Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Disposition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs options for old Alameda Firehouse after hazardous-material findings
Summary
Planners told council the Alameda Firehouse at 429 Washington is eligible for historic nomination but has asbestos, lead and water damage. Staff recommended abating hazardous materials and then deciding whether to subdivide and auction the parcel, pursue grants for preservation, or sell with a facade easement; council asked for updated cost estimates and timelines.
Jim Mangis, the city’s long-range planner, presented background and options for the city-owned property at 429 Washington — the former Alameda Firehouse — after a consultant concluded the structure is eligible for historic nomination but has significant water damage and hazardous materials.
"It is considered an eligible property for nomination as a historic property," Mangis said, and council was shown a consultant’s Section 106 historic assessment and a hazardous-materials report. Staff told council that brownfield grant funds used for assessment do not cover remediation costs and that asbestos removal bids previously received were in the $10,000–$12,000 range for abatement alone; Mangis said full renovation would likely run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars and possibly exceed $300,000–$400,000 depending on use and code upgrades.
Council and neighborhood representatives discussed options: (1) remediate hazardous materials, subdivide the lot and offer the property for sale via the city auction process (with an option to require a façade or conservation easement); (2) solicit proposals from private partners with conditions such as a community room reserved for the Alameda neighborhood; (3) pursue selective demolition while preserving elements such as the site’s large wooden flagpole and interpretive signage; or (4) fully demolish after abatement and sell the land. Staff emphasized remediation (abatement of asbestos and removal/encapsulation of lead where required) must occur before demolition or reuse and that remediation costs would likely fall to the city initially, with the possibility of recoupment if the property is sold.
Bright Tomorrows and other adjacent-service providers raised concerns about client privacy, parking and lease boundaries; council asked staff to return with current cost estimates for abatement, identify potential funding sources or funds to cover remediation and provide timelines so the council could consider a clear next step. No final disposition decision was made during the session.
