Commentary:Albany’s public funds should not be used on a disappearing waterfront
Charlie Blanchard and Michael Barnes, two former members on the Albany School Board, wrote the following opinion article on the waterfront issue. They warn about the risk of high tides flooding the Albany Waterfront and oppose using the city’s public funds to develop the land.
“As Albany residents,the two of us do not want our tax dollars spent to acquire and upgrade land for parks that will soon be submerged. And we certainly wouldn’t want to live there, either.”
The controversy surrounding the Albany waterfront is presented as a choice between two opposing positions — commercial development or parkland. But these two positions are not really so different. They are both models of development.
The supporters of both flavors of waterfront development are ignoring a painful environmental reality — the lifetime of the waterfront as we know it is will be measured in decades. By the end of the century, due to rising sea levels, the waterfront will most likely be a tidal basin.
There is a third position, one that is both environmentally sound and fiscally responsible. Do nothing and enjoy the waterfront just as it is. As Albany residents, the two of us do not want our tax dollars spent to acquire and upgrade land for parks that will soon enough be submerged. And we certainly wouldn’t want to live there, either.
On weekend of January 10––11, we headed down to the Albany waterfront to see the effects of the 7.4 foot high tides that occurred late in the mornings on both those days. We didn’t have to look far for evidence of flooding. The lower reaches of the parking lot already have traces of debris that have washed up onto the asphalt during winter storms.
We did some quick checking with simple homemade surveying equipment (we are happy to provide details for anyone interested in a science project) and a detailed contour map provided by the County of Alameda. We found that with one meter of sea level rise, most of the waterfront will be underwater at high tides, leaving the Albany bulb and the racetrack grandstands as islands.
We can conservatively expect one meter or more of sea level rise this century, as two articles in Science magazine point out (see issues of 9/5/2008 and 2/6/2009). The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) uses similar figures for its discussions of the coastal impacts of rising sea levels.
Rising sea levels will also bring bring increased risks of flooding during storms. According to the PPIC (California Coastal Management with a Changing Climate, Ellen Hanak and Georgina Moreno):
Within the San Francisco Estuary, which is protected from the most violent wave action, the incidence of coastal flooding is expected to increase considerably. Models indicate that a one-foot rise in sea level (likely by mid-century) would shift the 100-year storm surge-induced flood event to once every 10 years (Gleick and Maurer, 1990).
In addition to whopping insurance premiums, long-term commercial development of the waterfront will require landfill and levees — levees that must be expanded regularly as the sea level continues to rise. Sort of like New Orleans, but with earthquakes.
Alternatively, public funds could be used to acquire the land for parks. This possibility is the motivation behind the city council’s $600,000 visioning process. The inevitable rise in sea level suggests a much cheaper visioning process — envision the waterfront underwater, at least at high tides.
A grim long term fate awaits Albany. Climate change will bring more violent storms and the need to upgrade city infrastructure. Perhaps a few centuries from now, assuming the sea level rises by only 50 feet, the San Pablo corridor will be submerged, Albany hill will be an island, and students at Cornell elementary will be able to play in the bay during recess.
Let’s enjoy our funky, feral piece of waterfront land just the way it is while we still have the chance, and instead of using resources on a disappearing waterfront, let’s use them to begin planning for the painful changes to come.
If you’d like to comment on the topic, please leave your message under the article or send them to linjun9913@berkeley.edu.
I’ve actually wondered what might be made of the fact that the largest part of the City of Albany is actually covered by water. Given the way that boundaries are drawn, most of the City’s jurisdiction seems to be over portions of the Bay. Low-impact tidal power plants? Aquatic farming? Artificial islands? Seriously, though, if we’re “a square mile” as a city, there are several more square miles of us just offshore… an interesting situation.
Thanks to Charlie and Michael for this thoughtful and informative commentary. Everyone should read it and PAY ATTENTION.
To begin with, the two opposing positions regarding waterfront development were never between “commercial development” or “parkland”. Everyone agrees on the need for a waterfront park. The differences of opinion were about whether the commercial development should be located next to sensitive ecological area of Codornices Creek, and whether the development should occur only if and when the race track ceases to operate. The Albany Waterfront Coalition, of which I am president, has opposed locating development next to the creek, and we have favored phasing development while the track is still operating–a more financially viable model in our opinion.
Regarding the issue of rising sea levels, I had always assumed that the parking lot area would need to be raised by a few feet anyway if significant improvements were to be placed there. After all, the lot is already landfill over what was previously a tidal marsh. Since the land is not presently subject to tidal action, permits for such additional fill should not be difficult to obtain. Additional clean engineered fill and topsoil should also make it possible to actually grow trees in this area–something that would not necessarily be feasible now, given the likely subsurface conditions of crushed aggregate rock base under the asphalt…not to mention the probable presence of herbicides.
A few feet of fill may or may not be sufficient to keep the area above high tide 100 years from now, but financial models are typically only for 40 years or so anyway. In the mean time, shouldn’t we (and our children) be able to enjoy the best use of our great waterfront, and rid ourselves of the blight represented by such a huge expanse of asphalt?
One of the problems with the upcoming “visioning process” is that — out of a budget of over $640,000 — only about $60,000 is available for working with consultants in order to gather a wide range of economic and environmental analyses.
That is, the process spends only one-tenth of the money on consultants and it spends nine-tenths on yet another “talk festival.” We don’t need another talk festival: We’ve already had at least three of those.
A rise in sea levels is a very real issue, and it needs to be addressed with scientific rigor. Given the state of the economy, it’s also not clear if the Bay Area would be able to support any additional retail or commercial space, which all factions assume would be required to support any parkland.
So, with a City deficit of $600,000 for the coming year, we are planning on spending $640,000 on a visioning process where there are numerous significant unknowns.
Before jumping to conclusions about the waterfront, we should wait until we have “facts” that we can all agree on: within the next few weeks the Albany “Voices to Vision” project will mail out a 20 page “newspaper” chock-a-block with historical and assorted facts. We on the Waterfront Committee (I’m a member speaking for myself here) have neither seen the document nor know its contents, but feel confident the following will be included:
Golden Gate Fields natural state was wetlands mostly, until filled in. Charlie and Michael noticed what we have known before Caruso attempted to build a mall or Catellus to put housing in the north parking lot: the Albany waterfront would return to its natural state — marshland. Further, absent the periodic attempts by GGF to shore up the area, Albany beach naturally would be spreading sand dunes inland toward the corporate yard.
As for the comment about those parts of Albany already underwater, the mudflats and underwater areas of Albany extending into the Bay pretty much have already been transferred into the East Shore State Park, which in turn has already created shore bird sanctuary there. The ball fields in the old south parking lot at Gilman, the Plateau and the Beach at the end of Buchanan already are in the Park, and the Neck and Bulb are currently scheduled to join the Park as well.
Fleming Point, upon which the GGF club house sits, marks the last remaining natural outcrop on our shore. The Bulb, the Plateau, the Neck were dumping grounds, just as the parking lots sit atop landfill.
On the subject of global warming and rising tides, there are multiple web-sites now available with maps that show the new shoreline moving east at various levels: at seven meters increase in ocean level, Bay waters will lap up to San Pablo Avenue along Buchanan, for example. Does that mean we should close down Ocean View school because in a decade it will be under water IF WE DON’T DO SOMETHING NOW TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING?
Lastly, on the subject of doing nothing, that already has been tried in the past with bad results for our City — unfortunately, the owners of GGF have come up with some really crazy ideas to build out the Albany waterfront. Now they are in bankruptcy, with the land up for sale, and a new owner on the horizon who very well may have another crazy new idea to develop our waterfront. Albany has a civic duty to plan for the waterfront. We should not just sit on our hands and wait for the next new bad idea.
Globally, let’s get on board with President Obama to stop global warming before the Bay reaches up to San Pablo Ave, and locally, let’s participate in the upcoming Voices to Vision process.
I think Mr. Blanchard’s and Mr. Barnes take on the Waterfront Visioning Process is certainly thought provoking and very different from what we usually hear from most about our waterfront.
In the beginning I too opposed spend over half a million dollars on the visioning process that, in its infancy, appeared to “vision” the waterfronts private property vis-à-vis Golden Gate Fields. However after hearing the Waterfront Visioning consultant, Fern Tiger, and seeing that she was open to true visioning process that included our entire waterfront, while I still believed we could not afford it I was less apprehensive about the process.
Fern has come up with a unique way to get the community involved with the “voices to vision” newspaper and 20-40 small community meetings so that all that wish to attend may have their voice heard. The meeting process would allow residents, businesses, and other stakeholder groups to attend one meeting out of the 20-40. This is so that meeting cannot be “stacked” with proponents or opponents of one side or the other, a true shared vision.
However this shared vision may already be doomed before it begins. In the most recent Sierra Club Yodeler, Norman La Force, chair of the East Bay Public Lands Committee wrote an article http://sanfranciscobay.sierraclub.org/yodeler/html/2009/05/conservation8.htm questioning the legality of the community meetings and that a member public will only be allowed to attend not all of the meeting he or she wants too.
La Force states I his article “In light of the Brown Act, California’s open-meeting law, the Sierra Club questions whether the city or its consultant can legally bar the public from attending or speaking at more than one meeting. It’s also not clear how the city could enforce this rule. Will the consultant call the police to forcible remove someone from a meeting? Will the police arrest someone who refuses to leave or tries to speak? This rule would limit organizations such as the Sierra Club, Golden Gate Audubon Society, Citizens for East Shore Parks (CESP), Citizens for the Albany Shoreline (CAS), and even the group that opposes our vision, the Albany Waterfront Coalition, in mobilizing people to attend these public meetings. This is incompatible with basic democratic processes and may seriously undermine the legitimacy of this process.”
I would encourage Mr. La Force , The Sierra Club, and any other organization that is concerned about the Albany Waterfront to make your voice heard at the meeting of your choice, but if you truly care about the waterfront as you claim to, don’t pervert the process that Albany taxpayers are paying for. Stacking the deck in meetings or legal challenges will only serve to continue to divide a community that is searching for healing in this process.
In the interest of protecting our community from infiltration by outsiders, vigilance is the watchword. Be on the alert for Sierra Club sympathizers and repeat attendees! Your typical environmentalist can be spotted recycling, may insist on eating organic and/or vegetarian fare, drives a Prius or rides a bicycle to Trader Joe’s (across the border in El Cerrito), and carries groceries in cloth bags. Some may occasionally wear birkenstocks and black socks. Of special concern is the Sierra Club official, Norman LaForce, who from time to time crosses over from a neighboring community in an attempt to express opinions here. Equipped with secret powers, Mr LaForce’s magnetic energy field is capable, upon contact, of spreading concern for the environment among Albany residents–and, he is capable of appearing in several different places at the same time, even while among other things working full-time downtown as a busy trial attorney, teaching a class at Golden Gate University Law School, supporting a family.