Alameda council unanimously endorses concept designs for Estuary and Bay Farm Island sea-level rise projects

The Alameda City Council voted unanimously on Jan. 21 to endorse concept designs for two near-term sea-level rise adaptation projects — the Estuary Project and the Bay Farm Island Project — and accepted a status update on the Oakland‑Alameda subregional adaptation plan.

Gail Payne, project manager for the sea-level rise adaptation projects and representative of the Oakland‑Alameda Adaptation Committee (OAK), told the council the concept designs focus on both shoreline and inland treatments, saying the near-term designs “accommodate up to 2 feet of sea level rise, with an additional 2 feet for uncertainty,” which produces a working design elevation of roughly 14 feet, with long-term work aimed toward about 17 feet.

The designs presented include seawalls and levees along constrained shoreline sections, elevated fill where redevelopment is anticipated, and inland green and gray detention basins to store stormwater and reduce neighborhood flooding. Consultants from CMG Landscape Architecture described site-specific approaches: living-seawall pilots where space is tight, levees with the Bay Trail on top where width allows, and marsh expansion and tide-gate/pump-station upgrades in the Bay Farm Island/Veterans Court area.

Chris Yard, a CMG consultant, said the projects are intended to address the current FEMA floodplain plus two feet of sea-level rise and an additional two feet of freeboard. “That will provide protection for the communities that are currently impacted by flood risk,” Yard said, but he added Alameda will need Port of Oakland and City of Oakland participation, particularly in the Doolittle/airport areas, to achieve FEMA certification that Alameda parcels are out of the floodplain.

Community partners spoke in support. Ruth Abbey of Community Action for Sustainable Alameda (CASA) described door‑to‑door outreach and partnerships with youth and local organizations, and Jessica Barrett of CASA said outreach included three workshops and four tours reaching more than 600 people and an OAAC newsletter with roughly 1,600 subscribers.

A remote commenter, Todd Hickman, praised the project work but repeatedly asserted the city had misapplied CEQA exemptions and questioned Alameda’s authority as a CEQA lead agency; his remarks were not challenged in the meeting record.

Council members acknowledged difficult trade-offs, including the possibility of intentionally allowing some low‑value or park areas to transition to marsh or open water in the long term to reduce costs and protect more residentially intensive areas. Council member Dacek said the city should be willing to “engage in that kind of discussion” about surrendering some lands to incoming tides. Council member Jensen moved to support the staff recommendations; the motion was seconded by Council member Dacek and passed unanimously.

Staff noted several funding paths and timing constraints. Payne and consultants said the Estuary Project appears in the Water Resources Development Act with a $30 million reference and an EPA grant application is due in April. Staff also said a small Caltrans grant for planning is ending and additional SB1 and Cal OES or FEMA BRIC funds will be pursued; the Bay Farm Island proposal would require a 10% non‑federal match for BRIC. Payne said the governance approach will emphasize project‑specific memoranda of understanding rather than a joint powers authority for now.

The council vote formally endorses the concept designs and accepts the subregional adaptation plan update; staff said they will pursue grant appropriations and return with additional updates and any requests for approvals once funding and detailed designs are ready. The council’s action was procedural endorsement of concept designs and did not itself authorize construction or final environmental approvals.

Next steps identified by staff include pursuing the EPA application in April, working with federal lobbyists on WRDA appropriations, advancing permit discussions with regulatory agencies to address mitigation and marsh replenishment, and returning to council with additional design stages and funding requests later in the year.