So you all know that I’m not one to lean toward being highly cynical. I generally try to give people the benefit of the doubt and I don’t tend to think that all government staff have some nefarious agenda to destroy everything that is good and sacred about Alameda, but holy shit am I seriously pissed off right now. Actually, I’ve been pissed since the agenda for the Planning Board came out on Thursday afternoon.
I am referring to the latest agenda item regarding the Alameda Point EIR. So this latest staff report lays out what alternative plans the City intends to study in the EIR, this is really important because whatever is studied and “mitigated” in the EIR can actually happen and actually be built. The point of the EIR, or so City Staff sold to the City Council who was loathe to spend the money in the first place on this EIR-first-so-that-the-developers-will-come plan, was to allow for flexibility so that the City could be agile depending on who or what wanted to come out to Alameda Point and build. The point was not to lock Alameda Point into one thing and then a new EIR would have to be developed if anything else came along.
I got off track again, anyway, the Staff Reports says, hey, despite the fact that we promised the City Council to study these specific alternatives, we decided that we don’t want to study these things after all. Cool?
No, not cool. When you say you are going to do something and then do the complete opposite that’s bullshit.
Here is what staff promised that the EIR would study back when this came before the City Council September of last year:
What we will do through is we will provide additional analysis of, well if you adjust the reuse plan to increase these kinds of uses would that change the environmental impact of the plan and, if so, how would you mitigate it.
…
Now let’s think about something else that might be completely outside of the box: we want to add a lot more housing units, or we want to triple the amount of jobs and the question for the EIR is: does it change the environmental impacts and, if so, what are the mitigation.
We now have a menu, we can now use that 10 years from now, maybe none of those things happen, but if it does happen, our EIR, you can use that same EIR. You can say, you know what? We have the information, we know what the environmental effect of that is and we know how to mitigate it. And you can adopt those mitigation as you approve those changes to your project.
And the Staff presentation is loaded with the term “flexibility” or “flexible” because that is what the City Council indicated that they wanted in an EIR because if we are going to spend about $1. something something million or so on a EIR, it should be built to last and be able to cover most scenarios depending on what the market will bear.
One of the reasons that Staff has declared that they won’t be studying an alternative with additional housing over the less than 1500 units in the Reuse plan is that in the time it takes the 1500 units to be built, the EIR will probably be 10-15 years old and by then a new EIR can be done.
Let me just point out that the EIR for Harbor Bay Island is now more than 30+ years old and only recently Ron Cowan was pushing the City to allow for a land swap in order to build the excess units he felt he was entitled to build. So the notion that an EIR wouldn’t remain relevant in 25 – 30 years is just reaching.
Plus, City Staff already knows from real life experience that alternatives in the EIR are super important. After all, in an example given it was revealed that the Boatworks project that is underway is not the project that was actually studied but rather it was one of the alternatives that was studied.
Here’s what the Planning Board needs to do. They need to shut this down right away and say: that’s not what not the direction of the City Council, if you are unilaterally deciding that you want to change the direction of the EIR then you need to go back to the City Council and get policy direction from them because this is not what was promised when you were given approval by the City Council. There is no need to even dignify this sort of backhanded game playing by providing comments or even having a discussion about it. It’s time that the City Council step in rein in whatever internal agendas are at play here among staff.
Here is what I see missing from this: Who specifically in Planning is responsible for the change? And, what was the motivation for it? I think it is important to ascertain the “drivers” of actions, as they often explain the outcome – not as in “oh, I see, now it makes sense”, but as in “oh, that’s why they did that, and here is a way to fix it or address the problem.” Often the presenting problem is not the real problem, but a manifestation of some other issue not revealed; in my gut I think this may be the “what’s going on” here. I hope some of the more clever members of the Planning Board probe around into this to make sure the City is spending this money in a way that will achieve the most benefit going down the road.
Comment by Kate Quick,. — February 19, 2013 @ 6:38 am
It sounds like a bait and switch by the City Staff in order to get the Council to get approval to fund consultants for the EIR. Doesn’t this sound like the prior City Administration… telling the Council what they want to hear and moving on their own agenda? I thought Mr. Russo was going to be different with this new administration.
Comment by Alan — February 19, 2013 @ 12:10 pm
I’m sorry to say that I tend to agree with both Alan and Kate, as well as with Lauren on this.
I have a hard time imagining that Andrew Thomas would chart such a community-input-unfriendly course on his own, however; restricting public input on policies or going against the community’s wishes is not his normal procedure.
Without having any evidence to back up my hypothesis, I would tend to suspect that Planning staff is getting strong direction and/or “hints” from the Office of the City Manager–possibly via the Chief Operating Officer for Alameda Point, Jennifer Ott–on how to structure (or perhaps “bias”?) the scope of the EIR itself. Why? Possibly to move as quickly and inexpensively as possible towards a final conveyance of AP from the US Navy, which is one of John Russo’s oft-stated goals. And he has significant support from some City Council members on this, despite some community members who want to be more thorough and careful when re-orienting the city’s redevelopment strategy(ies).
I am sure that the motives behind any such efforts are well-intentioned and are aimed at benefiting the City of Alameda’s economy by redeveloping AP as quickly as possible. But inappropriately short-circuiting an EIR or narrowing its scope when many of the original policies in the original 1990s Base Reuse Plan–and its many progeny–are in such flux is irresponsible and unwise.
We need to slow down, take a collective deep breath, and invest whatever it takes to properly scope and conduct the AP EIR with all the possible options in mind, including the retaining of a wildlife refuge and up to 4500 housing units at AP. To do otherwise is short-sighted and probably far less than intelligent public policy. There is simply too much downside potential to skimp on or short-circuit this complex. multifaceted, and necessarily expensive EIR.
Comment by Jon Spangler — February 19, 2013 @ 2:01 pm
Time to find another hobby besides going to planning boards and council meetings. Seriously…
Comment by beanie — February 19, 2013 @ 3:26 pm
Totally in favor of expediting any EIR. This base reuse crap has gone on way to long. Dipshit liberals will sue any EIR into the 22 century regardless so just do it. If Russo’s behind it, damned good for him?
Comment by Jack Richard — February 19, 2013 @ 6:40 pm
Actually if the EIR remains in its limited form without studying other alternatives, if something comes along that hasn’t been studied in the EIR or in the alternatives in the EIR then the “crap” will continue to go on and we’ll have to slog through another EIR process.
Comment by Lauren Do — February 20, 2013 @ 9:22 am
The crap will go on regardless whether the EIR is limited, expedited, thorough or somewhere in between. It’s the way business isn’t done in the brave new world of Progressive California.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 20, 2013 @ 9:34 am