long-term economic consequences of not removing Building 25. “A plan to keep Building 25 will forever clutter the potential postcard skyline view from future waterfront businesses and promenades,” said open space advocate Irene Dieter. The impeded view of San Francisco will lessen the land value of commercial real estate that the City plans to sell, according to Dieter.
“Building 25 and Building 29 are just liabilities to the city,” said Robert Bezek, a disaster management analyst at FEMA. “They are both in the 100-year flood plain. They are in a seismic area. They are in a tsunami zone.”
Julia Dowell, speaking on behalf of Baykeeper, said that Building 25 will one day be inundated by groundwater as sea levels rise. “The levee required to protect Building 25 will only protect against surface water,” said Dowell. “As groundwater infiltrates the site, the levee will create a moat, and the building will have to be removed regardless.”
The issue was not lost to educators. “I’m coming to you tonight as a 7th and 8th grade science teacher at Wood Middle School,” said Eric Robbins, who also serves on the Recreation and Park Commission. He involved 155 students in the survey of the three design options and reported that 65 percent favored removal of Building 25. “What I would like to emphasize is that the students recognized, and no offense to the tenant of the building that spoke earlier, but they have been tenants for a few years, and the animals in this area have been around for millions of years.”
Jeff Manker, a retired high school science teacher who now volunteers teaching birding classes to middle and elementary school students in Alameda, highlighted the importance of a migratory bird stopover site at De-Pave Park. He urged removal of Building 25 to maximize the space for birds to rest without a building nearby serving as a predator perch.
During council deliberations, Council Member Tracy Jensen remarked, “I feel like it would be shortsighted to develop this unique and supportive project in an incomplete manner by retaining one structure, rather than prioritizing nature, in an otherwise ecological treasure,” said Jensen.
Vice Mayor Tony Daysog agreed, adding, “I think the removal of Building 25 would be consistent with the spirit of the graceful retreat from sea level rise that we’re planning when it comes to De-Pave Park,” said Daysog. “I think we as a city must not miss this opportunity to pursue De-Pave Park to the fullest, which to me suggests that we will have to remove Building 25 because otherwise that would be a blemish on the spirit with which we’re doing this project.”
The city council voted 4 to 1 to remove the hangar and work with existing tenants in finding new spaces while maintaining lease revenue from the buildings until construction commences. Council Member Trish Spencer was the lone dissenter.
“What I’m hearing is that the direction is to work toward removing Building 25,” said City Manager Jennifer Ott, “but do it in a way that really tries to preserve our businesses here in Alameda, tries to find other locations for them, tries to preserve the rent stream as long as possible so that we can use those funds to help do other things. So we’re going to go back and figure out a phased approach.”
The wetland park will feature trails, an elevated wildlife observation point, educational gathering space, and a picnic area and restroom at the entrance. In addition to the tidal wetland, there will be boulder tide pools along the shoreline, and in-water trial areas devoted to eel grass and an oyster bed.
The Master Plan consultant, CMG Landscape Architecture, will return to the city council in the spring of 2024 with more refinements to the design. Their work is being funded by an $800,000 grant from the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority.
“We do think there is the possibility with all the grants that are going around now [for climate adaptation projects] that we could be starting construction in five years,” said City Manager Jennifer Ott.
Alameda Point Environmental Report 