Assemblymember Mia Bonta may again need to be called upon to fix a problem land use designation in Alameda.
There is a major strip of land, dubbed the Central Corridor, through the center of Alameda Point that is designated state “tidelands,” even though the open water tidelands were filled in by the Navy 80 years ago. According to the California State Lands Commission, tidelands are to be held in trust for the people of the entire state, allowing only maritime, resource protection, or visitor serving uses. “Uses that do not accommodate, promote, foster or enhance the statewide public’s need for essential commercial services or their enjoyment of tidelands are not appropriate uses for public trust lands,” states this Overview of Public Trust Doctrine.
Currently, City Hall West, two blocks of lawn, a fire station, a hangar, some buildings of limited value, a parking lot, and an empty block of tarmac occupy the “tidelands” corridor and serve no tidelands purposes.
Property designated as tidelands prohibit certain uses, such as housing, general manufacturing, local municipal uses, schools, hospitals, and generally anything that can be located somewhere else. The designation also prevents the sale of this state-owned land to further the goals of Alameda’s Community Reuse Plan, such as generating revenue for replacing antiquated infrastructure and promoting investment.
Tidelands Exchange Agreement falls short
Even though the open water tidelands had been filled in by the U.S. Navy, the State of California still considered this area as tidelands and subject to restricted uses when it left federal ownership.
In the mid-1990s, while planning the transition to civilian use, one of the administrative housekeeping tasks facing the City was to get rid of the tidelands designation to make way for new mixed-use development.
The state acknowledged the problem and enacted the Tidelands Exchange Agreement in order to free up most of the land for uses that would otherwise be prohibited on tidelands. “Interior lands already cut off from the waterfront and no longer useful for Trust purposes would potentially be restricted to Trust-related uses that could prevent beneficial development,” the exchange agreement states. “A number of buildings at NAS Alameda that were constructed during the period of federal ownership for non-Trust purposes are incapable of being devoted to public trust purposes during the remaining useful life of the buildings or structures.”
But after the state made some tweaks, the agreement left intact the tidelands designation on the strip of land directly through the center of Alameda Point, which does exactly the opposite of the agreement’s stated purpose of fostering “beneficial development.” It justified this tidelands nexus by claiming it will ensure that the public will have direct interconnected access to the water at both the Seaplane Lagoon and the Oakland Estuary via streets and sidewalks.
However, the tidelands designation was not necessary to provide interconnected public waterfront access through the center of Alameda Point. The streets on both sides of the corridor already provide that access. And the Master Infrastructure Plan extends them all the way to the Seaplane Lagoon when the empty waterfront tarmac block is developed.
Detrimental effects of tidelands plan now evident
The detrimental effect of this handicap recently came into play when the City was debating whether to lease or sell hangars. Instead of being able to sell a valuable hangar—Building 39 at 950 West Tower Ave.—on the “tidelands” corridor and then use the revenue to continue building out new street infrastructure, the City is relegated to being a commercial landlord in perpetuity. A company that makes drone aircraft will begin leasing the hangar this month, which ironically is not even tidelands-related.
Besides no sales revenue for new infrastructure, there are two other problems with permanent tidelands leasing. First, the tidelands designation means that all lease revenue has to be deposited into the City’s Tidelands Fund. The revenue can only be used on tidelands; it cannot be commingled with general base reuse funds for things like mowing grass, providing security, and fixing things here, there, and everywhere. So the tidelands restriction adds yet another layer of handicap on redevelopment by restricting the use of lease revenue. Second, permanent leasing also means that none of the leased property will ever be added to the tax rolls.
The City’s hands are tied when it comes to other property located on this “tidelands” corridor. For instance, between the Building 39 hangar and the Seaplane Lagoon is an empty parcel still waiting for an offer to develop it. But the pool of investors is currently limited to those who are willing to build a tidelands-compliant project on leased land. The same can be said for two other parcels that currently have buildings of limited economic value.
Also, Fire Station #5, at 950 West Ranger Ave., sits in the center of this “tidelands” corridor. Its use as a fire station was grandfathered into the Tidelands Exchange Agreement, just like all of the other non-compliant tidelands uses. But there is a caveat—the non-compliant uses can only continue during the useful life of the buildings.
If someday the City wants to build a modern public safety facility that is up to speed for the vastly expanded responsibilities at full build-out of the base, they would be unable to do so. As soon as the old buildings are demolished, their life has ended, and any subsequent use would have to be tidelands compliant. If the tidelands designation were removed, the City could one day build a multi-story facility with full emergency response capabilities, modern training facilities, and perhaps a police substation.
A remedy
The City has experience with freeing up faux tidelands. In 2023, Assemblymember Mia Bonta was instrumental in introducing AB 1706, legislation that effected the exchange of tidelands for property at Encinal Terminals on Alameda’s northern waterfront to allow that project to move forward. A similar legislative fix could be done for the tidelands corridor at Alameda Point, which is burdened with comparable tidelands baggage that is frustrating an already daunting redevelopment challenge.
It is unknown if there is any political will to implement this remedy.
Contributing writer Richard Bangert posts stories and photos about environmental issues on his blog Alameda Point Environmental Report. His writing is collected at AlamedaPost.com/Richard-Bangert.
