From: Cyndy Johnsen
To: CityCouncil-List
Cc: City Clerk; board
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-A (Adaptation Plans)
Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 8:23:45 AM
Attachments: 1-21-CC-Adaptation.pdf
Dear City Council,
We hope you will consider our comments regarding the Adaptation Plans, attached.
Thank you,
Bike Walk Alameda Board
Board of Directors
Denyse Trepanier
President
Brian Fowler
Treasurer
Tim Beloney
Secretary
Cyndy Johnsen
Board Member
Maria Piper
Board Member
Lucy Gigli
Founder, non-voting
January 21, 2025
RE: Item 7-A: Estuary, Bay Farm Island, and Subregional Adaptation Plans Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Members of the City Council, These are vitally important initiatives for Alameda and we fully support them.
Investing in infrastructure that will keep us dry, keep us moving on and off the island safely, and allow for continued enjoyment of assets like the Bay Trail and shoreline is critical.
We wanted to call out a few specific items:
Oakland-Alameda Shoreline Access — There should be good coordination with cross-estuary bicycle and pedestrian projects and stakeholders. Among them, the water shuttle (the landing in Jack London Square will need to be considered), the planned estuary bike bridge (four of the candidate landing locations are within the OAAC project area – three in Oakland and one in Alameda), and the Oakland Alameda Access Project .
Wooden Bridge on Bay Farm Island — We understand that rebuilding this connection is not part of the Veteran’s Court project. Given how important it is to thousands of school children and other users, and how it enables people to make more sustainable transportation choices that are a key part of our resilience strategy, we urge you to ensure that access here is not interrupted.
Open Space (Jean Sweeney Open Space Park) — The goals of the OAAC project include protecting and restoring water quality, habitat, and community resilience. We noted that the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park is within the project area, and wanted to reiterate our concern about the new parking lot that’s proposed for the Aquatic Center. This lot is almost twice the size of the parking lot that’s in the Master Plan, but any new parking lot here, claiming limited open space , would work against the larger project goals. By inducing more driving trips, it will generate emissions and pollution that exacerbate climate and flooding issues in the future. We hope that the need for large parking lots will be carefully studied and rethought in the context of climate change realities that are already here, and will only intensify in the years ahead.
Thank you for your consideration,
Bike Walk Alameda Board
From: Edward Sing
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Michele Pryor; Greg Boller; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen Cc: City Clerk; Patricia Lamborn
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments on 1/21/2025 Alameda City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 7A Date: Friday, January 17, 2025 4:25:36 PM
Attachments: HBP Pathway Parcel 4 Alternatives Scope V02-1 Redacted.pdf 1/21/2025 Alameda City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 7A - Recommendation to Endorse the Concept Designs for the Estuary Adaptation Project and the Bay Farm Island Adaptation Project and to Accept a Status Update on the Subregional Adaptation Plan.
Alameda City Council:
We, the undersigned, wholeheartedly endorse the subject proposal.
In addition, we note that the staff reports for agenda item 7A that the BFI Project consists of developing a design concept up to 30 percent design for a near-term project along the northern shoreline of BFI and a long-term adaptation plan for the entire BFI . The near-term
concept for the BFI project includes a levee to reduce coastal flooding, Bay Trail enhancements, nature-based solutions to reduce erosion and to improve marshes and beach habitat, tide gate and pump station replacements and storm drain modifications.
As members of a group of civic minded Alameda residents, we have been working with the City Public Works Department for the past four years to develop a design for a Bay Trail enhancement through City Parcel 4 located adjacent to Harbor Bay Park. This is an approximate 370 foot reach of the Bay Trail consisting of deteriorating asphalt for which the proposed enhancement consists of replacing the existing, deteriorated trail with pavement design similar to the upstream and downstream improved reaches of concrete paved trail.
Project design was initiated in 2023. A Record of Survey was completed in 2024. See attachments for Design Scope of Work and Plan View of the Design.
Our group asks that you please consider incorporation of the Parcel 4 project into the current or near future BFI Project elements as it meets the project goal of Bay Trail Enhancement and
most likely could easily be modified to incorporate any minor flood control requirements for this area.
Thank you for your consideration of the above.
Patricia Lamborn and Ed Sing
City of Alameda
Harbor Bay Parkway Pathway Gap Closure Concept Alternatives Scope of Work for Civil Design Services
June 9, 2023
Page | 2
shown to be within an existing 17.5-foot wide pathway
easement, which would include removing the existing
distressed AC pathway (including missing curb and gutter section) shown in Figure 3 and extending a similar new AC and Concrete pathway as shown in Figure 4. This will provide a suitable pedestrian facility fronting the roadway and allow the City to add the missing curb and gutter and correct the flow line where water looks to be currently ponding. We can discuss this further to see if the City would like to include this section of missing pathway and curb and gutter with the concept alternatives.
Finally, the City would like complete a Record of Survey for the Parcel 1 boundary.
The purpose of our services will be to provide civil
engineering design to concept alternatives for this planned project by the City. To accomplish the stated purpose, we propose the following scope of services:
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Task 1 – Project Management & Meetings
1A) Project Kick-off Meeting/Progress Meetings:
NCE’s Project Manager will arrange a Kick-Off Meeting with the City to initiate work on the project. The objectives of the Kick-Off Meeting will be:
• Review of the Scope of Work
• Establish Lines of Communication
• Confirm Deadlines
• Establish Project Schedule and Milestones
• Define Design and Operation Criteria
Whether a simple maintenance project or a complex improvement project, it is critical to establish effective lines of communication with, and coordination amongst, the various stakeholders from the start to ensure the delivery a high-quality project within budget and on schedule.
Throughout the project, NCE staff will be available to attend regularly scheduled progress meetings with the City (maximum of 2), to maintain good communications. The purpose of the progress meetings will be to identify and resolve any design or funding issues that may surface in a timely manner, present design alternatives and recommendations to City staff, and continue coordination with project stakeholders as necessary.
Deliverables: Kick-off/Progress meeting agendas and summaries Task 2 – Plans, Specifications & Estimates (PS&E)
The work that will be performed during the development of design PS&E are outlined in the subsequent tasks. 2A) Design Data Gathering:
NCE will review relevant available data and records from the City, and other sources that may be appropriate to support the preparation of project documents. The gathered information will be compiled and included with the City provided topographic survey that will be used as the basis for design.
Figure 4 - Second possible pathway gap closure along Harbor Bay Parkway
City of Alameda
Harbor Bay Parkway Pathway Gap Closure Concept Alternatives Scope of Work for Civil Design Services
June 9, 2023
Page | 3
2B) Record of Survey:
NCE's survey subconsultant, Mountain Pacific Surveys, will (i) perform research of relevant recorded maps and title documents (maps, deeds, title reports, survey control, etc.), (ii) perform pre-field calculations in support of the field survey effort, (iii) dispatch a survey field crew to the project to search, recover, and tie-out controlling boundary monumentation, (iv) process field data and perform boundary analysis and calculations, (v) prepare, process, and record a Record of Survey map through the County, and (vi) return to the site to set iron pipe or similar durable monuments at each property corner of the subject Parcel 4.
An additional fee allowance is provided should the City need a legal description & plat in support of the acquisition of an easement for the small portion of the path currently encroaching over the adjacent Parcel 1.
Deliverables: Record of Survey and if needed legal description and plat. 2C) Concept Alternatives
Based on design data gathering, discussions with the City and stakeholders, and the City provided topographic survey data, NCE will then develop two (2) concept alternatives that will generally include a very basic concept level design sheet for each alternative with a map view and typical cross-section view. These concept level design sheets will depict basic trail layout, basic wall structure, Right-of-Way (ROW), and regulatory jurisdictional tide level lines. We will also develop a high-level construction cost estimate for each concept alternative, this will not include fair market value analysis to acquire the dog leg portion of Parcel 1. The concept alternatives will be prepared in AutoCAD format on 24” x 36” sheets, drawn at a scale of 1” = 20’. It is assumed that the City will require a 15-day review/comment period once the concept alternatives are submitted. We also anticipate developing concept alternatives that graphically are easy to understand and convey alternatives clearly for the City to share with outside stakeholders and community members as needed.
Deliverables: Draft and fin al concept alternatives sheets for each alternative including typical sections and concept level cost for construction, excluding property acquisition costs.
SCHEDULE
We have assumed that the notice to proceed and kick-off meeting will occur in June 2023 and once we have conducted the kick-off meeting and project objectives are clear we will develop a detailed project design schedule.
FEE ESTIMATE
NCE will provide the defined scope of work on a time and materials basis for an estimated fee of $32,500 in acc
ordance with the attached detailed fee estimate and schedule of charges. Total compensation will not exceed the amounts set forth without receipt of prior written authorization from the City.
Pages 4-7 redacted as it contains contract info.
From: Paul Beusterien
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Michele Pryor; Tracy Jensen; Greg Boller; Jennifer Ott; City Clerk Cc: Gail Payne; Danielle Mieler
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-A: Supporting Adaptation Projects Date: Tuesday, January 14, 2025 7:52:29 PM
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to urgently request your support and full funding for the adaptation projects in Item 7-A, specifically the Bay Farm Adaptation Project. As a Bay Farm resident, I've witnessed firsthand the alarming and accelerated erosion of our northern shoreline this past winter.
The attached photo shows submerged irrigation lines at high tide, a clear sign of the severe land loss occurring and a threat to nearby homes. Compounding this, the 100-year floodplain is expanding, placing more residents at high risk and forcing many to pay increasingly expensive flood insurance.
City staff has done excellent work in assessing these risks and creating comprehensive plans for immediate, near, and long-term action. I implore you to not just endorse their work but to move swiftly to implement it.
Let’s ensure Alameda is a resilient and sustainable community, now and for future generations.
Sincerely,
Paul Beusterien
December 11, 2024
Gail Payne,
Project Manager,
City of Alameda
Dear Ms. Payne,
The Board members of the Jean Sweeney Park Open Space Park Fund do not believe that using the open space area of the park is a proper place to send brackish street runoff water. The Placeworks design for the park voted on by the City Council on July 5th, 2016 and the presentation by then ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge indicates that the area wanted for storage of the runoff water is planned for an urban forest of California native trees, especially California Costal Oak trees.
The Alameda resiliency plan also directs the need for trees to be planted in Alameda to help with global warming. It is unfortunate that the lack of funding has delayed the final build out of this planed use for the Jean Sweeney Park.
Our concern for the plan to send street runoff water into the Park are 1st, it is a use that is not conducive with the vision Jean Sweeney had for open space, and 2nd it is not conducive for the long term plan to create this environment as a person friendly place for all of Alameda citizens to have to enjoy being outside.
Alameda Recreation and Parks Department studies report that during the rainy season the ground water level in the Park is only 18” . That means there will not be room for the added street runoff water to properly dissipate into the soil in the 24 to 48 hours required by the present plan. If the street runoff water cannot dissipate, the Park will remain a swamp environment not conducive to public use. Street runoff water is not clean and will leave toxic substances on the surface of the Park land where children will be visiting to use the planned trails through out the Park. After years of sending street runoff into the Park, the soil used to dissipate the toxic water will need to be removed and the area completely re-soiled and replanted. We do not see any part of the proposed plan that provides funding for that to happen. As we know by the fact that funding has not been available for finishing the approved plan for the major portion of the Park, that funding is always an issue, and it is not assured that funding would be available to repair the Park in any future date. The soil left in the center of the Park, which is a major portion of the Park, would no longer be safe as a place for the public, especially children, to use for open space activities.
Since the vision of Jean Sweeney and the public, when they voted to protect this land to be usable open space, would no longer be a safe place for public use, we do not see this as a good plan for the use of the open space in the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park.
Respectfully,
Dorothy Freeman
Co-Chairman
Exhibit 3
Jean Sweeney Open Space Park Fund
cc: Justin Long ARPD Director