Oakland A’s Las Vegas Ballpark Update: Howard Terminal EIR Not Certified

FacebookEmailBloggerLinkedInTwitterShare

An outstanding Howard Terminal EIR court order and the City of Oakland’s response to it has left the near-dead Howard Terminal Ballpark Project with another problem that could harm Oakland’s economic development reputation.

Howard Terminal EIR Not Certified Says Court, City Of Oakland Confused, Oakland A's Off To Las Vegas

Oakland (Special to ZennieReport.com) – Contrary to the claims of Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, Oakland A’s Howard Terminal Ballpark is not “entitled” and that includes a uncertified Howard Terminal EIR AKA environmental impact report. Meanwhile the Oakland Athletics are just weeks away from the rollout of their new renderings of the A’s Ballpark at The Tropicana, and Major League Baseball’s vote on the A’s application to relocate to Las Vegas, expected in November.

City Of Oakland Ordered To Fix Ballpark Wind Impact Problem In Howard Terminal EIR

The City of Oakland was ordered by Alameda County Superior Court (the “Court”) to correct a major problem in the Howard Terminal EIR. The Environmental Impact Report failed to account for wind impacts nor did it offer any way of stopping the wind problem in the EIR, and again, because the problem was not considered.

One giant reason the EIR did not deal with the wind problem was, as the court noted, the Oakland A’s had not submitted final Howard Terminal Ballpark construction drawings that would offer a final report on exactly how tall the ballpark would be. That’s a major consideration in any study of wind impact. On Friday, October 13th, The City of Oakland answered in something called an “intermediate return to the Peremptory Writ of Mandate (“Writ”) which was filed by this Court,” as far back as September 22th, 2022.

In lay terms, the East Oakland Stadium Alliance claimed that since the Court found there were no official construction drawings that determined the actual height of the proposed Howard Terminal Ballpark, the wind problem should be “set aside” for the City of Oakland to fix before the EIR could be declared completely cleared for certification. The court agreed, and the “ball” was tossed to the City of Oakland.

The City of Oakland’s Shaye Diveley wrote:

“In response to the Writ and in accordance with Item No. 4, above, please be advised that
the City intends to comply with the terms of the Writ, but is still considering the appropriate
actions for doing so. The City will submit a further return to the Writ within 120 days of this
submittal.”

Source: Response to The Writ, Alameda County Superior Court, October 13, 2023.

Howard Terminal EIR Is In A Weird Holding Pattern

The City of Oakland’s Friday the 13th statement (or how it chose to handle the “ball”) was basically to say “We’re still trying to figure out how to deal with this.” Meanwhile, the matter renders the entire Howard Terminal EIR in a holding pattern where it’s not certified, contrary to claims by the City of Oakland, as well as some in the media. And as that’s happening, the A’s are extremely-deep into planning for the Las Vegas MLB Ballpark and Major League Baseball’s vote on the A’s application to relocate to Las Vegas, expected next month.

EOSA’s Mike Jacob Provides Clarification On The Case And Howard Terminal EIR Status

Mike Jacob, Lawyer for the East Oakland Stadium Alliance and new President of The Pacific Maritime Shipping Association (PMSA), sent this statement as per the request of Zennie62Media, Inc.:

Thanks for asking for my thoughts on the latest filing in the CEQA litigation (East Oakland Stadium Alliance vs City of Oakland).  Happy to clarify with these thoughts:

As you know, in our CEQA case, our claims were denied in part and granted in part (despite the representation by the A’s that they had “won” that was not technically true). The claims that were granted by the Court were in relation to the failure of the City’s EIR to properly account for wind impacts and wind impact mitigation measures.  In order to rectify these defects in the EIR, the Court required the City in order to revise and reconsider its mitigation measures.

The Court order was also clear that these defects must be remedied prior to the City issuing any other discretionary approvals for the project in accordance with CEQA. In this latest filing, the City has confirmed that it has not yet attempted to remedy these defects; instead the City filing said that it is “still considering the appropriate actions” that it would take to meet these requirements – i.e. in order to comply with CEQA. But it hasn’t done so yet, and will submit a new report to the Court within another 120 days as an update on what it plans to do.

We can only guess that the City hasn’t taken any action to comply with this yet – and so therefore the City remains out of compliance with CEQA on this project EIR – because the A’s aren’t paying for consultants and technical staff to do the work necessary, and therefore neither the City nor the A’s are actually working on fixing the wind mitigation issues.  So long as the A’s remain focused on relocation to Las Vegas, I presume that we will be waiting to see what is filed at the next update in 120 days just like everyone else.  In the meantime, the Howard Terminal EIR remains defective and no action can be taken by the City in reliance upon it.

As I said above, thanks for reaching out and asking for a clarification from our end. The saga continues.

Email to Zennie Abraham from Mike Jacob

The Unanswered Question: What Happened To The Howard Terminal Ballpark Construction Drawings?

So, just what happened to the Howard Terminal Construction Drawings? This blogger goes back to 2021 and a pivotal series of communications betweeen the City of Oakland’s Assistant City Administrator Betsy Lake and Planner Peterson Z, Vollman, and Oakland A’s President Dave Kaval. These were originally published at Oakland News Now Blog.

The upshot of the exchange you’re about to see was that the A’s were missing key deadlines in the submission of the Howard Terminal Ballpark drawings at that time – and the approvals process would be pushed well into 2022. This blogger made an effort to follow-up by calling Mr. Vollman, but he did not respond according to my records.

The City of Oakland Letter From Betsy Lake To David Kaval, Dated March 31, 2021

CITY OF OAKLAND

CITY HALL + 1 FRANK H. OGAWA PLAZA + OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612

Office of the City Administrator
March 31, 2021

Mr. David Kaval
President

Oakland Athletics
55 Harrison Street
Oakland, CA 94607

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
RE: Waterfront Ballpark District at Howard Terminal
Dear Dave:

Enclosed please find a schedule of activities remaining to be completed in order to bring the above-referenced project to a vote of the City Council in 2021, a goal that I know we both share.

As you know, the project requires the following actions by the City Council in order to proceed to permitting and construction:

Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report;

Amendment of the City’s General Plan;

Rezoning of the Howard Terminal site;

Approval of a Preliminary Development Plan for the project, including Design Guidelines to govern future Final Development Plan approvals; and

  1. Approval of a Tentative Tract Map to allow for subdivision of the property, including creation of a legal parcel for the A’s new ballpark.

Further, AB 734 (now codified as California PRC Section 21168.6.7) requires that the project be “subject to a comprehensive package of community benefits approved by the Port of Oakland or City Council of the City of Oakland, as applicable, which may include local employment and job training programs, local business and small business policies, public access and open space, affordable housing, transportation infrastructure, increased frequency of public transit, and transit accessibility and sustainable and healthy development measures for the surrounding community.”

Page 2
Howard Terminal March
31, 2021

In addition, the A’s have requested a Development Agreement for the project. As previously discussed, Section 17.138.015 of the Oakland Municipal Code (“OMC”) requires that the Development Agreement be considered together with the project’s core planning permit(s), specifically stating:

The development agreement shall not be approved unless the project has received, or simultaneously receives, whatever design review, conditional use permit, preliminary Planned Unit Development plan approval, and/or variance it may otherwise require.

Section 17.130.080 of the OMC provides that “[w]hen a development application requires both legislative and adjudicatory actions, the entire application shall be considered by the City Council for final action” (emphasis added). Given these requirements, the City bundles all discretionary actions for consideration and final action, at the same time, by the City Council.

Finally, it is anticipated that many of the community benefits contemplated by AB734 would be contained within and enforced through the Development Agreement.

Therefore, I wish to be clear that it is the City’s intent, consistent with the direction of our Council, AB 734, the OMC, and the administrative practices of our Planning Department, to consider all of the above discretionary actions concurrently. As we have discussed this approach on numerous occasions over the past two years, I’m confident it will not come as a surprise to you.

Our teams have worked on several schedule iterations, and unfortunately, we are now forced to work under an extremely compressed time schedule. Should the A’s wish to proceed to a fully approved project in 2021, I strongly encourage you to undertake immediate action in order to:

  1. Prepare and submit a Tentative Tract Map for the project site for Planning, Engineering, and Fire Department review no later than April 26, 2021;
  2. Prepare and resubmit a full Preliminary Development Plan application (including Design Guidelines) responsive to the comments previously provided by Pete Vollmann, the project planner, on March 18 and 25, 2020 and March 22, 2021, no later than April 26, 2021;
  3. Complete negotiation of a term sheet with City staff, detailing the essential terms of the proposed Development Agreement, including the team’s commitment to stay and play in Oakland, no later than April 30, 2021; and
  4. Execute acommunity benefits term sheet with community representatives, setting forth the project’s comprehensive package of community benefits pursuant to AB 734, no later than July 9, 2021.

Failure to meet any of the above key schedule objectives will very likely push project
approvals into 2022.

Page 3
Howard Terminal March
31, 2021

The City of Oakland remains deeply committed to keeping the A’s “rooted in Oakland”. | was thrilled that our staff, through extraordinary efforts and many late nights, were able to publish the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project just 15 days following the A’s receipt of the Governor’s AB734 certification. This was an important and much anticipated milestone for the project. I trust you will not lose this hard-won momentum through delay on any of the elements required for approval of this project in 2021.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,

CEgabett Lake

Elizabeth Lake
Deputy City Administrator
Real Estate & Major Projects

cc: Mayor Libby Schaaf, City of Oakland
Edward D. Reiskin, City Administrator, City of Oakland
Molly Maybrun, Project Manager, City of Oakland
John Fisher, Owner, Oakland Athletics
Sandy Dean, Partner, Sansome Partners

Attachments:

  1. Schedule as of March 24, 2021
  2. Letter from Peterson Vollmann re Case No. PLN-20-048, dated as of March 22, 2021
    Waterfront Ballpark District @ Howard Terminal

The City of Oakland Letter From Peterson Z. Vollmann To David Kaval, Dated March 22, 2021

CITY oF OAKLAND

DALZIEL BUILDING e 250 FRANK H. OGAWA PLAZA e SUITE 3315 e OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612

Planning and Building Department
Bureau of Planning

March 22, 2021

Dave Kaval, President
Oakland Athletics

55 Harrison Street
Oakland, CA 94607

Re: Case Number: PLN20-048
Project Address: 1 Market Street (APN’s: 018-0405-001-00; -002-00; & -004-00; -003-01;
& -003-02 and 018-0410-001-04; -001-05; -003-00; -004-00; -005-00; –
006-01; -006-02; -007-00 & -008-00)

Dear Applicant:

Section 65943 of the California Code requires a determination in writing as to the completeness of an application for a development project. This letter does not constitute either an approval or a denial of your application.

Your revised application submittal for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), submitted on February 23,
2021 has been found to be:

[X] INCOMPLETE. Additional information or materials are needed in order to process your application. Please submit a revised set of plans that address the comments previously provided on March 25, 2020, as well as the specific ttems listed below:

1) Given that the proposed PUD submittal incudes new parcels as future development sites, please submit the required Tentative Tract Map (TTM) for the proposed subdivision to be reviewed concurrently with and as part of the PUD application. In addition, as part of the TTM submittal please be sure to demonstrate how the proposed parcels that include abutting property lines with the proposed ballpark parcel will be able to accommodate openings that comply with the Building Code. A vertical air space subdivision may be required to allow this.

2) In addition to the “Maritime Reservation Scenario” that was provided as an alternate Preliminary Development Plan (PDP), please also include an alternate full site PDP that includes the alternative Water Street approach that removes the Fire Station as well as the on-site “Peaker Plant Variant”. This is necessary to ensure that in the event either of these options are pursued that they will be covered by the PUD entitlements.

PLN20-048, 1 Market Street Page 2

3) Please include a phasing plan for the site grading since it is understood that this will likely occur over two phases (east and west of Market Street).

4) Please include a phasing plan for the implementation of the publicly accessible parks/open space on the project site.

5) Please include a phasing plan for the installation of on-site infrastructure (streets/sidewalks, storm drains, sewer, utilities, etc.).

6) Please provide an interim site plan that incorporates the anticipated surface parking lot and access plan that would exist between the major Phase 1 and Phase 2 implementation of the project buildout (assumed to be consistent with the phased grading and horizontal infrastructure improvements of the project site).

7) The current PDP submittal includes the proposed street layouts with cross sections. As part of the revised submittal please check the Streets and Pedestrian Key Plan reference numbers and align them with the mdividual cross sections that are provided on the pages that follow the Key Plan. The plans and cross sections in the PDP submittal need to be consistent with those that will be included with the TTM filing as well.

8) Given the long term projected build out of the site and the lack of detailing on the building massing models in the PDP, please submit an updated Design Guidelines packet as part of the PUD application that will guide the future development and character of the site through the review of the Final Development Plans (FDP’s). These should include guidelines that address the proposed buildings, parks/plazas, and streetscape features, and should also be responsive to the comments provided by staff on the initial submittal on March 25, 2020.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you for your prompt response to this request.
FA

Peterson Z. Vollmann
Bureau of Planning
Planner IV

From Oakland News Now Blog

Did The A’s Just Stop Responding To The Requests? Why Didn’t The City of Oakland Make More Of An Issue Of This Problem?

The questions outstanding are these: did the A’s respond to the requests and why didn’t the City of Oakland, and in particular, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf herself, the face of the Howard Terminal Project for Oakland, bring this to public attention?

As a project manger with some experience in Oakland, most notably the City’s Super Bowl Bid, this one has to say that a task force consisting of business leaders, consultants, and community leaders, and city staff would have been able to solve this problem in the real time of the process of development of Howard Terminal Ballpark. Unfortunately, Mayor Schaaf did not want to form one.

Stay tuned.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
guest
0 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
wpDiscuz
0
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
Index