Port interests are reimagining their opposition to Howard Terminal
Oakland had to repeal and readopt its proof of vaccine ordinance
—MINIMIZING LOSSES—The release and positive reviews for the Howard Terminal Ballpark Project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is leading opponents of the waterfront ballpark to refocus their efforts on the issue of Seaport Compatibility Measures. The issue was raised repeatedly by trucking and maritime representatives at a Port of Oakland Board of Commissioners meeting on Thursday night.
—Their chief concern is a belief that Port of Oakland and Oakland city officials have neglected their calls for creating suitable measures. Port of Oakland officials discussed the measures with stakeholders at public meetings in late 2019, early 2020, and after the Draft EIR was published in March 2021. Last month, Port of Oakland commissioners issued support for a host of Seaport Compatibility Measures, including those involving a boating and recreational water safety plan, ballpark lighting, bird collision, alternative truck access, and several transportation safety mitigations, among other measures.
—But, the trucking and port interests are clearly not satisfied. Thursday’s barrage of comments appear informed by a letter sent on Wednesday by the California Trucking Association, Harbor Trucking Association, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, and Union Pacific to presidents of the Oakland City Council and Port of Oakland Commission. The letter asserts the Oakland City Council and Port of Oakland have “failed to propose a suite of effective Seaport Compatibility Measures,” and have not spoken to the group for the past six months.
—There’s two ways to read the letter and the public commenters. Perhaps they are laying the foundation for a lawsuit? A close reading of the letter, though, suggests the groups, which have gone to great effort and spent heavily to oppose the ballpark project, are looking to minimize the damage at a time when momentum is on the side of Howard Terminal.
—The letter describes their opposition to the ballpark project now as “general reservations,” a far cry from blanket opposition and talking points predicting the imminent demise of the port. In addition, it strongly hints they have resigned themselves to a strategy of hoping to input as many as measures positive to their interests into the ballpark’s final approval stages, including the crucial Development Agreement. The group is doing so, they wrote, “in order to avoid impacts and preserve maritime commerce in the event that [Howard Terminal] gets approved over our objections.” Their ask, though, is quite large and they include having the Oakland Athletics pay for a potential turning basin near the project, along with the team paying into funds to support various potential losses incurred by port stakeholders.
—As these groups work on Port of Oakland commissioners, two new fronts will be opening starting next month. The approval of the EIR will likely come for a vote before the Oakland City Council in February, and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) will hold a public hearing also next month. BCDC and the Port of Oakland Commission, is the likely battleground where Seaport Combability Measures will again take place.
—FIFE ZOOMS IN—Oakland Councilmember Carroll Fife is a curious wildcard in the Howard Terminal project. Among the eight councilmembers, Fife has been the most consistently skeptical of the project. She often employs populist rhetoric and has used A’s owner John Fisher’s personal wealth as cudgel to foment opposition to the project and frame it as a land grab by a billionaire. But Fife is in a difficult and potentially embarrassing position. The proposed ballpark district, along with housing, retail, and new public parks, will reside in her council district. An elected official opposing a project in their own district, especially one of this magnitude, is usually a bad sign that it will not get approved. But that hasn’t been the case here because Fife is increasingly looking like the only councilmember still raising strong concerns about Howard Terminal. This evening, Fife is holding a Zoom town hall in her District 3 to get her constituent’s take on Howard Terminal and possibly illuminate her current position on the ballpark proposal. By the sounds of it, she might expect A’s Twitter to crash the Zoom party.
CITY & COUNTY NEWS
OAKLAND
—REDO THE VOTE—Just days before Oakland’s proof of vaccine ordinance is to come into effect on Feb. 1, Oakland city officials were forced to perform an uncommon bit of bureaucratic gymnastics on Thursday morning. The city recently received a demand to cure and correct the proof of vaccine ordinance. A Brown Act violation was alleged to have occurred after some members of the public were not able to comment before the ordinance was approve last month, said Chief Assistant City Attorney Doryanna Moreno. The city attorney’s office did not agree with the allegation, but “in the interest of caution and transparency, ” urged the council to repeal and readopt the ordinance on Thursday. A short public comment period proceeded the re-vote. Oakland’s ordinance follows San Francisco and Berkeley, and requires proof of vaccination before entering restaurants, bar, gyms, among other indoor areas, including Oakland City Hall.
ALAMEDA COUNTY
—RETIREMENT—Chris Bazar, the long-time head of the Alameda County Community Development Agency is retiring at the end of March. The search for his replacement could allow local housing providers a moment to register their disenchantment with the agency, including calls to use the changing of the guard to reorganize the department. Aside from Castro Valley, large areas of unincorporated Alameda County continues to be overlooked for meaningful investment. The rollout of the county’s Covid-19 rent protections in the unincorporated areas in 2020 was bumpy from a tenant’s perspective, and overly zealous in the view of landlords.
ELECTION 2022 UPDATE
—MEI NOT ENTER—The Tri-City Democratic Club held an endorsement meeting this week for the open 10th State Senate District race featuring Hayward Councilmember Aisha Wahab and Fremont Mayor Lily Mei. No endorsement in the June primary race was offered after no candidate was able to reach the club’s required support of two-thirds of its members. Wahab, though, came close and was thwarted by Mei loyalists who voted no endorsement. However, they could not actually vote for Mei because she was not offered an invitation after the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee’s finding last fall to disqualify Mei from its endorsement process because of past anti-LGBT comments.
—’DRO POLLING—I’ve been getting several reports about what sounds like a very wide-ranging and potentially expensive polling effort centered on the San Leandro mayoral race. What entity is behind the poll is entirely unclear. Adding to the uncertainty is indications the poll might be very expensive and that kind of money for polling is not very prevalent in San Leandro politics. San Leandro Mayor Pauline Russo Cutter is termed out this year. Councilmember Bryan Azevedo is a candidate for mayor, and Councilmember Corina Lopez is also interested. Former San Leandro Coucilmember Lee Thomas and Juan Gonzalez, the husband of San Leandro school boardmember Evelyn Gonzalez, are also candidates.
—Check out the entire East Bay Candidate List for the June and November 2022 elections HERE.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS
—IN THE RED—Despite her opponent’s recent teachers’ union endorsements, it’s not clear how much money Alameda County Superintendent of Schools L. Karen Monroe’s re-election campaign will need. But definitely way more than the $162.75 in cash her year-end campaign finance report reported on Friday. Alysse Castro, the executive director of San Francisco County schools, is challenging Monroe this June. More concerning for Monroe is the $27,415 in debt her campaign committee has been carrying since 2015.
—Follow this section in the coming days and weeks as year-end campaign finance reports are released.
—Remember this is the final day of the free preview before the full East Bay Insiders newsletter is available only to subscribers. Don’t miss out!
—Subscribe today for $5 a month or $30 a year. I apologize for the pricing discrepancy. Both figures are the lowest Substack allows me to charge. —steve