OAKLAND — The city’s planning commission on Wednesday signed off on a 3,500-page environmental impact report that moved the Oakland A’s another base closer to building a waterfront ballpark and mixed-use development at the Port of Oakland’s Howard Terminal.
The commission’s vote was unanimous but controversial, as dozens of people who spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting urged it to postpone a decision. They argued that the environmental report is inadequate and sought further analysis of the project’s impact.
Although the City council still needs to certify the report and other key decisions loom, supporters of the proposed 35,000-seat ballpark touted the commission’s vote as a milestone to be celebrated.
“Tonight’s Planning Commission recommendation to send the Final Environmental Impact Report onto the City Council for certification is a huge win for our entire region and puts Oakland one step closer to building a landmark waterfront ballpark district with the highest environmental standards,” Mayor Libby Schaaf said in a written statement.
Since its release as a draft in February, the report has drawn roughly 400 comments or questions from various government agencies, community organizations and individuals about the project’s potential impact on traffic, air quality, infrastructure and other environmental elements.
After spending months addressing and responding to those concerns, city staff concluded there’s no significant environmental hurdle to the team’s plan to build a waterfront ballpark and surround it with 3,000 housing units, 1.5 million square feet of office space and 270,000 square feet of retail space, as well as hotel rooms and parks.
Others, including those who have long opposed the project, disagree.
In a written statement, a coalition called the East Oakland Stadium Alliance, which largely represents businesses that operate at the port and their union workers, said the “final EIR fails to address the significant concerns that community stakeholders and agencies have raised, particularly in regard to health, safety, traffic, air quality, and toxic remediation.”
The group’s members contend the report does not provide enough details about how toxic soil at the site will be cleaned up. They also noted that vehicle traffic generated by the project will hamper trucks that haul cargo to and from the port.
Mike Jacob, vice president of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association who is also involved with the East Oakland Stadium Alliance, has said numerous times the environmental assessment doesn’t analyze the project’s impact on port operations.
But planning commissioners said the City Council will focus on those specific concerns and in their opinion the report complies with the California Environmental Quality Act and is sufficiently complete.
The City Council could review the environmental report as early as next month, according to staff. Even if the council certifies the report then, other steps must be taken before construction can begin.
The city and the A’s still must reach a financial deal involving the project’s infrastructure, affordable housing and community benefits.
City leaders want the A’s to designate at least 15% of the 3,000 proposed housing units as affordable and shell out at least $50 million to build affordable housing elsewhere in Oakland. A’s President Dave Kaval said last month the city and team have not agreed on a housing plan, but the “city knows exactly what our position is.” He did not elaborate, but previously expressed resistance to that plan.
There is also the issue of how the city will fund $400 million worth of infrastructure work such as improvements to roads and sidewalks, sewer, water and electrical lines, and construction of pedestrian bridges to get people to and from the ballpark.
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors tentatively signaled its intent to join the city in forming a special financing district to help pay for those improvements, but its support was lukewarm and nonbinding. The county supervisors indicated they would do their own financial analysis before jumping in.
Source: www.mercurynews.com