The City of Oakland’s Karen Boyd and Justin Berton sent this press release announcing the Final EIR for Howard Terminal Ballpark District. Thank God that’s done. The next steps are the Infrastructure Financing Plan, the Development Agreement, and Oakland City Council vote for it.
Huge milestone! Howard Terminal or Bust! Now let’s get a binding vote ? https://t.co/2B34yoBWIU
— Dave Kaval (@DaveKaval) December 17, 2021
Oakland, CA – Today the City of Oakland published the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Waterfront Ballpark District at Howard Terminal in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible.
“Releasing the final Environmental Impact Report is a major milestone on our path to build a new waterfront ballpark district that will create up to 18 acres of beautiful public parks, more affordable housing, and good jobs for Oaklanders,” Mayor Libby Schaaf said. “The 3,500-page document is thorough and exhaustive, and it ensures that the project is environmentally safe and sustainable. The completion of the EIR also keeps us on track to bring the project for a final vote to the City Council in 2022 — and brings us one step closer to keeping our beloved A’s rooted in Oakland.”
In response to the Draft EIR published in February, the City received more than 400 comments. The Final EIR includes a response to each and every comment. In addition to individual responses, the Final EIR includes 23 “consolidated responses” to the most frequently submitted comments, as well as edits made to the Draft EIR in response to those comments.
What’s Next?
Certification of the Final EIR is a two-step process. First, the Oakland Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on the Final EIR on January 19, 2022 at 3:00 pm. During the hearing, the Planning Commission will consider whether the Final EIR was completed in compliance with State law, represents the independent analysis of the City, and provides adequate information to decision-makers and the public on the potential adverse environmental effects of the proposed Project, as well as ways in which those effects might be mitigated or avoided.
Upon receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission, the Oakland City Council will consider certification of the Final EIR at a future hearing date, likely in February 2022. A “yes” vote on certification of the EIR does not mean the project is approved, but it is an important first step needed before project approvals can be considered or granted by the City and Port.
What are the other steps involved in getting to an approved project?
The first required project approval, an ordinance by which the City accepts land use jurisdiction over the Port’s portion of the Ballpark District site, is also anticipated to be considered in February 2022. In addition, the City is currently reviewing Development Applications for the project, which include a General Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development, Rezoning, Tentative Tract Map and Development Agreement (including community benefits). These required approvals will be considered by the City Council later in 2022, after receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
In a separate but related action today, the Port of Oakland identified 21 recommended Seaport Compatibility Measures to ensure the continued safe and efficient navigation of ships and other waterside operations, ingress and egress of trucks and other traffic to and from the Port, and to avoid potential conflicts between trains, trucks, passenger vehicles, bikes, and pedestrians.
Zennie Abraham Note: The City’s Process Ignores The Infrastructure Financing Plan That’s Supposed To Be Done, By Law
Not sure why The City of Oakland keeps doing this, but here goes a reminder: SB 628 Bealle, the father of all Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Legislation in California, and thus the document that governs what is done at Howard Terminal, calls for an Infrastructure Financing Plan. Here’s the legal text from the bill:
Existing law authorizes a legislative body of a city, defined to mean a city or a city and county, to establish an infrastructure financing district, adopt an infrastructure financing plan, and issue bonds, for which only the district is liable, to finance specified public facilities upon approval by 2/3 of the voters. Existing law authorizes an infrastructure financing district to fund infrastructure projects through tax increment financing, pursuant to the infrastructure financing plan and the agreement of affected taxing entities, as defined. Existing law requires an infrastructure financing plan to include the date on which an infrastructure financing district will cease to exist, that may not be more than 30 years from the date on which the ordinance forming the district is adopted.This bill would additionally authorize the legislative body of a city or a county, defined to include a city and county, to establish an enhanced infrastructure financing district, adopt an infrastructure financing plan, and issue bonds, for which only the district is liable, upon approval by 55% of the voters; to finance public capital facilities or other specified projects of communitywide significance, including, but not limited to, brownfield restoration and other environmental mitigation; the development of projects on a former military base; the repayment of the transfer of funds to a military base reuse authority; the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of housing for persons of low and moderate income for rent or purchase; the acquisition, construction, or repair of industrial structures for private use; transit priority projects; and projects to implement a sustainable communities strategy. The bill would also authorize an enhanced infrastructure financing district to utilize any powers under the Polanco Redevelopment Act.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB628
So, the City of Oakland is still behind here and turning in an incomplete grade. If the City’s ignoring this because I keep yelling that it’s supposed to be done, that’s beyond silly and helps no one. Why?
The Strong Mayor Form Of Government Has Helped Stopped Oakland’s Equitable Growth Path And All-But Killed Long-Range Planning
Simply because, given the length of time the Howard Terminal Project has been part of Oakland’s cultural conversation, or since 2001, by now (2021) the cost of and revenue from the planned project should be common knowledge to the public. But it’s not, and because it’s not known to elected officials and many Oakland public economic development officials.
The reason is the Strong Mayor form of government has caused a giant loss of institutional memory. Prior to the passage of Measure X in 1998, Oakland has a relatively stable Council-Manager Form of Government. But the Strong-Mayor system in Oakland allows the Mayor to hire and fire the City Manager, who’s now called the City Administrator. Thus, staff members who would have remained with Oakland, feared for the loss of their jobs after an election, and so sought employment elsewhere. With that, long-term projects which called for constant reporting and updating started to lag in completion: Coliseum City and Howard Terminal are but two examples of a long list of Oakland public sector projects that are incomplete. As I have written, and said, before, here’s the path of instability Measure X caused:
The Mayor Of Oakland Under The Strong Mayor Or Council-Manager Structure, And The City Managers They Hired
This was the picture before Jerry Brown and Major X: Strong Mayor
Lionel Wilson – 6 years per mayor term for – 3 Terms
City Manager David Self 1979 – 1981
Henry Gardner 1981 – 1993
Elihu Harris Rate: 2 Years Per City Manager – 2 Terms
City Manager Henry Gardner – 1992-1993
City Manager Craig Kocian – 1993-1997
Interim City Manager Kofi Bonner – 1997
City Manager Robert Bobb – 1997-2002
Jerry Brown: 4 years per city manager – 2 Terms
Robert Bobb – 1999 – 2002
Deborah Edgerly – 2002 – 2008
The Late Ronald V. Dellums: 2 years per city manager for 1 Term
Deborah Edgerly – 2006 – 2008
Dan Lindheim – 2008-2011
Jean Quan – 1.3 years per City Manager for 1 Term
P. Lamont Ewell– 2011
Deanna Santana – 2011-2014
Fred Blackwell – 2014
Libby Schaff – 1.4 years per city manager – 2 Terms
Henry Gardner
John Flores
Claudia Capio
Sabrina Landreth
Stephen Falk
Ed Reiskin
The growing problem is one of seemingly constant instability and a complete lack of institutional memory. It is shown in the shocking lack of understanding of the Howard Terminal stadium project and tax increment financing. Mayor Schaaf even admitted to this to me during her July 20th 2021 press conference on Howard Terminal.
It’s this complete lack of understanding of how to do tax increment financing in a post-redevelopment age that has harmed the timely completion of the Howard Terminal Ballpark Project. The City Staff is too focused on issues involving what the public can see: design and land use – and not public financing methods and revenue sources and cost uses. So, the public officials have hired consultants like Century Urban that completely mangle the tax increment financing revenue calculations, as my post on that shows – and so don’t have an official estimate of tax increment financing revenue that follows the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District law regarding TIF revenue collection over a 45-year period.
Because of that, the City of Oakland has no basis of revenue estimates to use to make an Infrastructure Financing Plan for Howard Terminal.
Stay tuned.