Click this link to optimize Open Forum for screen readers Skip to Content
Open Forum
Opengov

Please use the three tabs on this page to give feedback on ideas City staff have assembled for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing Alameda's resilience to the impacts of climate change.

96 registered annotations

I don't understand why this would be questioned unless it means that Teslas would be at a disadvantage since they require their own charging equipment. Seems obvious to do this since it looks like it has the highest impact. Good idea. We should be pushing for EVs but even more effort should be put into mass transit, biking and walking. I thought this was already a done deal. A financial incentive like this gives the community a feeling like we are all doing this positive action (buying EVs) together. It is a good carrot. We should have protected bike lanes throughout the city. Ridership would rise exponentially. Every bike rider is one less car on the road. Make Alameda the Amsterdam of the West!! Will be a tough one to sell to businesses, but worth the effort. How can we not do this if we are going to be promoting greater EV ownership? Definitely should do this. We should convert 4-way intersections into roundabouts where possible. This would reduce carbon emissions and save the city on the cost of stoplights. Don't we already do this?? We should definitely plant more trees!! We should have a "hard to recycle" station on the island--similar to the one in El Cerrito. The station would accept all types of recycling, including film plastic and Styrofoam. Not only good for the environment, but also for the health of gardeners. This should already be in place! Definitely should do this. All sprinkler systems should be converted to ones that are connected to the weather forecast. There should be financial penalties for property owners who allow their sprinklers to run when the ground is wet. All sprinkler systems should be linked to the weather forecast. ARPD overwaters Washington Park. The turf there is often marshy. Also, they hose down the tennis courts weekly. Direct ARPD to do a better job of conserving water. This seems like a fairly low cost measure, but I'm curious how the total reduction was quantified. This seems to imply that standardization would lead to a LOT of electric vehicle adoption; what's the basis for that analysis? EV-only lanes seem like they would disadvantage lower income individuals, and wouldn't address our ongoing traffic congestion problems during peak periods. I like this idea, and think that closing that gap would be great. However, I wonder if it actually reduces GHG emissions or just shifts them to another community that hasn't committed to 100% sustainable energy? This is a flat-out cash giveaway to more well-off homeowners -- renters and lower income people do not have the option to purchase EVs. Also, it seems that we can meet most of our goals with lower cost items. I would happily accept this during peak hours/peak directions only, provided that carpools are allowed access to the existing bus-only facilities and are not charged. This is a very difficult goal, which is why I believe we should adopt it -- keep the momentum, and the ideas flowing, so that if some things fall through or are less effective we've at least made more progress than otherwise. While we should preserve a limited amount of lawn/playing fields, there's very little reason for most public spaces to have grass rather than native drough-tolerant landscaping Agree with the annotation below; as with setting a zero waste goal, an ambitious goal drives us to think about more than incremental changes. I believe we can meet this goal by fostering industries that work to sequester carbon (aquaculture, carbon farming to restore soil health and fertility, etc.) especially on Alameda Point. We could also supply any excess of compost to neighboring cities to help restore their soil health and sequester carbon. This could be a great opportunity to engage Alameda residents and schools to educate them more broadly about carbon sequestration potential from urban planting. Strongly agree that this is an easy win; with carbon-neutral electricity supply, this is a great move. The noise reduction is also incredibly valuable to quality of life in Alameda. Adding my agreement with the previous comments. Let's lead by example and attempt our best. The City needs to ensure that any new (or existing) transit connections to the rest of the Bay Area are easily accessible. An AC Transit bus from the ferry stops to either Webster or Park would go a long way to easing commutes. Incentives could include subsidy for greywater installation, water capture systems, installation of composting toilets. Involving healthcare in planning is key. Has there been any discussion of the viability of desalination for Alameda? I think a big omission in this GHG Reduction plan is not talking about bolstering ferry usage across the island. This should be better promoted and supported. A free shuttle that takes people to/from the ferry should be deemed a priority. Also, anything that can be done to increase ridership would go a long way (more scheduled trips, improved weekend coverage, increased public awareness, etc) Yes! This has the additional benefit of sequestering carbon very efficiently and helping mitigate sea level rise and brackish water intrusion. Bus-only lanes would make a much bigger difference than EV-only lanes, and would be more equitable. Making real change requires getting more people out of cars, not just changing the type of cars. Something that will help with this is moving AMP's retail electricity rates from a tiered rate structure (ex. cheaper rates for the first 260 monthly kWh, and more expensive beyond that) to either a flat $/kWh rate, or a Time of Use rate. Tiered rating has been beneficial for incentivizing from energy efficiency, but it is a strong disincentive for building electrification, which adds to a customer's electric load. Alternatively, a program for this could work similarly to the EV charging rates, granting customers discounts on their retail rates for all-electric appliances installed to replace natural gas appliances (ex. heat pump water heaters, heat pump space heating). Very interested in helping to make this happen. Moreso if we are talking about fruit trees to increase underresourced communities' access to food. Agree with the comment that most emphasis should be put on bike paths, walking access, and affordable public transportation. In agreement with previous comments supporting the higher goal. We simply must act in order to reduce the rate of global climate destabilization in all its forms. NOW. As long as every brand and type of EV can use these stations I am all for it. The City of Alameda should not be discriminating against or promoting any particular charging standard or vehicle brand, only making universal stanndards available and encouraging maximum adoption of EVs. Congestion pricing works and would help reduce single-occupancy vehicle use. I am not sure where we would put toll or FASTRAK lanes but congestion pricing DOES work. If we can find a technically workable option, I am all for it on major roads and all of our entry/exit points (bridges, tubes, etc.). This is a no-brainer. AMP could produce lots of electricity here on the island if it had access to major buildings' rooftops. Larger-scale installations could offer buildings and commercial enterprises like shopping centers energy self-sufficiency (partial or whole) as well as reduced energy (HVAC, etc.) bills... I have supported this concept for years. It reduces lots of GHGs and we have decent transit. At the same time that free or low-cost transit passes are provided, we must ensure that transit becomes MORE CONVENIENT to use and more widely accessible by working with AC Transit to improve service and reduce headways. (Improving service will help at least as much as providing free passes, IMHO.) Similarly, if transit service is reduced or severely impaired in other ways, free passes would not work at all. In addition to reducing GHGs, banning noisy two-stroke gas mowers and blowers would save lots of hearing. (I have tinnitus and associated hearing loss: the gas blowers and mowers are a PAIN to listen to. Literally.) Rakes are even quieter than electric blowers, BTW... If the City of Alameda implements methane-capture technologies to "harvest" methane from the waste stream and distributes electrical power produced by burning the methane, does this produce a net reduction in our carbon footprint? City and AMP incentives -- perhaps combined with subsidizing solar installations in homes and businesses that would help charge EVs -- would help stimulate EV and other "green" vehicle purchase alongside state and federal incentives. How can we develop low-cost ways to provide incentives at the city level? HOw can we use incentives like these to help provide an equitable set of benefis to all residents -- renters, homeowners, rich, and poor -- and not just offer economic benefits to those who are well off already? Yes, planting trees would help and we should definitely do that. But I would also like to reiterate what Richard Bangert of Alameda Point Environmental Report wrote in his recent Alameda Sun article "City Misses Chance to Embrace Wetlands". He wrote (quote): "This action plan should include adding wetlands at Alameda Point. Add tidal canals on the Nature Reserve leading to new wetlands that will absorb storm surges. In certain areas, build up the elevation beyond worst- case sea-level rise with clean soil dredged from the Bay that would otherwise be dumped into the ocean. "This will provide valuable soil that can be planted with vegetation that absorbs carbon dioxide and provide habitat for birds, bees and the web of life that cannot exist on concrete pavement overtaken by sea-level rise." "Our Island City — surrounded by water — should embrace wetlands and natural solutions in its climate- action plan. The city’s Town Center and Waterfront Plan calls for removing pavement from the west side of the Seaplane Lagoon and creating an engineered wetland shoreline to naturally adapt to rising sea level and climate change. It also envisions the construction of floating wetlands anchored near the shore for additional biological value." "It was given the name “De-Pave Park.” It is directly adjacent to an existing wetland on the federal property and is a prime opportunity to create one big wetland directly connected to the Bay. De-Pave Park should not be omitted from the city’s climate-action plan. It should be a marquee project. Hundreds of acres of pavement on the federal property, which the city zoned as Nature Reserve, have also been disregarded. It’s part of our city, region and planet and should be included." (Back to my own words, now.) I have been a resident of Alameda for four years and have been impressed with the city and it's initiatives to do the right thing on many issues. The way we fight climate change should be seen as not only a challenge but an opportunity to show leadership to other communities like ourselves. As Mr. Bangert says we SHOULD embrace this solution. It is very disappointing to me that they have not yet been incorporated into the plan. But it is not too late. And it makes sense on every level. Please reintroduce the wetlands concept for these areas as proposed. Thank you for considering my views. Chase R Martin 1423 Walnut Street, Alameda Push push push Streamlining permitting and installation processes is critical. The city should be technology neutral. Incentives for greater adoption should be explored. Outreach and training for installers should also be explored if installation bottlenecks exist. The more ambition, the better Outreach is critical. However, I question the emissions reductions attributed to the outreach. In addition, outreach should not be limited to ZEV/LEVs, but also to public transit, and walking and biking. Incentive programs should be considered as well, perhaps through AMP as it relates to using ZEVs as batteries to help with renewable energy grid integration. Interesting idea. I think more bus only lanes, road diets, and more bike lanes are better solutions. The City and its citizens should do everything possible to bring down our GG emissions, including urban farming, 100% renewable energy via solar panels everywhere possible and perhaps wind or tidal generation. AMP should invest in battery banks to make neighborhoods energy independent. We should also be supporting carbon sequestration projects at the Point. It's time to think beyond the box. This would be so nice, and a good way to recognize the role AC Transit has in making the connection between Alameda and Oakland! Could City potentially control costs by providing only to households within half mile of the high quality transit corridor through 94501? Plantings to be determined (not only by tolerance to drought -and temporary flooding), but also by provision of essential ecological services, such as food, habitat, and pollinator support. Species appropriate tree selection to replace dying and diseased trees. Add new trees for shade, food, flood mitigation, and beauty. Prunings from trees to be used for compost to help build soil resilience to drought. There is growing community support for rain water catchment systems to be used for outdoor irrigation. Because our seasons are wet/dry this is especially convenient, as rain water captured over winter months provides water for outdoor irrigation over the summer dry months. Rain water capture also provides a source of emergency fresh water in case of an emergency, such as an earthquake or power blackout (provided filter, still, or other purification method). The Arid Lands Institute - https://aridlands.org/ provides tools to survey and design city wide systems for rain and storm water catchment, as a means to fresh water conservation and security. Installation of self-owned meters for units in HOA and other housing boards, so individuals can meter their individual water consumption, and quickly track leaks. This self-owned metering for multi-unit housing, and individual consumption reviewed by the housing boards, will ensure that water gets conserved, without adding additional fees (via EBMUD). There is growing community interest for Greywater reuse on landscape as well as Greywater reuse for flushing toilets. Incentives for grey water systems, and at the very least the "Laundry to Landscape" which does not require a permit in CA. Alameda is well suited for Greywater systems as the sandy soil diminishes concerns over standing water, nevertheless follow the CA code the Greywater can not be stored for more than 24 hours. Resources: https://greywateraction.org/publications/ Select species appropriate trees : good/uniform canopy for shade, drought and salt tolerate, appropriate height and rate of growth. Trees to be evaluated for tolerance to temporary flooding. Root structure to match local application : close to buildings and infrastructure plant species with non destructive root structure, such as palms. Adopt a tree: members of public to do volunteer care for a new city trees. Baby trees can be provided with a vessel (olla) for irrigation on a schedule. Tree parents to monitor health and care for their adopted trees. A community of tree parents to keep a survey and log of temperature / weather effects on the state of each tree, and provide an educational forum on tree health over time of Alameda's changing climate. This is one of the better strategies, as it reduces traffic. How to create incentives for employers to use video/teleconferencing and allow for working remotely ? Trees are extremely important for stabilizing our climate, sequestering CO2, and providing many other local ecological services such as habitat, food, pollen, and protection for wildlife.Trees help to mitigate flooding by their transevaporative function. Trees make the island more comfortable and attractive. City trees that die off (often due to disease) are to be replaced with a selection of trees appropriate to location and the changing climate and related conditions- such as salt water intrusion, drought and flooding. I support Richard Bangert's proposal to prioritize wetlands as a means to mitigate impacts of sea level rise, and support inclusion of the De-Pave Park project in the city's Climate Action Plan. Local food systems align with zero waste goals - they reduce need for packaging, reduce GHG emissions, sequester CO2, while providing access to and availability of inexpensive nutritious food. (Local food systems reduce the reliance on the ecologically damaging, and petro chemical dependent industrial agriculture.) Support and protect community and personal gardens, (and the potential for vertically grown food along fences, in green houses (aqua & hydroponic) and programs to educate and encourage people to grow their own food. Education to help people evaluate their food choices and the environmental impacts there of : what you eat, how far it travels, what chemicals are applied onto the crop, etc. including GHG emissions and pollutants from transport, energy and water consumption, farm pollutants such as excess nitrogen creating dead zones in water ways, soil degradation due to the application of glyphosate / N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine. Healtheir choices means healthier people / less reliance on health care industry - again eliminating waste. Why not ban all leaf blowers ? People are always blowing the leaves into the storm drains. The blower should be reversed (many models do this) and used to suck the leaves up, (and even better shred them) into a bag for composting. Apply compost to sequester CO2, increase biodiversity, extend water retention of soils (mitigating drought and flooding), and provide areas to host edible landscapes. Urban areas now maintain more biodiversity than most agricultural areas. For ex Debra Solomon discussing her project Urbaniahoeve, where value is added through ecological layering https://youtu.be/H_-bNm_g9zc In my opinion, Alameda should be vigorously defended from SLR (both bay encroachment and groundwater rise). I'm in favor of all strategies which support that goal in the most sustainable and responsible manner possible. I believe the cost of doing so - whatever it may be - will be a fraction of the cost of not doing so. Other locations, particularly in the northeast bay, may lend themselves to a managed retreat scenario, but Alameda should be defended for the foreseeable future both by its own actions in the near term and then later by regionally managed infrastructure improvements. Let me also say that I am very pleased with the City's approach to this existential challenge. Keep up the good work! This should be non-negotiable. AMP must provide 100% carbon-free electricity. They should strongly consider closing the 5% gap by generating electricity on the Island - with wind and/or tidal generation, and solar panels backed by neighborhood grids with battery storage. Great idea. The more we move towards zero carbon energy independence in Alameda, the better. This idea would be relatively easy to implement, and would show that the City is putting it's money where its intentions are. This is a great idea on many levels, sequestering carbon, keeping our soils healthy, helping people grow their own food. Trees store carbon, add shade as we heat up, provide shelter and food for wildlife, and, if they include fruit trees, provide food for our community as well. I want to give a shout out to Eric Kos at the Alameda Sun for supporting Alameda Backyard Growers' Project Tree, which will be helping Alamedans purchase discounted trees again in 2019. I also support Richard Bangert's proposal for using wetlands as much as possible to mitigate sea level rise. Great idea! Free bus travel would help citizens connect to regional transportation services, including the ferry and BART, and leave their cars at home. We should have strict enforceable water usage regulations. I used to have a neighbor who left his sprinkler on for hours in the middle of hot days. We should be able to easily report this type of over watering. The City should also start developing ways catch winter rainwater for summer usage. This should include water leaks on public and private properties. All of these ideas should be encouraged through education and incentives by the City, especially planting trees and green roofs. Tree removal should be monitored by the City, and replacement trees encouraged. I agree - building up and protecting wetlands helps support wildlife, sequesters carbon and helps mitigate sea level rise. By growing our food locally, we can greatly reduce water and energy consumption. Reflecting on the recent drought, https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/wheres-californias-water-going/ helps to remind us how vulnerable our fresh water supply is. And in turn, so is our food supply. By expanding and supporting local food growing programs we can significantly reduce GHG emissions as we build food security locally. The environmental costs of industrial agriculture are externalized, and go unaccounted for: this includes the deadzones that result from nitrogen fertilizers, and degradation of soil due to use of petro chemicals & pesticide/herbicides such as glyphosate, as well as the cost of healthcare to treat chronic illnesses that result from foods grown by the industrial agriculture model. Locally grown food is to be promoted in every form - community gardens to businesses that can grow, prepare and distribute healthy food locally. Where space is limited, vertical hydroponic can be used to maximize output - such as this vertical greenhouse in Jackson Wyoming https://www.verticalharvestjackson.com/. Our planned actions should be in proportion to the scale of the problem. Accordingly, I believe it's our moral responsibility to be as ambitious as possible. Our grandchildren are counting on us! I'd like to see us push for more ferry departures to more destinations to support more people to go car-free. I support this action - during the severe smoke of 2018, I don't think the public fully understood the danger. Doesn't this already exist? We just need to publicize it better Again, aren't we already doing this? Why not focus on sourcing better masks This is a terrific idea - especially for families and elders Does the current science support this? Sure, but I think it's important that we recognize that our healthcare system (as terrific as the people working there are) is a sick care system and is not primarily a public health function. I think we should draw on our fitness centers, body work professionals and nutritionists to assist - they are the experts at well care. Is the EBMUD rate scheduling structured to incentivize water conservation ? The high flat fees of the EBMUD rate schedule may not incentivize serious water conservation. The rate structure : https://www.ebmud.com/water/water-rates/ The current flat fees for an account (bi-monthly billing cycle for 5/8" or 3/4" pipe) are $79.96 as follows : $49.26 flat fee for water service charge $30.30 flat fee for waste water treatment charge $0.40 SF Bay Pollution Prevention Fee.) Using my own bill as an example I will compare my last bill 10/23- 12/26 of 2018, totalling $82.72. After the flat fees, only $3.76 was for the amount of water I used, 1 unit (or 1HCF), in a 2 month period. (1 HCF is the minimum -748gallons) Compare this rate w that for water & sewer treatment in Boston. In Boston, for the same amount of water usage, this bill would have been $24.90 for a 2 month period, (or $12.45 x 2 months). Why ? Because Boston uses an accerlerated rate schedule with no flat fees. See Boston's 2018 rates on p.20 http://mwraadvisoryboard.com/document-library/. Note : Boston's Water delivery and sewage treatment is fully funded by rate payers (Enterprise), and Boston's rate payer water consumption is down 27.5% since 2009 (see p.21). Passive solar hot water on roofs and carports as well. Strategy 5, increase dune management /expansion of the vegetated dunes (segment 3), is the most effective and offers the most benefits. That would involve a design that serves to expand habitat areas for shore birds and other wildlife, as well as one that can serve the existing recreational uses of the beach. I don't know the costs, but this will continue to attract visitors, and thus in some part pay for itself. Strategy 4, widen the shoreline (segment 2), to prevent erosion and secure the lagoon pumping station (is there an alternative ?) In addressing this area, please consult the kiter/windsurfer community as that is the designated launching/landing area at Boardsports. Strategy 2, study ground water along Shoreline, yes I think it will be neccessary. What are the options and cost for hydrological surveys ? Strategy 6, longterm monitoring and threshold plans, seems important. Isn't this likely to be cost effective in the long term ? I support congestion pricing. Also consider less regressive measures such as providing free feeder services to transit centers (i.e., free shuttle/AC transit passes to ferries, 12th St/Fruitvale BART, etc.) This sounds good. Also consider modifying the building code to disincentive natural gas appliances. Specifically, require that certain electric systems be installed, like electric air source heat pumps for space heating. Also include fees on natural gas use (perhaps in new build) to offset its contribution to climate change and help fund rebates for appliance retrofits in existing buildings. Solar thermal as a replacement for natural gas water/space heating sounds great and should be incentivized. Solar PV is more cost effective as utility scale. This sounds great, but is this legal? PG&E is the deliverer, how does the city instill a ban? A work around may specific electrification requirements via the building code coupled with incentives to electrify. The incentives could be funded in part by a fee on natural gas appliance installations. Yes! Consider road diets coupled with dedicated bike/pedestrian infrastructure expansion a la Shoreline. Also, better connections needed to Main Street ferry.

Greenhouse Gas Reduction - Introduction

Alameda first began working on GHG reduction in 2008

The most recent study of current GHG emissions in Alameda was in our 2015 greenhouse gas emissions inventory. That study found that Alameda has one of the lowest per capita rates of greenhouse gas emissions in the Bay Area. A pie chart showing our emissions is below.

Alameda is building on the 2008 climate action plan with a new Climate Action and Resiliency Plan to be completed mid-2019. In this plan, we looked at how much we're expecting to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 based on changes the City is already planning on making: providing carbon neutral electricity through Alameda Municipal Power, building more bike lanes, and so forth. We're asking for the community's input on how much more we should do, beyond what's already planned. To help guide that discussion, we showed how much more we would need to reduce emissions in order to be in line with the targets set by the State of California for 2030 (40% below 2005 levels) and targets that we've seen the most ambitious cities aiming for (50% below 2005 levels). To give a sense of what we'll be aiming for later on, we also show the size of reductions needed to reduce our emissions 80% below what they were in 2005, our baseline year.

In the next section, we'll ask you whether you think the City and community should set our greenhouse gas emissions reduction target as "ambitious" (40% below 2005 levels) or "visionary" (50% below 2005 levels), and which actions you think we should prioritize as a pathway to reaching those goals. When selecting the greenhouse gas reduction goal, it is important to remember that the bar chart above, showing how much additional reduction we need for each goal, is based on an assumption that we will perfectly implement all of the plans and actions in the table below. We show a list of the actions we're assuming are implemented below.

Greenhouse Gas Reduction - Give Input

We got about 160 ideas for greenhouse gas reduction actions from the workshops we did in September. Through the expertise of City staff and our climate action consultant, we consolidated and whittled those down to about 40 actions that we analyzed in more detail. Below we present the proposed actions along with an estimate of how much greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions they'll reduce per year in 2030.

Please click on the icon next to the proposed actions and leave a comment to tell us if you want this action to be prioritized, and if you have any other feedback or suggestions about it. The feedback you give here will influence the which actions we list as top priority in the draft plan. We will also use your input to make sure we get the details of the actions right, since you may have insights we haven't yet thought of. 

Before the list of actions is an opportunity to vote on whether you want the City to adopt an "ambitious" (40% greenhouse gas reduction by 2030) or a "visionary" (50% greenhouse gas reduction by 2030) goal for greenhouse gas reduction. Vote by clicking on the  icon next to the greenhouse gas goal you want the City to adopt. Greenhouse gas reduction strategies, with estimated reductions, are presented right afterwards. You can use that table to figure out which actions add up to how much in reductions, although the way we did the analysis means that implementing some actions will mean that the reduction from other actions is less than what is listed.

Drought, Heat, and Wilfire Smoke - Introduction

The impacts of climate change that are being considered in this plan are flooding due to sea level rise, flooding due to more intense rainstorms (though there will be less rain overall), rising temperatures, drought, and wildfire smoke. We are also considering earthquakes, since they are a major hazard in Alameda and as the sea level rises, groundwater will rise too, which can cause the soil in Alameda to act like a liquid instead of a solid during an earthquake. This phenomenon is called "liquefaction."

For this workshop, we are asking for input on strategies to address wildfire smoke, heat, and drought separately from strategies to address flooding. That's because flooding happens in specific areas that we can more or less predict, and the strategies to address flooding often require engineering knowledge. Heat, smoke, and drought, on the other hand, aren't impacts we can physically build a wall or an oyster reef to protect against. The best way to address them is probably by using a number of strategies at once, and fortunately, many of those strategies will have a much smaller price tag than what is needed to deal with flooding. As a result, we've grouped the strategies for those three impacts below for your input.

The exact nature of the changes we can expect from heat, wildfire smoke, and drought is even less predictable than what we can expect from flooding. For those who want to dig into the science, the most up-to-date projections for California are available at http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/.

  • For heat, we can expect to see more heat waves, more extremely hot days, and more warm nights, which can be dangerous because it doesn't allow the body to fully cool down.
  • For drought, we can expect more of it as part of a more extreme "boom and bust" climate cycle in California that has very wet and very dry years. The Sierra snowpack, which is the main reservoir of water in the state, could shrink significantly.
  • For wildfire, thankfully we are not at risk of the fires themselves, but we do deal with the hazardous smoke. As climate change progresses, wildfires will likely become more frequent and more severe.

A summary of how Alameda is vulnerable to these three different impacts is below.

Drought, Heat, and Wildfire Smoke - Give Input

Below is a list of the current strategies under consideration. Many of these strategies came from the last round of community workshops in Septemer 2018. Please leave your feedback on strategies you are interested in by clicking the next to that strategy. The types of feedback that will be most helpful for us include:

  • Should we prioritize this strategy?
  • Suggestions for how to improve this strategy
  • Suggestions for how to implement this strategy
  • If this strategy has a physical location (like a cooling center), suggestions for where it should be located

After the list of strategies there is an opportunity to suggest any actions that are not described on the list here.

Sea Level Rise & Flooding - Introduction

One of the most significant climate change risks Alameda faces is due to sea level rise. Flooding from intense rainstorms is also a risk, but is not the focus of feedback for this workshop. For guidance, Alameda is following the most up-to-date science from the State of California, which is available at the following link: http://www.opc.ca.gov/updating-californias-sea-level-rise-guidance/. Sea level rise science is very unpredictable. Not only do we not know how much greenhouse gas emissions we will emit over the next few decades, which will make a big difference in how high seas rise, we also don't know how fast the ocean will rise for a given level of greenhouse gas emissions. All this makes forecasting the future very difficult.

For planning purposes, the City is focused mostly on what will be affected when water levels are 36 inches higher than today's high tide. We chose that number because that's the level of water at which significant flooding, beyond what already occurs today, starts to happen. That number also happens to be about the same as the 100-year storm, which is the basis of the FEMA floodplain maps released in 2018. According to the State of California, if we are to be "highly risk averse," then we might expect that 36" of sea level rise - meaning that level of water would occur every day at high tide - would happen around the year 2070. Under the same scenario, water would begin to rise very quickly at that point, reaching a high tide seven feet higher than today's around 2100. It is possible that the ocean will rise by significantly less than that, however, or by even more. If you want to see what flooding would be like at different water levels if we didn't implement any flood protection, you can do so at https://explorer.adaptingtorisingtides.org/home.

Because of the uncertainty, and the fact that 36 inches is a "threshold" for significant flooding, we chose to focus on areas affected at 36 inches above current high tide first. To further hone our analysis, we only looked at areas that weren't already covered in other plans. For example, Alameda Point is being planned for in the Master Infrastructure Plan. Ultimately, this approach led the team to focus on six priority areas along the shoreline, two of which are the focus for public input. The best solution for the other four - the seawall near the Posey and Webster Tubes, the Veteran's Court seawall, the Bay Farm Island Bridge touchdown area on the Alameda side, and the Harbor Bay Lagoon system tide gate structure - is probably some kind of elevated barrier, like a wall, and is difficult to discuss without engineering expertise. The two that are the focus for the workshop, the Eastshore shoreline and Crown Beach, have a number of possible options, and it is not clear what is the best path forward.

Below are instructions for giving feedback on proposed strategies for the two priority areas. For each, we present six strategies. In some cases, more than one of the strategies can be pursued at once. The strategies were developed based on the expertise of our consultant, but also reflect the input we got on sea level rise at the first workshop, which included a priority on groundwater issues and a preference for nature-based solutions. More specific instructions will be given below the map discussed in the next paragraph.

If you have any comments about the other stretches of shoreline, you can drop them on the map below at locations marked with the symbol. Many of the areas on this map are addressed in a different plan, like the Master Infrastructure Plan for Alameda Point, and are marked as such. Comments on those areas are welcome but may be less directly applicable to the outcome of the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan. The "priority areas" for the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan are drawn from the areas that had not yet been covered in previous plans. The full list of strategies for all priority areas will be available for the draft Climate Action and Resiliency Plan, which will be presented for public comment in April.

Sea Level Rise & Flooding - Give Input

The City is asking for your input on which adaptation strategies should be pursued for the shoreline areas we're considering at this workshop: Crown Beach and the Eastshore shoreline. Key information about the two sites as well as potential strategies that could be pursued there are summarized in the pages below. We're asking for your input on the Discussion Questions below the strategies for each site. These are the same Discussion Questions that were used at the in-person workshop.

To provide your input, click the icon next to each Discussion Question and write your response. There is a lot of background information first - you have to scroll for a while! The first two pages are for Crown Beach; the second two pages are for the Eastshore shoreline.

2
   Which strategy best meets the criteria below?
+
   What are the tradeoffs you considered?
+
   What additional information is needed?
+
   Which strategy best meets these criteria?
+
   What considerations should be taken into account?
+
   What other information would be helpful?
4
   Standardize EV charging stations
4
   Promote low- and zero-emission vehicles
3
   Electric vehicle only lanes
3
   Congestion pricing (2050)
3
   100% carbon neutral electricity
3
   Incentivize ownership of electric vehicles
2
   Convert existing buildings to all electric
4
   Increase rooftop solar
2
   Ban on natural gas
2
   More bike lanes
2
   Telecommuting
1
   Promote EV charger installations by businesses
2
   Electrify the City's fleet of vehicles
1
   Synchronize traffic signals
4
   Apply compost in Alameda parks
6
   Plant 1,500 more trees
3
   Citywide EasyPass program
+
   Ban new gas appliances
+
   Zero net energy for new construction
+
   Green roofs
2
   Zero waste culture in Alameda (2050)
4
   Ban gas powered leaf blowers
1
   New BART tube (2050)
+
   Vote for 40% greenhouse gas emissions reduction
8
   Vote for 50% greenhouse gas emissions reduction
2
   Heat islands
+
   Green infrastructure
+
   Heat-tolerant landscaping
+
   Cooling centers
+
   Cooling into building requirements
2
   Shade tree codes
2
   Wetland restoration and living shorelines
+
   Heat alert system
+
   Multilingual communication
+
   Restrict outdoor work hours
1
   Wildfire smoke alert system
1
   Daily notices of air quality with health advice
1
   Provide masks at different locations in Alameda
1
   Air quality centers for respite from smoke
1
   Restrict certain outdoor activities
2
   Involve hospitals in planning
2
   Citywide water conservation program
3
   Drought-resistant landscaping
3
   Reduce outdoor water use
1
   Increase public awareness of Alameda water supply
2
   Provide incentives to encourage water conservation
1
   Water use restrictions
1
   System for detecting water leaks
2
   Work with EBMUD to improve water conservation
2
   Explore recycled water and groundwater for use
+
   Doolittle Drive 2
+
   Doolittle Drive 1
+
   Harbor Bay Lagoon tide gate structure and dike
+
   Veteran's Court seawall
+
   Alameda Point
+
   Northern Waterfront 1
+
   Northern Waterfront 2
+
   Posey and Webster Tubes
+
   Alameda Landing
+
   Eastshore shoreline
+
   Crown Beach
+
   Bay Farm Island Bridge touchdown area