View Supplemental Public Correspondence - 2/11/2022 — Oakland City Council, February 17, 2022

Dear Mr. Vollman:

Communities for a Better Environment, East Bay Housing Organizations, PublicAdvocates, and the East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy, members of the OaklandUnited Coalition, respectfully request that the City provide adequate time for members of thepublic to review the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) for the Oakland WaterfrontBallpark District Project (“Project”) at Howard Terminal. For the reasons more fully detailedbelow, we request that the Oakland Planning Commission’spublic hearing on the FEIR,currently scheduled for January 19th, be moved to no sooner than February 23rd to allowthe public adequate time to review this lengthy document.

Our organizations work with residents, workers, faith leaders, youth, unions, and communityorganizations in East and West Oakland. These low-income communities and communities ofcolor will likely face significant impacts from the construction and operation of the Project.It is critical to public health and welfare that the public – and certainly impacted residents likethose with whom we work – have sufficient time to assess the Project’s environmental impactsand whether those impacts have been adequately disclosed and addressed in the FEIR. Ifconstructed as proposed, the Project would result in a major redevelopment of the 55-acre siteand a transformation of the entire neighborhood, including not only the 35,000-seat stadium, butmore than 2 million square feet of mixed-use development (presumably drawing thousands ofworkers), and up to 3,000 residential units 1 —a morethan 150% increase in the number ofhousing units in the area. 2 As the City outlined inthe Draft Environmental Impact Report, thisProject will result in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts on Air Quality, Wind,Cultural Resources, Noise and Vibration, Traffic Safety Hazards, and Consistency with RegionalTransportation Plan. 3 Public participation is at the heart of the CEQA process. 4 CEQA directs the City to encourage“wide public involvement.” 5 The Final EnvironmentalImpact Report is over 3500 pageslong. 6 This document will plainly require more thanthe mere 32 days the City has provided forreview and preparation of comments, particularly given that it wasreleased on December 17th,shortly before the holidays, when both interested community organizations and government 6 “City of Oakland Publishes Final EIR on Waterfront Ballpark District at Howard Terminal.”https://www.oaklandca.gov/news/2021/city-of-oakland-publishes-final-eir-on-waterfront-ballpark-district-at-howard-terminal-2 5 CEQA Guidelines § 15201.
4 CEQA Guidelines § 15201 (“Public participation is an essential part of the CEQA process.”) 3 DEIR, Chapter 2, “Summary”https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Chapter-2-Summary.pdf 2 The latest US Census Bureau data indicates thatthe surrounding census tracks contain a total of 1,923households. SeeHousing Data for Census Tracts9820,9819,4025,4026, and9832, available athttps://geomap.ffiec.gov/FFIECGeocMap/GeocodeMap1.aspx. 1 FEIR Chapter 2, “Updated Project Information”https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/2_Updated-Project-Info_FEIR.pdf entities are unavailable and many community members are spending time with their families anddo not have the capacity to analyze such a report. The document is also inaccessible to disabledresidents, given that it cannot be read by a screen reader and the font size is extremely small. Thepublic hearing must be moved later in order to reflect considered feedback from the Oaklandcommunity, including marginalized residents.

Moreover, the City has indicated that the CEQA mitigation measures, rather than other policy orcontract tools, will provide the primary vehicle for addressing the Project’s numerous andsignificant environmental impacts. This only heightens the importance of providing the publicwith adequate time to review and comment on the FEIR.

Final approvals for the Project with City Council have not been calendared, so there should be noissue rescheduling hearings on the FEIR until closer to the time when Development Agreementand other key documents are ready to be approved. The community benefits terms, Portmitigations, and other important matters remain to be worked out. It would be in the public’s bestinterest to review and comment on this FEIR once more of those details have become clear.

Finally, while Assembly Bill 734 establishes an expeditedjudicialreview process for the Project,it does not expedite theadministrativeand essentialenvironmental review. In fact, the plainlanguage of AB 734 emphasizes the importance of public participation in environmental reviewof the Project:

Itisthereforeintheinterestofthestatetoexpeditejudicialreviewof the proposedproject,as appropriate,whileprotectingtheenvironmentandtherightof thepublicto review, commenton,and,if necessary, seekjudicialreviewof,theadequacyoftheenvironmentalreviewof the projectunderthe CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act. 7 We appreciate the City of Oakland’s community engagement efforts in the review of this Project.In order to adequately solicit feedback and community input at this critical stage ofenvironmental review, it is imperative that the Bureau of Planning ensure the public has anadequate amount of time to review the FEIR. We request that the Bureau of Planning allow untilat least February 23rd for the Planning Commission’s consideration of the FEIR, consistent withthe intent of CEQA and AB 734.

Sincerely,
7 AB 734 Sec. 1(f) (emphasis added).

Communities for a Better EnvironmentEast Bay Housing OrganizationsPublic AdvocatesEast Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy  Reply  Delete Junk Block
FEIR Planning Commission Hearing Extension Request
 You replied on Fri 1/7/2022 10:13 AM
Thu 1/6/2022 4:14 PM
[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

Dear Mr. Vollmann,

I respecully ask that the planning commission hearing currently scheduled for January 19, 2022, to review the Howard Terminal Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) be postponed for at least 30 days in the interest of allowing our community an equitable opportunity to respond. There has not been enough me allocated to read the FEIR and comment upon its many pages (2050 in the main FEIR document, 472 pages of appendices), and requiring reading it parallel with the earlier-released DEIR, itself about 1600 pages with 5000 pages of appendices.

I am disappointed that The City of Oakland chose to release the FEIR just before the holidays, a me when Port workers are working around the clock to alleviate the supply chain crisis and community advocates are focusing on issues like feeding and housing those in need - not siing through thousands of pages of legal documents. Further, I queson whether the commission has had adequate me to study it. Claiming that this is the genuine start of a 30-day review period, knowing that most are otherwise occupied by holiday and year-end gatherings, is simply disrespecul and disingenuous.

It does not serve the EIR process nor the project itself to schedule a hearing before people have had me to consider it carefully and write comments. I fear that such a short window would leave the most vulnerable and marginalized members of our community, including those who would feel the negave impacts of this project most, lile me to bring to the aenon of the city any deﬁciencies in the FEIR and the project itself.

Thank you for your me and consideraon.

Sincerely,

Scott Taylor | CEO / Chairman of the Board
530 Water Street, 5th Floor, Oakland, CA 94607
D: 510.844.3701 C: 510.750.3421
[email protected]

ST Scott Taylor <[email protected]>     
To: Vollmann, Peterson
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; SS 
Please Postpone Howard Terminal EIR Considerstion for 30 day Stas Margaronis <[email protected]>
Mon 1/10/2022 11:56 AM
To: Vollmann, Peterson <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Office of the Mayor <[email protected]>; Kaplan, Rebecca <[email protected]>; Fortunato Bas, Nikki <[email protected]>; Kalb, Dan <[email protected]>; Fife, Carroll <[email protected]>; Thao, Sheng <[email protected]>; Gallo, Noel <[email protected]>; Taylor, Loren <[email protected]>; Reid, Treva <[email protected]>; Reiskin, Edward <[email protected]>; Lake, Betsy <[email protected]> [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

PROPELLER CLUB OF NORTHERN

CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Vollmann,

Further, I queson whether the commission has had adequate me to study it. Claiming that this is the genuine start of a 30-day review period, knowing that most are otherwise occupied by holiday and year-end gatherings, is simply disrespecul and disingenuous.

Thank you for your me and consideraon.

Sincerely,
Stas Margaronis
President, Propeller Club of Northern California
 Reply  Delete Junk Block
Howard Terminal FEIR
 You replied on Fri 1/7/2022 10:16 AM
Thu 1/6/2022 7:34 PM
[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

Dear Mr. Vollmann,

As a resident of West Oakland and less than a mile from the Howard Terminal site, I respecully ask that the planning commission hearing currently scheduled for January 19, 2022, to review the Howard Terminal Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) be postponed for at least 30 days in the interest of allowing our community an equitable opportunity to respond. There has not been enough me allocated to read the FEIR and comment upon its many pages (2050 in the main FEIR document, 472 pages of appendices), and requiring reading it parallel with the earlier-released DEIR, itself about 1600 pages with 5000 pages of appendices.

This didn’t seem fair that The City of Oakland chose to release the FEIR just before the holidays, a me when Port workers are working around the clock to alleviate the supply chain crisis and community advocates are focusing on issues like feeding and housing those in need - not siing through thousands of pages of legal documents. Further, I queson whether the commission has had adequate me to study it. Claiming that this is the genuine start of a 30-day review period, knowing that most are otherwise occupied by holiday and year-end gatherings, is simply disrespecul and disingenuous.

Thank you for your me and consideraon.

Sincerely,

Rita Look
West Oakland

RL Rita Look <[email protected]>     
To: Vollmann, Peterson
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; SS Reply Reply all Forward


1 January 5, 2022 By electronic transmission Chair Manus and Planning Commissioners Catherine Payne Subject: Howard Terminal FEIR Dear Mr. Manus and Planning Commission members: Oakland Heritage Alliance requests that the hearing on the Howard Terminal FEIR be postponed. There has not been enough time allocated to read the FEIR, review the MMRP, discuss it, and comment upon its many pages (2050 in the main FEIR document, 472 pages of appendices, and requiring reading it parallel with the earlier-released DEIR, itself about 1600 pages with 5000 pages of appendices. In addition, the FEIR has not been agendized for review by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, the mission of which is to advise the Planning Commission regarding cultural resources. How can the LPAB advise the Planning Commission by January 19, when it is not on the Jan. 10 LPAB agenda? We question whether the Commissioners have had enough time to study it. Having released it just before widely-observed holidays and many people’s planned vacation days, the number of actual hours people could devote to this large document has been more limited than the apparent month allocated. (The document was released on Dec. 17 and your hearing is scheduled for Jan. 19.) This is an unrealistic schedule, guaranteed to result in inadequate public review. It does not serve the EIR process nor the project itself to schedule a hearing before people have had time to consider it carefully and write comments, especially in the context of our constrained public hearing process during the pandemic. With this schedule, the Commission is sentencing itself to a lengthy hearing in which a large number of people will read prepared 2-minute sound bites, many of which will be unlikely to address the serious environmental issues raised, followed by a discussion among tired commissioners. Is this the most responsible way to address the document? Please extend the time for consideration and postpone the hearing into February. You might also want to consider whether to break the hearing into several meetings, and take up digestible chunks of material, organized by topic. Sincerely, Mary Harper President By electronic transmission: cc: Director William Gilchrist, Ed Manasse, Robert Merkamp, Catherine Payne, Bureau of Planning/Zoning; Mayor Schaaf, Councilmembers Kaplan, Fortunato-Bas, Kalb, Fife, Thao, Gallo, Reid, Taylor, City Attorney Parker, City Administrator Reiskin

Jack London Improvement District • 333 Broadway Oakland CA 94607 • 510.267.0858 Date: January 10th, 2021 To: Oakland City Council Re: Howard Terminal A’s Stadium DEIR Dear Councilmembers, An A’s Ballpark at Howard Terminal has the potential to be an environmental and infrastructure improvement for our waterfront neighborhoods and an economic development catalyst for all of Oakland. Some DEIR commenters suggested closing existing at grade railroad crossings in Jack London. Our neighborhood is working to overcome the existing barriers caused by non-pedestrian infrastructure. Closing existing at-grade railroad crossings in Jack London would only further divide the neighborhood and separate the Square from the rest of the City. Rail safety is an existing District priority with committed community volunteers working to move it forward. And this goal would not be advanced if this project does not happen. We are particularly pleased that the DEIR expanded the scope of at-grade rail safety improvements--including fencing between intersections, and quad gates and signals at crossings-- to extend all the way through the district from Market Street. Developing the Ballpark at Howard terminal is elevating existing issues like the I-880 freeway barrier, Broadway connectivity, safe mobility, environmental quality, pedestrian access to the waterfront, and rail safety. These are chronic challenges that are long overdue in solving, and the stadium development makes some important headway in these areas. It is impossible for any single project to solve Oakland’s multifaceted infrastructure challenges. However, this once-in-a-generation project will accelerate solutions and investment to allow more people to access to quality public spaces at the waterfront. Sincerely, Savlan Hauser Executive Director, Jack London Improvement District  Reply  Delete Junk Block
Fw: EIR report for Oakland As development proposal
Fri 1/7/2022 9:17 AM
Hello All,
I am forwarding correspondence.

Desmona R. Armstrong, PSR | City of Oakland | Bureau of Planning | 250 Frank H. Ogawa, Suite 2214 | Oakland, CA 94612 | Phone: (510) 238-6343 | Email: [email protected] Website: www.oaklandca.gov/departments/planning-and-building ** Please note that I am working remotely in response to the COVID-19 event and the Alameda County Department of Health Shelter In Place Order. The City buildings at Frank H Ogawa Plaza are closed to the public unl further noce. For the current status of all Planning and Building Department services, please check for updates at: hps://www.oaklandca.gov/news/2020/planning-building-department-response-to- shelter-in-place
From: Lorna Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 5:13 PM
To: Armstrong, Desmona <[email protected]>
Subject: EIR report for Oakland As development proposal

[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Please encourage the Planning Commission to delay its meeting. It is important for Oakland citizens to have ample time to review the proposal and its far-reaching implications prior to City Council action.

The release of the report was not timely, coming as it did in the midst of the Holiday Season. A delay is warranted for such an important decision, for Oakland’s sake.

Thank you for your prompt attention.

Sincerely,
Lorna E. Jones, former Oakland Planning Commissioner
Armstrong, Desmona     
To: Clark Manus <[email protected]>; Sahar Shirazi <[email protected]>; Tom Limon <tlim Cc: Vollmann, Peterson; Payne, Catherine
Reply Reply all Forward

Re: We need stronger mitigation language
Daniel Levy <[email protected]>
Mon 1/10/2022 7:35 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: August, Karen <[email protected]>; Gilchrist, William <[email protected]>; Klara Komorous <[email protected]>; Marcus Johnson <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Vollmann, Peterson <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

Hi Everyone,
Thank you Naomi. Yes, if the Howard Terminal FEIR is certified as is, the mitigations will contain “should” and “to the extent possible” instead of the stronger language Naomi suggested, which gives the city and its residents less standing on which require design changes to protect Old Oakland if the gondola variant is pursued.

The next time Howard Terminal comes back to Landmarks Board, this language will have been finalized and not be able to be changed.

OHA will be providing comments to the Planning Commission on January 19 and maybe some LPAB members want to as well, even if individually.

Thank you for all your work earlier this evening.

Daniel
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 5:21 PM Naomi Schiff <[email protected]> wrote:

The mitigation as phrased CUL-7 is not worded properly to provide protection for Old Oakland.

Please request rewritten mitigation language. Although the project might come back for review before the LPAB, the FEIR is about to be set in stone. The mitigation measure should be strengthened to give you the tools you need for that review.

In every case, “should” ought to be “shall”.

The phrases “to the extent possible” should be removed.

“Minimal footprint possible”

-----------------------------
Naomi Schiff
510-835-1819 (land)
510-910-3764 (cell
238 Oakland Ave.

Oakland, CA 94611
[email protected]

Howard Terminal EIR - more time needed!
Kate Tanaka <[email protected]>
Tue 1/11/2022 4:47 PM
To: Vollmann, Peterson <[email protected]>
[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

Dear Mr. Vollmann,
I respectfully ask that the planning commission hearing currently scheduled for January 19, 2022, to review the Howard Terminal Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) be postponed for at least 30 days
in the interest of allowing our community an equitable opportunity to respond. There has not been enough time allocated to read the FEIR and comment upon its many pages (2050 in the main FEIR document, 472 pages of appendices), and requiring reading it parallel with the earlier-released DEIR, itself about 1600 pages with 5000 pages of appendices.

I am disappointed that The City of Oakland chose to release the EIR just before the holidays, a time when Port workers are working around the clock to alleviate the supply chain crisis and community advocates are focusing on issues like feeding and housing those in need - not sifting through thousands
of pages of legal documents. Further, I question whether the commission has had adequate time to study it. Claiming that this is the genuine start of a 30-day review period, knowing that most are otherwise occupied by holiday and year-end gatherings, is simply disrespectful and disingenuous.

It does not serve the EIR process nor the project itself to schedule a hearing before people have had time to consider it carefully and write comments. I fear that such a short window would leave the most vulnerable and marginalized members of our community, including those who would feel the negative impacts of this project most, little time to bring to the attention of the city any deficiencies in the FEIR and the project itself.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Yours truly,
Kate Tanaka
When information is supplied by third parties, please do not assume I have investigated or verified such information.

Red Oak
Realty
Kate Tanaka
Realtor • #01360386
510-914-8355
1891 Solano Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94707
katetanaka.com • GOOD MOVE.

Response to EIR(Environmental Impact Report) for Howard Terminal - postpone Planning Commission Mtg
Jo Ann Yoshioka <[email protected]>
Tue 1/11/2022 5:51 PM
To: Vollmann, Peterson <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Office of the Mayor <[email protected]>; Kaplan, Rebecca <[email protected]>; Fortunato Bas, Nikki <[email protected]>; Kalb, Dan <[email protected]>; Fife, Carroll <[email protected]>; Thao, Sheng <[email protected]>; Gallo, Noel <[email protected]>; Taylor, Loren <[email protected]>; Reid, Treva <[email protected]>; Reiskin, Edward <[email protected]>; Lake, Betsy <[email protected]> [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

Dear Mr. Vollmann,
I respecully ask that the planning commission hearing currently scheduled for January 19, 2022, to review the Howard Terminal Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) be postponed for at least 30 days in the interest of allowing our community an equitable opportunity to respond. There has not been enough me allocated to read the FEIR and comment upon its many pages (2050 in the main FEIR document, 472 pages of appendices), and requiring reading it parallel with the earlier-released DEIR, itself about 1600 pages with 5000 pages of appendices.

It is disappoinng that The City of Oakland chose to release the FEIR just before the holidays, a me when Port workers are working around the clock to alleviate the supply chain crisis and community advocates are focusing on issues like feeding and housing those in need - not siing through thousands of pages of legal documents.

The meline for the EIR process is not adequate nor does it speak to equity when all voices do not have an opportunity to comment. The length and breadth of the document should allow me for careful review and consideraon. This is an important document and an important issue, one that will impact Oakland and more importantly some it's most vulnerable cizens, let us be thoughul in the process, we and future Oaklanders will have to live with it.

Thank you for your me and consideraon.

Sincerely,
JoAnn Yoshioka
FEIR Extension
Bill Dow <[email protected]>
Fri 1/7/2022 10:07 PM
To: Vollmann, Peterson <[email protected]>
[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

Dear Mr. Vollmann,

I respectfully ask that the planning commission hearing currently scheduled for January 19, 2022, to review the Howard Terminal Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) be postponed for at least 30 days in the interest of allowing our community an equitable opportunity to respond. There has not been enough time allocated to read the FEIR and comment upon its many pages (2050 in the main FEIR document, 472 pages of appendices), and requiring reading it parallel with the earlier-released DEIR, itself about 1600 pages with 5000 pages of appendices.

I am disappointed that The City of Oakland chose to release the FEIR just before the holidays, a time when Port workers are working around the clock to alleviate the supply chain crisis and community advocates are focusing on issues like feeding and housing those in need - not sifting through thousands of pages of legal documents. Further, I question whether the commission has had adequate time to study it. Claiming that this is the genuine start of a 30-day review period, knowing that most are otherwise occupied by holiday and year-end gatherings, is simply disrespectful and disingenuous.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
William F. Dow
Warehouse Union
ILWU Local 6

January 12, 2021
Oakland City Hall1 Frank H. Ogawa PlazaOakland, CA 94612 Re: Extension of Time to Respond to Howard Terminal Final EIR Dear Mr. Vollman and Planning Commissioners:

The Chinatown Coalition and the The Chinatown Chamber of Commercerespectfully request that the City provide adequate time for members of the public toreview the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) for the Oakland WaterfrontBallpark District Project (“Project”) at Howard Terminal.We request that the OaklandPlanning Commission’s public hearing on the FEIR, currently scheduled for January19th, be moved to be no sooner than March 30 to allow the public adequate time toreview this lengthy document.

To evaluate the Project’s impacts on the Project environment, including existinginfrastructure and conditions, and to identify appropriate mitigation measures, the FinalEIR refers to pre-existing regulatory protocols, plans, and studies. The application oftechnical material to a project that is already exceptional in its scope and scale has resultedin a report that simply requires more than 32 days to review, especially when those daysspread over major holidays. This is particularly true for members of the public who lack theresources and expertise to respond quickly. Of particular importance to the ChinatownCommunity is to review and understand the proposed impacts and mitigation measures, ifany, to the Chinatown community, which was sorely lacking in the Draft EIR.

Our organizations work with residents, workers, youth, small businesses, property ownersand faith organizations in Chinatown, many of whom will face significant environmentalimpacts from the construction and operation of the Project. We require sufficient time toassess the Project’s environmental impacts and whether those impacts have beenadequately disclosed and addressed in the FEIR. If constructed as proposed, the Projectwould result in a major redevelopment of the 55-acre site and a transformation of theentire neighborhood, including not only the 35,000-seat stadium, but more than 2 millionsquare feet of mixed-use development (presumably drawing thousands of workers), andup to 3,000 residential units 1 —a more than 150% increasein the number of housing unitsin the area. 2 As the City outlined in the Draft EnvironmentalImpact Report, this Project willresult in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts on Air Quality, Wind, CulturalResources, Noise and Vibration, Traffic Safety Hazards, and Consistency with RegionalTransportation Plan. 3 Public participation is at the heart of the CEQA process. 4 CEQA directs the City toencourage “wide public involvement.” 5 The Final EnvironmentalImpact Report is over
3500 pages long.
6 This document will plainly require more than the mere 32 days the Cityhas provided for review and preparation of comments, particularly given that it wasreleased on December 17th, shortly before the holidays,when both interestedcommunity organizations and governmententities are unavailable and many community members are spending time with theirfamilies and do not have the capacity to analyze such a report. The document is alsoinaccessible to disabled residents, given that it cannot be read by a screen reader and thefont size is extremely small. The public hearing must be moved later in order to reflectconsidered feedback from the Oakland community, including marginalized residents.

Moreover, the City has indicated that the CEQA mitigation measures, rather than otherpolicy or contract tools, will provide the primary vehicle for addressing the Project’snumerous and significant environmental impacts. This only heightens the importance ofproviding the public with adequate time to review and comment on the FEIR.

Finally, while Assembly Bill 734 establishes an expeditedjudicialreview process for theProject, it does not expedite theadministrativeandessential environmental review. In fact,the plain language of AB 734 emphasizes the importance of public participation inenvironmental review of the Project:

We appreciate the City of Oakland’s community engagement efforts in the review of thisProject. In order to adequately solicit feedback and community input at this critical stage ofenvironmental review, it is imperative that the Bureau of Planning ensure the public has anadequate amount of time to review the FEIR. We request that the Bureau of Planning allowuntil at least March 30th for the Planning Commission’s consideration of the FEIR.

Sincerely,The Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce & The Oakland Chinatown Coalition To: Chair Clark Manus, Vice Chair Jonathan Fern, Commissioner Tom Limon, Commissioner SaharShirazi, Commissioner Vince Sugrue, Commissioner Jennifer RenkCc:Betsy Lake, Deputy City AdministratorWiliam Gilchrist, Director of Planning 1 FEIR Chapter 2, “Updated Project Information”https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/2_Updated-Project-Info_FEIR.pdf 2 The latest US Census Bureau data indicates that thesurrounding census trackscontain a total of 1,923 households. SeeHousing Datafor Census Tracts9820,9819,4025,4026,and9832,available athttps://geomap.ffiec.gov/FFIECGeocMap/GeocodeMap1.aspx.3 DEIR, Chapter 2, “Summary”https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Chapter-2-Summary.pdf 4 CEQA Guidelines § 15201 (“Public participationis anessential part of the CEQA process.”) 5 CEQA Guidelines § 15201.6
“City of Oakland Publishes Final EIR on Waterfront Ballpark District at Howard Terminal.”https://www.oaklandca.gov/news/2021/city-of-oakland-publishes-final-eir-on-waterfront-ballpark-district at-howard-terminal-2 Ed Manasse, Environmental Review Officer
Mayor Libby SchaafPresident Nikki Fortunato BasCouncil Member Carroll FifeCouncil Member Noel GalloCouncil Member Dan KalbCouncil Member and Vice Mayor Rebecca KaplanCouncil Member Treva ReidCouncil Member Loren TaylorCouncil Member Sheng Thao 1 FEIR Chapter 2, “Updated Project Information”https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/2_Updated-Project-Info_FEIR.pdf 2 The latest US Census Bureau data indicates that thesurrounding census trackscontain a total of 1,923 households. SeeHousing Datafor Census Tracts9820,9819,4025,4026,and9832,available athttps://geomap.ffiec.gov/FFIECGeocMap/GeocodeMap1.aspx.3 DEIR, Chapter 2, “Summary”https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Chapter-2-Summary.pdf 4 CEQA Guidelines § 15201 (“Public participationis anessential part of the CEQA process.”) 5 CEQA Guidelines § 15201.6
“City of Oakland Publishes Final EIR on Waterfront Ballpark District at Howard Terminal.”https://www.oaklandca.gov/news/2021/city-of-oakland-publishes-final-eir-on-waterfront-ballpark-district at-howard-terminal-2 Fwd: District 3 Resident and Howard Terminal CBA Member – vote YES on A’s at Howard Terminal
Jennifer Arbuckle <[email protected]>
Mon 1/17/2022 5:25 PM
To: Vollmann, Peterson <[email protected]>
[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

Dear Peterson Vollmann,
I am an Oakland resident and member of the Howard Terminal CBA process. On May 20, 2021, I sent this email below to all the elected officials and decision-makers in Oakland and Alameda County.

Please take the time to review the below. I trust that you will work with the Oakland City Council to provide a recommendation to certify the EIR.

Thank you,
Jennifer Arbuckle
D3 Oakland resident and CBA Topic Cohort member: Housing, Transportation, and Community Health and Saftey
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: JC A <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, May 20, 2021 at 9:00 AM
Subject: District 3 Resident and Howard Terminal CBA Member – vote YES on A’s at Howard Terminal To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Taj Tashombe <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Warren Chu <[email protected]> Honorable Elected Oﬃcials,
My name is Jennifer Arbuckle and I am an acve member of the Howard Terminal Community Beneﬁts Agreement (CBA). I am involved with three diﬀerent cohorts Housing, Transportaon, and Community Health & Safety. Over the past year, all of us involved in the CBA process spent hundreds of hours gathering and idenfying what we determined to be the best recommendaons for the community located where the new terminal will be built. We did this analysis with a focused lens of equity in our decision process. It is your obligaon, as elected oﬃcials, to listen to ALL invested voices regarding the A’s stadium relocaon to Howard Terminal. All invested pares need to have the opportunity to be at the table and be heard. Right now, it seems that the loudest party is the only one being heard and is in opposion to the A’s relocaon.

I am a vong constuent of District 3 who acvely volunteered to help Carroll Fife get elected because I believe in her plaorm and vision to improve Oakland. It is my belief that the Howard Terminal project is an opportunity to help that vision come alive and for the community to really get what it wants. No other project in Oakland has such an acve CBA as ours and can and should be replicated for sites in East Oakland. If the A’s were to leave Oakland, it would be a tremendous loss for the communies of East Oakland and West Oakland which are both economically depressed and historically underserved communies.

The city of Oakland and its residents need as well as deserve a downtown that is inving and aracts people to it.

It needs people from outside of Oakland to come here and want to spend their money, which would then contribute and increase the amount of sales tax dollars (and others) so we have the money to fulﬁll the vision of a beer future for the city of Oakland. We must give people a reason to come to Oakland. Big projects and sporng or music events will do just that. Oakland does not want to miss out on the opportunity to host All-Star games, World Series, and other large events that aract people to us and spend their dollars here. Oakland will not be ok if we miss out on these things. We can’t survive on port acvies alone.

Below are some recommendaons that I would like to see added to the CBA term sheet:

Increase the A’s funding contribuon by an addional $100 million in addion to taxes they are already paying. Earmark this to create a Community Land Trust and make aﬀordable housing actually aﬀordable for current residents of Oakland.

Idenfy an alternave parking lot for trucks to migate truck traﬃc and idling on residenal streets in West Oakland. Make it closer to shipping containers. Alternavely, build another lot or do both.

Ensure that a large percentage of jobs created by building and playing at the new stadium go to Oaklanders ﬁrst. Priorize business space to Oakland businesses at a reduced price to support local businesses.

Provide universal healthcare for all employees within the new A’s complex.

Get people out of their cars. Build green and gold bike and walking lanes that lead to the new A’s stadium from BART staons, down Broadway, and all local streets leading to the new stadium. This improves air quality and peoples’ overall health. Traﬃc congeson is a real issue that needs to be solved. If you make it less convenient for people to drive and park at Howard Terminal, they will learn to change their ways. This “carless” mindset is already being led by younger generaons. I consciously decided to get rid of my vehicle years ago, and now I’ve not had a car for more years than actually having one.

Create and make accessible more green space at Howard Terminal and Jack London Square. I for one don’t want to see Howard Terminal turn into a coal exporng terminal. The port and businesses within it need to start acvely showing that they care about the community in Oakland and stop handcuﬃng the city while pollung it.

Ensure that the Coliseum site becomes a historical landmark and protects it from complete destrucon. I only trust the A's to be the best stewards of preserving the rich sports history of the coliseum site, therefore they should be allowed to redevelop that site. If some random person comes in and tears everything down, who is going to protect 'Championship Plaza' and the ﬁeld itself and basically the history of Oakland sports? They will erase a huge part of Oakland's history.

The $450 million in community beneﬁts is very aracve and I’d take even a 1/8 of it because, if the deal falls through no one gets anything, 100% of nothing is sll nothing. Another reality is that every single stadium project around the world has used some form of public funds, there is no way around that. The property taxes from developers shouldn’t all go to the county. New property taxes should stay in the communies where the property is being built for amenies and beneﬁts in those communies. This type of opportunity is not going to come around again. It is a maer of negoang the best deal for Oakland as a whole. Seale is a prime example of a city that had the same issues as Oakland is having with their sports teams. Seale has the 5th largest port in the US and has ﬁgured out how to build two stadiums next to it. Oakland is only ranked as the 10th largest port in the US. People don’t have to lose their jobs. Seale ILWU members had concerns about job loss too, but the job loss never came to fruion. So, this is just speculaon. There are more than just port jobs in the city, let’s consider them too. Not only that, but building, maintaining, and running the new stadium will create thousands of jobs.

Sports is a point of civic pride and unites a city. It makes people feel like they are a part of something bigger than themselves and makes them proud of their city. Last year, 2020, was hard for everyone. Many of us were trying to just hold on mentally and physically. Baseball came as a saving grace for my mind during this horrible me.

Personally, the A’s comforted me, helped me relax, improved my mood, and helped me connect with my friends.

Sports gives me something to look forward to in my daily life. I watched every single game last year and it took my mind away from the hardships myself and the world were facing. Somemes we need that mental break. Even the strongest humans among us can’t always keep going and going without some sort of moment where you can check out. During the pandemic last year, the one thing I kept saying over and over was “All I want to do is go to a baseball game”. When the me ﬁnally came this year, I was among the ﬁrst to line up at the gates of the Coliseum. The buzz in the air, the ﬂags waving and drums beang in right and le ﬁeld are like a warm blanket and are the heartbeat of an old decaying building that is our second home.

The A’s are part of Town culture. Wearing that Oakland jersey across the country represenng this underdog of a town that lives in the shadow of the shiny glitzy city of San Francisco maers to us. Fans take incredible pride in the green and gold and the name Oakland and believe and understand that there is a scrappy lile group of dudes wearing green and gold who always seem to overachieve while they are under-resourced. We love and treasure them because in certain ways they represent and reﬂect how we see ourselves: a town of overachieving underdogs. There has been so much displacement that those who are not from here or just showed up don’t have any e to that and it’s diﬃcult for them to understand. Losing this team would devastate me and devastate a community that may never recover. The city will just deteriorate and it will be tough on us as fans and residents of Oakland.

It is now me for Oakland to decide if it wants to connue being a sports town or not. It is a sad situaon to think that this town which was once thriving and popular because of its historical sports history would be no more.

You'd be taking our heart away if you let the A's walk away.

In conclusion, I implore you to cut through the noise and not listen to enes with hidden agendas that are purposely misinforming the public, the media, acvists, etc., and focus on actual facts. We can’t keep taking campaign contribuons from the marime oligarchs and Schnitzer Steel billionaires who have connued to pollute West Oakland while claiming to be environmentalists and carrying their talking points through EOSA and their fancy San Francisco PR ﬁrm and San Francisco Giants lawyer.

We can walk and chew gum at the same me and the council can’t keep stalling. Each regime pushes the boulder just a lile bit up the hill and now here we are 25 years later with barely any movement and an East Oakland dying on the vine. Even Denny’s and Walmart have le, how could you let East Oakland regress instead of progress especially when at one me it had three world-class, world championship teams? You can understand why the fans and owners of the last sports team in Oakland are visibly frustrated. This has gone on long enough.

Let’s stop talking about it and make some real investment in our communies. Let’s make a deal that works for the A’s, the port, the city, and most importantly our community.

If you would like my connued support and acve engagement, then I urge you to please vote YES to approve the A’s to build a new stadium at Howard Terminal.

Thank you for your me,
Jennifer Arbuckle
[email protected]
District 3 Resident and acve Howard Terminal CBA member --
Jennifer Arbuckle, OCS, CPC
480-229-5822

--
Jennifer Arbuckle, OCS, CPC
480-229-5822

Fw: Planning Commission meeting on January 19, 2022
Payne, Catherine <[email protected]>
Tue 1/18/2022 10:48 AM
To: Vollmann, Peterson <[email protected]>
Cc: Armstrong, Desmona <[email protected]>
For your records
Catherine Payne, Development Planning Manager
City of Oakland, Bureau of Planning
Phone/cell: (510) 915-0577
Email: [email protected]
From: Burt Boltuch <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 10:43 AM
To: Armstrong, Desmona <[email protected]>; Payne, Catherine <[email protected]> Subject: Planning Commission meeng on January 19, 2022

[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

On behalf of Town Business and my own business which has been in Oakland for decades, I write to urge the Planning CoOmmission to recommend to the Oakland City Council that it adopt, without change, the EIR for the HOward Terminal Project ("HT Project"). The EIR is a thorough, complete document drafted after thousands of hours of input. The HT Project will create approximately 55 acres of new LEED Gold development on Oakland's waterfront. It will protect against seal level rise through at least 2100; it will result in 20% fewer vehicle trips; it will yield zero new greenhouse emissions of carbon dioxide and create 18.3 acres of new parks and open space. This is in addition to the affordable housing and over 7,000 permanent full-time jobs,man of which will go to Oakland residents.

There is no doubt that the HT Project has generated vocal opposition from the ILWU and various port occupants, especially Schnitzer. But the Planning Commission must ignore these protests and just evaluate the EIR on its merits. The Commission members know that it is not the role of the COmmission to evaluate the merits of the HT Project, but only to evaluate the merits of the EIR that is before it. There is no doubt that the EIR should be recommended to the City Council.

I thank you in advance for your efforts and for your consideration of this email.

Burt BOltuch

Fw: FEIR Support Letter for Oakland A's Ballpark
Payne, Catherine <[email protected]>
Tue 1/18/2022 11:58 AM
To: Vollmann, Peterson <[email protected]>
Cc: Armstrong, Desmona <[email protected]>
For your records
Catherine Payne, Development Planning Manager
City of Oakland, Bureau of Planning
Phone/cell: (510) 915-0577
Email: [email protected]
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of James Reinhart <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:22 AM
To: Payne, Catherine <[email protected]>
Subject: FEIR Support Leer for Oakland A's Ballpark

[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

To the members of the Planning Commission,
As a member of Town Business, I am writing to express my support for the certification of the FEIR for the Oakland Waterfront Ballpark District Project.

I am the Founder & CEO of thredUP (NASDAQ: TDUP), a leading online marketplace for secondhand fashion. Three years ago I decided to make Downtown Oakland the headquarters for my company. My motivation for doing so was largely influenced by the growth and development of the Downtown Oakland area.

The Waterfront Ballpark Project is a critical piece of continuing the growth of Downtown Oakland – it’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that is projected to create $3 billion in economic impact, 7,000 jobs, and much-needed housing to the area. The final EIR is a huge milestone in that project’s life cycle.

Best,
James
James Reinhart | CEO
thredUP | Inspiring a New Generation of Consumers to Think Secondhand First Oakland Chinatown Howard Terminal Working Group
January 14, 2022

Planning Commission of the City of Oakland
Oakland City Hall
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612

Re: January 19, 2022 Meeting, Item 02 – Staff Report – Case File ER 18-016 (1 Market Street, Howard Terminal)

Dear Commissioners,

The Oakland Chinatown Howard Terminal Working Group (Working Group) represents diverse business, non-profit, and individual interests located in Oakland Chinatown, including the Chinatown Chamber of Commerce.

The Planning Commission should not recommend that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) until and unless effective mitigation of Howard Terminal Ballpark – specific impacts on our community has been incorporated into the Final Transportation Management Plan (TMP) within the Final EIR. The Additional Analysis and Mitigation should be available in April of 2022.

Alternatively, the Planning Commission should forward the Final EIR to the City Council only on the condition that the TMP in the Final EIR shall include the Additional Analysis and Mitigation of Howard Terminal Ballpark – specific impacts on Chinatown.

In its July 20, 2021 resolution establishing the terms of any Development Agreement regarding the Howard Terminal Ballpark Project, the Council directed City Staff to work with Chinatown representatives to recommend measures to address community concerns regarding the compatibility of the Ballpark use with the Chinatown commercial and cultural area by

• Minimizing the potential adverse impacts of traffic and parking congestion on Chinatown’s people, business, and cultural institutions, • Seeking additional under-freeway parking and prioritizing the use of Chinatown parking garages for cultural events that coincide with Ballpark events, and • Working with the A’s to promote patronage of Chinatown businesses by Ballpark event attendees and to promote marketing for Chinatown history and culture.1

While meeting with City Staff, the Working Group has learned that:

1. The TMP in the Draft EIR is based on a build-out of non-Ballpark facilities and doesn’t address congestion from games as Ballpark activities (at least 81/365 days or 1 in 5 days a year) were considered to be exceptional events;2

2. The impact of pedestrians walking from the Lake Merritt BART station through Chinatown was not studied because Chinatown was excluded from the traffic circulation study area; 3

3. The TMP is based on today’s street/highway interchange configurations, even though the Final Project Report for the Oakland Alameda Access Project (OAAP), which would substantially reconfigure the Broadway – Alameda accessways, will be published in January 2022.4

The limitations of the DEIR were highlighted in the “Oakland Waterfront Ballpark District at Howard Terminal – Chinatown Workgroup Transportation Overview.” For example, an additional 2,600 people are expected to walk from Lake Merritt BART through Chinatown, but there is no data on the number of pedestrians who currently use this route and how additional pedestrians may impact traffic in Chinatown. 5

Fortunately, on December 17th, 2021, City Staff and the Working Group agreed on a plan for the City to address these problems.6 Staff’s consultant will analyze the impacts of Ballpark usage

1 Adopted Resolution, p.3. See: oakland.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=f3832aac-1f70-425f-9d03- d0f5e61f7d7a.pdf
2 Working Group – City Staff Meeting 10/29/21. See recording at 0:51 min. https://us06web.zoom.us/rec/play/Fp3bGBervaeLsGtNcvcxCN9TcPOUFdk7fmFoIuJ1JfTvA4np8YB_yMPgfTyGkV_i2- 9-
55u8i3SupVQq.GCG3Wkx5d9mM0phz?continueMode=true&_x_zm_rtaid=Ue0A9h7sSSWXlwBiz_8rAg.1642208178 459.ca99c78659c3b7f15e94d29dcb170031&_x_zm_rhtaid=548 (@ 0:51). 3 Working Group – City Staff Meeting 12/10/21. See recording at https://us06web.zoom.us/rec/play/_5X7wSmgDckLYXVI4K2WuwYMa7iXqroluZ81K5mRCfm8ED62qW4kTYZUSEOn KhMA5V0OIWFfdnQ9yQ4e.d8WxO_XURJ3AnJlN?continueMode=true&_x_zm_rtaid=Ue0A9h7sSSWXlwBiz_8rAg.16 42208178459.ca99c78659c3b7f15e94d29dcb170031&_x_zm_rhtaid=548 4 Factsheet, Updated December 2021. https://www.alamedactc.org/programs-projects/highway- improvement/oakland-alameda-access-project/

5 https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1zmOSytMfcB2s3TjmT64DbkZ7Uv6xyO01 See 15th unnumbered slide.

6 Working Group - City Staff Meeting 12/17/21. See recording at 0:23:40 – 0:24:00 https://us06web.zoom.us/rec/play/_5X7wSmgDckLYXVI4K2WuwYMa7iXqroluZ81K5mRCfm8ED62qW4kTYZUSEOn KhMA5V0OIWFfdnQ9yQ4e.d8WxO_XURJ3AnJlN?continueMode=true&_x_zm_rtaid=Ue0A9h7sSSWXlwBiz_8rAg.16 42208178459.ca99c78659c3b7f15e94d29dcb170031&_x_zm_rhtaid=548 on pedestrian, parking routing and traffic circulation in Chinatown and potentially the technical criteria supporting the OAAP’s removal of the Broadway St. exit.7 Staff agreed to propose potential mitigation of negative impacts for potential inclusion in the Final Transportation Management Plan.8

City Staff and the Working Group agree that ideally, the best strategies for managing transportation in and around Chinatown will be included in the version of the final Traffic Management Plan. The City’s consultant is expected to begin work in January, to provide preliminary findings in mid-February, to provide a draft report for City Staff-Working Group discussion in March and to complete the final report in April. 9

The Working Group is pleased that the City intends to address the shortcomings of the Draft EIR that threaten Oakland’s Chinatown. However, the Additional Analysis and Mitigation measures will not be available until the City Staff and Working Group concur in April. Until then, Chinatown is no more protected from the negative impacts of Howard Terminal Project development than if no EIR is published at all. Any Final EIR must include the analysis and mitigation from the collaborative City Staff-Working Group effort to remedy the deficiencies of the TMP.

Therefore, the Planning Commission should not recommend approval of the Final EIR because the Draft EIR’s well-documented failure to recognize Howard Terminal’s potential harm to Chinatown has not been addressed and there is no assurance that effective mitigation measures will be adopted.

If Planning Commission unfortunately must act, it should recommend approval of the Final EIR only the condition that version of the TMP in the Final EIR shall include the Additional Analysis and Mitigation of Howard Terminal Ballpark – specific impacts on Chinatown.

Respectfully submitted,

Oakland Chinatown Howard Terminal Working Group --
Including representatives of the Oakland Chinatown Coalition and the Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce

7 Ibid, at 0:21:48 – 0:23:30.
8 Ibid, at 0:24:15 - 0:24:54. According to City Staff, we have worked out a “best practice” that shows how the Transportation Management Plan should be amended to satisfy the needs of the community.

9 Ibid, at 0:44-0:45:10.

Fw: Public Comments on the Howard Terminal EIR
Armstrong, Desmona <[email protected]>
Tue 1/18/2022 2:07 PM
To: Clark Manus <[email protected]>; Sahar Shirazi <[email protected]>; Tom Limon <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Jennifer Renk <[email protected]>; Jonathan Fern ([email protected]) <[email protected]>
Cc: Vollmann, Peterson <[email protected]>
Forwarding Correspondence
Desmona R. Armstrong, PSR | City of Oakland | Bureau of Planning | 250 Frank H. Ogawa, Suite 2214 | Oakland, CA 94612 | Phone: (510) 238-6343 | Email: [email protected] Website: www.oaklandca.gov/departments/planning-and-building ** Please note that I am working remotely in response to the COVID-19 event and the Alameda County Department of Health Shelter In Place Order. The City buildings at Frank H Ogawa Plaza are closed to the public unl further noce. For the current status of all Planning and Building Department services, please check for updates at: hps://www.oaklandca.gov/news/2020/planning-building- department-response-to-shelter-in-place
From: Tom Willging <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 1:44 PM
To: Armstrong, Desmona <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comments on the Howard Terminal EIR

[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

Dear Desmona Armstrong:

Please distribute the following comment to the Planning Commissioners in advance of tomorrow's meeng on the Howard Terminal EIR.

Thank you.

Tom Willging
177 19th Street
Oakland, CA. 94612
[email protected]
A Privileged A’s Fan’s Perspecve on Howard Terminal

My name is Tom Willging and I live in downtown Oakland, near Lake Merri. I am a lifelong baseball fan and for the past 8-10 years I have purchased a season package for the Athlecs mid-week day games. If the Howard Terminal stadium is built, I would be privileged to be able to ride my bicycle from home to the ballpark, but I will not support the new ballpark unless a fair soluon can be found to pay for the transportaon infrastructure that will be required to transport people to the park.

Safe bicycling, walking, scootering, and public transportaon via BART and AC Transit are absolutely essenal to the success of the proposed ballpark. The A’s proposal envisions more than a thousand cyclists reaching the ballpark that way. This vision ramps up to unprecedented levels the demands for safe cycling infrastructure and OAKDOT resources. I enthusiascally support Dave Campbell’s, Bike East Bay’s Advocacy Director, comments on the speciﬁc proposed cycling, walking, and public transportaon facilies. He submied his leer to the Planning Commission on April 7, 2021. Despite these loy plans, I cannot get past the fact that there is no new source of funding to convert these visions into reality.

Imagine what will happen if the A’s Howard Terminal proposals are funded from exisng city, county, state, and federal sources. The already-ﬁerce compeon for cycling resources would escalate with intense pressure centered on funding the me-sensive baseball stadium project. Funding would dissolve or disappear for essenal bikeways like the East Bay Greenway which will permit low-income residents of deep East Oakland without cars to travel to jobs and other acvies in downtown Oakland, San Leandro and Hayward. Dio for projects like converng San Pablo Avenue into a complete street for walking, cycling, and transit from Downtown, Uptown, and West and North Oakland to as far as Pinole or Hercules. Double dio for plans to connect West Oakland with the Bay Bridge’s Alex Zuckermann Bicycle Trail to Treasure Island or the even simpler plan to make Park Blvd safe for cyclists by narrowing its open roads.

All these projects and more will be squeezed out of existence. Likewise AC Transit and BART budgets will be squeezed beyond their capacity, drawing resources away from neighborhood services. Giganc investments by the City of Oakland into the infrastructure for the ballpark translate into disinvestment in the many neighborhood projects included in Oakland’s current bicycle plan. That hardly seems fair when the object is to build an amenity for privileged people like me while depriving many low-income people of an economical mode of transportaon.

My proposed soluon to this dilemma is for the city to insist that dedicated funding for necessary infrastructure be incorporated into the project as an integral, inseparable component. I do not claim any experse in ﬁnancial planning. At the same me, I am not stupid and can see the ﬁnancial folly of beginning a project without a clear and dependable source of ﬁnancing for an essenal element— moving people from where they live or work into the new stadium.

A broad example of the type of ﬁnancing that might work would include the issuance of bonds to pay for infrastructure, with those bonds to be paid from a poron of any increased tax revenue generated in the newly-created tax district. If enough tax revenue does not materialize—as has been known to happen, say in the ﬁnancing and construcon of Mount Davis at the Coliseum--the Athlecs should have to pay the bonds without any obligaon from the City of Oakland and its taxpayers. If that is not acceptable, the refusal to invest in that funding suggests to me that the team is using its threat to leave for another city as leverage to force Oakland to siphon funds from neighborhood infrastructure into an investment that might only beneﬁt the owner of a sports franchise that tends to increase in value despite poor performance.

Without such a ﬁnancing mechanism, Oakland could be obligang itself to another version of Mount Davis whose empty seats serve primarily to block fans’ views of the Oakland Hills. Because Oakland did not demand that the Raiders pay for those unsold seats, we taxpayers connue to pay millions of dollars each year to maintain the city’s credit rang.

In closing, I urge the Planning Commission and City Council to support the proposal to build a stadium at Howard Terminal only if the ﬁnal plans include a mechanism for funding transportaon infrastructure via increases in tax revenues directly ed to the stadium project and guaranteed by the Athlecs.

Thanks for your aenon.

Sincerely,

Tom Willging
177 19th Street
Oakland, CA. 94612
[email protected]
January 18, 2021
Mayor Libby Schaaf
Vice Mayor Rebecca Kaplan
Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas
Council Member Dan Kalb
Council Member Carroll Fife
Council Member Sheng Thao
Council Member Noel Gallo
Council Member Loren Taylor
Council Member Treva Reid
Dear Mayor, Council President, and Members of the City Council:

On behalf of the East Bay Leadership Council, a regional public policy and advocacy organization representing hundreds of employers across Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, I write in strong support of the certification of the Final EIR for the Oakland A’s proposed stadium at Howard Terminal. This stadium is a once-in-a-generation economic development opportunity for the region that will link the waterfront with downtown Oakland.

East Bay employers support the new ballpark at the waterfront because it will generate more than $7 billion in economic activity for the region and revitalize the Jack London Square District with thriving retail, restaurants, and small businesses. EBLC also supports the project because of the transformative environmental and community benefits this project will bring to Oakland’s residents – including 18 acres of new parks and open space.

Importantly, EBLC supports building housing at all affordability levels and are excited that this project has the potential to produce more than 1,000 new units of affordable housing. This is on top of the more than 7,000 full-time jobs the project will produce.

For the above reasons, we urge you to approve the Final EIR at your upcoming Council meeting on January 19 and stand ready to support the project’s success for decades to come.

Warmest regards,
Kristin Connelly
President & CEO
Chair of the Board
Bielle Moore
Republic Services
Chair-Elect
Leo Scott
Gray Bowen Scott
Vice President – Finance
Terri Montgomery
Eide Bailly
Vice President – Leadership
Development
Danielle Cagan
CSAA
Vice President - Events
Peggy White
Diablo Regional Arts Association
Vice President – Talent &
Workforce
Bob Linscheid
Walnut Creek Chamber of Commerce
Vice President – Economic
Development & Jobs
Vic Baker
EquitiFy
Vice President –
Communications
Wendy Gutshall
Safeway
Vice President – Membership
Brian Dean
Wells Fargo
Chief Legal Counsel
Horace Green
Brothers Smith, LLP
Vice President -
Infrastructure
Chadi Chazbek
Kimley-Horn
Immediate Past Chair
Ken Mintz
President & CEO
Kristin B. Connelly
1615 Bonanza Street, Suite 324, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | voice 925.246.1880 www.eastbayleadershipcouncil.com

January 18, 2022 By electronic transmission City of Oakland Planning Commission Peterson Vollmann Subject: Oakland Waterfront District Ballpark ER18-016; State Clearinghouse No. 2018112070 Dear Chair Manus and staff, We reiterate that not enough time has been allocated for review of the large FEIR document, and that the Planning Commission should take its time to comment thoroughly, to advise the City Council. These comments may be supplemented should the opportunity provide itself. A. GONDOLA VARIANT The EIR acknowledges that the Aerial Gondola Variant would have significant and unavoidable adverse impacts on the Old Oakland Area of Primary Importance (“API”), which the EIR identifies as a cultural and historic resource. (CUL-10.) In 1967, the Oakland Landmarks Board and City Council designated the Old Oakland API as a S-7 Preservation Combining Zone. As the Architectural Resources Technical Memorandum states: According to the 1984 Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey, “The Old Oakland district is the surviving downtown commercial center of the 1870’s and 1880’s, with additions made in the early decades of the 20th century when the commercial heart had moved farther north but auxiliary commercial functions still attracted investment money. As commerce moved still farther north and to the suburbs, the subject area was preserved by neglect, then surrounded by government redevelopment, which in turn is bringing back commercial liveliness, through convention center and hotels, until the Old Oakland District is expected to become a virtual museum of built commercial history.” Old Oakland is architecturally and historically significant as an intact, late-19th-century commercial district that once served as the primary commercial center for the City of Oakland. It represents the wealth and commerce that came to Oakland after it became the western terminus for the transcontinental railroad in 1869. In 2 1875, the Central Pacific Railroad established its first passenger depot on 7th Street, between Broadway and Washington Street. That same year, Alameda County opened a pair of lavish government buildings on Broadway between 4th and 5th streets. Over the next decades, the area flourished with construction of large, modern hotels and offices, commercial spaces, and retail markets. The EIR’s treatment of the impacts of the Aerial Gondola Variant on the Old Oakland API is deficient in at least two respects: First, the EIR’s discussion of the impacts of the Aerial Gondola Variant on the Old Oakland API is unduly restricted and segmented by narrowly focusing its discussion on a few significant impacts of the proposed gondola system—the proposed Convention Center Station, the effects on two specific buildings (the Washington Hotel and Swan’s Market), and of shadowing and partial obstruction of street level views. (DEIR at 5-112 to -113.) The EIR contains no description, discussion, analysis, or illustrations of how the introduction of a modern overhead gondola system that overhangs the Old Oakland API will impact the character and integrity of the API as a whole. The EIR fails to provide the decisionmaking body with adequate information or guidance to enable it to evaluate the nature and extent of the adverse impacts of Aerial Gondola Variant on the character and integrity of the Old Oakland API, as opposed to the EIR’s limited discussion of view and shadow impacts. The EIR should be revised to include sufficient analysis of the impacts on the character and integrity of the overall district that enables the decisionmakers to make an adequately informed decision whether the Aerial Gondola Variant would irreparably damage the character of Old Oakland and therefore outweigh the benefits from approving that variant as part of the project. Second, the EIR proposes no mitigation measures for the Aerial Gondola Variant as such, except for the design of the Convention Center Station. No mitigations are proposed with respect to the placement and design of the gondola system itself, such as the location and route of the gondola, the design, height, and placement of support piers, the size of the gondola cars, and the placement of stations. The EIR proposes no mitigations for reducing or eliminating the impact of the Aerial Gondola Variant on character and integrity of the Old Oakland API except for a vague commitment to “minimize the horizontal and vertical extent” of the Convention Center Station, “to the extent feasible within the final determined design constraints.” (Mitigation Measure CUL-7.) With respect to the Convention Center Station, the EIR assumes that the Convention Center Station will be located at 10th and Washington Streets, a prominent site directly impacting the API, including options for significantly extending the station mass and platform down the center of Washington Street directly adjacent to Swan’s Market and the Washington Hotel, as well as along 10th Street. Mitigation Measure CUL-7 appears to assume, without analysis, that the gondola line must be brought down Washington Street, a principal street of the Old Oakland API, with a station that would directly impact Washington Street and possibly take up significant portions of Washington and 10th Streets. The EIR contains no discussion of the necessity for these design decisions, and the mitigation is vague and standardless, essentially deferring mitigation post-EIR to a later design phase of the project. 3 At a minimum, Mitigation Measure CUL-7 should be changed as follows: The design of the Convention Center Station will minimize the horizontal and vertical extent of the new architectural structure. It will occupy the minimal footprint possible and locate that footprint outside of the Old Oakland API. In addition, the design of the platform will limit visual intrusions and obstruction within the Old Oakland API. B. SKIPPING LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD REVIEW We received a memo from staff planner Peterson Vollmann, which in part states that the project variants calling for the alteration of the Peaker Plant and an aerial gondola will not be submitted to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB) for recommendation before certification of the FEIR, even though both variants would have significant and unavoidable adverse impacts on cultural and historic resources within the advisory jurisdiction of the LPAB: Given the limited impacts from the baseline project on historic resources, the item will not be returning to the Landmarks Board prior to EIR certification. The other historic resource issues that were raised were regarding the two project variants that may include an alteration to the building wings of the historic PG&E peaker plant (which was changed and would now only affect a portion of one of the building wings) and a potential aerial gondola that would run along Washington Street through the Old Oakland API. If the applicant does elect to pursue either of these project variants in the future, the mitigations require that they return to the Landmarks Board as part of consideration of those proposals prior to consideration by the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council for any project approvals. I have contacted the members of the Landmarks Board and made them aware of the information that I am providing to you in this e-mail correspondence. The Planning Commission and the City Council are entitled to receive, and must consider, the recommendations of the LPAB on the impacts of these project variants. The currently proposed procedure—to present the project variants to the LPAB only after the FEIR has already been certified, without any opportunity for advice from the LPAB—is like giving a pre-approval to an optional part of the project which would be highly destructive, as the “significant and unavoidable” assessment makes clear. It is not acceptable to skip this advisory body as the FEIR moves through the Planning Commission and to the City Council. We understand that the City Council may be the certifying body, but the FEIR is presented to the Planning Commission for its recommendation. Why should the Commission be deprived of advice on historic preservation, when that is the purpose of the LPAB? While some mitigations might require a return to the LPAB for the purposes of project approval, it seems an already-certified FEIR would not allow for any further environmental discussion, such as reviewing or mitigating the actual impacts upon the Old Oakland API. 4 OHA therefore requests that the two variants be removed from the project altogether, and that the project proponent prepare a new environmental document if either variant were to be proposed later. Alternatively, certification of the FEIR should be postponed pending recommendations from the LPAB after LPAB hearings on the two project variants. We appreciate the staff's desire for efficiency, but see no compelling reason for truncating review of such an important project. It makes people suspicious instead of confident in their city governance. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, Mary Harper President cc: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, City Council

Fw: Support for the A's in Howard Terminal
Payne, Catherine <[email protected]>
Wed 1/19/2022 9:55 AM
To: Vollmann, Peterson <[email protected]>
For your records
Catherine Payne, Development Planning Manager
City of Oakland, Bureau of Planning
Phone/cell: (510) 915-0577
Email: [email protected]
From: Andrew Snow <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 9:36 AM
To: Armstrong, Desmona <[email protected]>; Payne, Catherine <[email protected]> Subject: Support for the A's in Howard Terminal

[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

To Whom it may concern,
As a life long resident of Oakland, and now a small business owner, I am writing this letter today in support of the City of Oakland allowing the A’s to build a stadium on the Howard Terminal site. From my reading, research, and following a long, this is a deal Oakland can’t pass up. We need more revenue and more life put into this city. The EIR shows that this deal is a good one for the city and the community. It will make the city better at the end of it, and will allow for Oakland to prosper going forward.

There have been many bad deals proposed and agreed to by the city with many different partners, so doing all of this due diligence is much appreciated, sitting as an outside observer this deal seems ripe for success for all involved.

Please vote to support the EIR and to keep the project moving along, this is the type of investment the city of Oakland desperately needs.

Thank you for your time
Andrew Snow
Andrew Snow
www.GoldenSquirrelpub.com
Cell: 202-321-8195
Pub: 510-735-9220
The Golden Squirrel
5940 College Ave
Oakland, CA 94618
Please follow us on social media
www.FACEBOOK.com/goldensquirrelpub
www.INSTAGRAM.com/goldensquirrelpub
www.TWITTER.com/goldensquirrelp
Fw: Not a recommendation
Armstrong, Desmona <[email protected]>
Wed 1/19/2022 1:14 PM
To: Clark Manus <[email protected]>; Sahar Shirazi <[email protected]>; Tom Limon <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Jennifer Renk <[email protected]>; Jonathan Fern ([email protected]) <[email protected]>
Cc: Vollmann, Peterson <[email protected]>
Public Comment
Desmona R. Armstrong, PSR | City of Oakland | Bureau of Planning | 250 Frank H. Ogawa, Suite 2214 | Oakland, CA 94612 | Phone: (510) 238-6343 | Email: [email protected] Website: www.oaklandca.gov/departments/planning-and-building ** Please note that I am working remotely in response to the COVID-19 event and the Alameda County Department of Health Shelter In Place Order. The City buildings at Frank H Ogawa Plaza are closed to the public unl further noce. For the current status of all Planning and Building Department services, please check for updates at: hps://www.oaklandca.gov/news/2020/planning-building- department-response-to-shelter-in-place
From: Jermaine Roberts <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 8:00 AM
To: Armstrong, Desmona <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Not a recommendaon

[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

To:

Desmona R. Armstrong, PSR | Bureau of Planning |
I am a homeless man who's been purposely left out on the streets to fend for myself due to this stadium being built!
I have a history w/ the Howard terminals, being that I use to be a Shoreman that appears to have been cut off by PMA Pacific Maritime Association & the union being both local 10 & local 34 due to poor representation & for the reason that this stadium is being approved to be built.

It seems that a portion of the money that might possibly be used to build this stadium was money I was cut off from in an effort to cut corners. This ordeal has been going on for over 20 yrs! & Every time I come up w/ current proof that both PMA, local 10 & 34 as well as American Presidential Lines are responsible for this homeless fate that I am forced to live due to greed, they step in & cause a disruption & the evidence disappears! This being as recent as 2019 & 2020! I find it odd that any & every person that comes in the way of this stadium being built seems to suffer a ill fate. John David McAfee seem to die 3 months before the stadium was to be voted on after ALLEGEDLY falling on hard times & having tax issues w/ the State of California IRS. A fate they started off their attack on me w/. Causing my immediate downfall after losing my job that the union will claim that I quit. But I walked off the job due to a reoccurring injury that I should have never went back to work w/out getting the proper treatment & the issue properly being resolved in the first place.

That's another story, but also a current story as well. Because they have used the same tactic as back in 2007 to get me to go back to work w/out receiving a settlement as they are trying to get of me now! Forcing their hand upon a situation that they don't want to deal w/ & going through the streets to deal w/ it!
But John David McAfee having tax problems & then all of a sudden a month before the actual voting for the stadium to come to fruition dies of some causes, seems a little suspicious to me!
Then the officials cause of death:
"an official autopsy ruled McAfee's death a suicide.Jun 29, 2021."
Google search
This seems more than a little suspicious to me!
I know that my plea to stop this stadium is really late! But this developer(s) & investors have gone as far as to murder the a prominent man in order to have this stadium built! & Have made me sit back & watch the Jack London Square district be built up in anticipation of this stadium being built! & Have cut me off from my assets & disability that's been proven time & time again! Just so that I wouldn't have the pennies to fight my longshoreman worksman compensation ruling. Now that they have all of the surrounding areas built. Now all that's left is to build the stadium! Something that will cause a lot more families to be on the poverty line!
Before this stadium is built, there should be an investigation on how the people who could stop this stadium from being built has either fallen on hard times & or died a mysterious death! Something that I think is going to happen to me soon after this meeting this afternoon! I have been being stalked by people for decades now!
I have gone to Barbara Lee, Barbara Boxer, & rob Bonta's office to try & settle my issues way before I knew anything about this stadium possibly being built!
But Barbara Boxer suddenly left office right after I went to see her office that use to be on Washington St in the Jack London Square district.

Barbara Lee suddenly left her position as a congresswoman after I went to her office. & She sent me to Rob Bonta when he was a State Assembly member & had a office in the Oakland State building. I only saw Jim Oddie his state tax specialist. & After he tried unsuccessfully to resolve a Social Security Administration benefits issue, he & Rob Bonta's office have left me living on the streets homeless for going on 6 yrs come March 28, 2022!
They are going to claim that u have a mental health issue. But if that was the case why did he make me an offer in person in their office w/ his entire staff for a physical disability that's been ALLEGEDLY suspended for over 30 yrs?
Now they have all moved on & forgot about me! I forgot I wrote a letter to the U.S. attorney general Eric Holder @ the time & got a response from Kamala Harris's office claiming to to be a CIVIL RIGHTS matter & that she couldn't assist me which was odd.

I also tried to contact her as the senator of district 20 which is Alameda county CA & she avoided me @ all costs & ran for president & then was picked up as Joseph Biden's running mate as vice president. Now the issue is beneath her!
Now David Padilla seems to be cutting my throat every chance he gets. All of my previous email addresses have been cut off & I have had to form new ones so all of the information stored has been loss in my eyes!
You are my last hope! Can you assist me please?
One more thing, why does Alameda county CA have to come up w/ money to I have this stadium built? The developer is supposed to bring money to the state & county, not take from it!
Can you please assist me & having my voice heard?
Sincerely,
Mr. Jermaine Roberts

January 26, 2022

Hon. Nikki Fortunato Bas, President Andreas Cluver, President City Council Board of Port Commissioners
City of Oakland Port of Oakland
One Frank Ogawa Plaza, 2
nd Floor 530 Water St.

Oakland, CA 94612 Oakland, CA 94607
Delivered electronically

RE: Failure to Implement Effective Seaport Compatibility Measures for Howard Terminal

Dear Council President Bas and City Coucilmembers and President Cluver and Port Commissioners,

We regrettably write to you today to report that the Port of Oakland and the City of Oakland have abjectly failed to propose a suite of effective Seaport Compatibility Measures (SCMs) for the Howard Terminal project.

We respectfully request that the City and Port direct their staff to 1) swiftly, effectively, and in good faith deliberate with maritime stakeholders regarding the delivery of an effective Seaport Compatibility Measures program and 2) subsequently implement and make enforceable against the Howard Terminal project the agreed-upon SCMs through the Development Agreement and other entitlements, leases, and property sales agreements still to be negotiated with the Oakland A’s.

The maritime stakeholders truly appreciate the good faith policy positions taken on the need for effective Seaport Compatibility Measures by the Board of Port Commissioners, through SCM inclusion in the non-binding ENA and Term Sheet action taken in May 2019, the Mayor, and by the City Council, through direction to City staff to develop SCM conditions of approval during discussion on action taken on July 20, 2021. In response, and in spite of our general reservations over the Oakland A’s proposed stadium project, the maritime stakeholder community has attempted to assist the City and the Port develop these important Measures, but neither the City nor the Port has shown any constructive initiative or bonafide interest to work with our industry and labor stakeholders on this issue.

Despite direct City Council instruction to do so, neither the City nor the Port staff has substantively communicated with us on the subject of Seaport Compatibility Measures for the past 6 months. Our industry and labor groups made presentations of a full suite of proposed SCMs - aside from and over and above our comments on the inadequate measures described in the Draft EIR - to the Port staff in June and July 2021, and we memorialized these additional areas in a letter to City Council in September 2021. In response, there has been no further communications from the City or the Port.

Complicating matters, Port staff will not entertain any Howard Terminal-related transportation impacts and mitigation during their transportation planning and seaport planning stakeholder processes, citing the ongoing work on the EIR. However, since the recently released FEIR does not address either the many non-environmental impacts that are proposed to be mitigated by the SCMs, and the responses to SCM concerns in the FEIR itself are as inadequate and ineffective as the original descriptions and lack of inclusion of many SCMs in the DEIR, this leaves us no forum for this important and critical conversation.

Chief amongst these failures of the DEIR/FEIR and necessitating further conversation are the lack of any meaningful analysis of the displacement of trucking and equipment acreage, the lack of a fully grade- separated project alternative, and only a plan to adopt a future plan, subject to funding and agreement by the City, Port and the A’s, regarding navigational safety.

For these SCM policies to materialize and be effective, the Port and City must actually work with the maritime community and stakeholders to propose and achieve true Seaport Compatibility Measure development and implementation. The Port and the City need to work with us on addressing the many proposed SCMs which have been proposed outside of the EIR process, and subsequent to the closure of the DEIR comment period, in addition to addressing the failure of the SCMs in the Environmental documents to deliver adequate and effective compatibility. The FEIR responses are dismissive, unhelpful half-measures at best, and literally fail to effectively mitigate the impacts of this project on seaport operations.

While we remain concerned and harbor many reservations regarding the wisdom of moving the Howard Terminal project forward in any capacity, both the Port Commission and the City Council have asked our community to work with City and Port staff on Seaport Compatibility Measures in order to avoid impacts and preserve maritime commerce in the event that it gets approved over our objections. We have.

We simply ask that the City Council and Port Commission ensure that the City and Port staff do the same.

Respectfully,

Eric Sauer Matt Schrap
California Trucking Association Harbor Trucking Association

Lee Sandahl Mike Jacob
ILWU Northern California District Council Pacific Merchant Shipping Association

Adrian Guerrero
Union Pacific Railroad

cc: Councilmembers, Oakland City Council
Board of Port Commissioners, Port of Oakland
Hon. Libby Schaaf, Mayor, City of Oakland
Mr. Ed Reiskin, City Administrator, City of Oakland
Mr. Danny Wan, Executive Director, Port of Oakland

P . O . B OX 2 6 6 3 | B E R K E L EY , C A | 9 4 7 0 2 | I N F O @ S F B A Y S C .O RG

January 19, 2022
Planning Commission of the City of Oakland
C/o Mr. Peterson Vollman
Oakland City Hall
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
RE: Oakland Waterfront Ballpark District Project (Case File No. ER18-016; State Clearinghouse No. 2018112070): Request for 60-Day Extension and Comments on Transportation Impacts

Dear Chair Manus and Members of the Oakland Planning Commission,

The Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter represents approximately 35,000 members, including approximately 5000 Oakland residents. We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the Howard Terminal Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) after submitting extensive comments on the Draft EIR last year.

Ours is a volunteer-based organization, and we are diligently working to review the FEIR – replete with 2050 pages, not including 472 pages in appendices – to ensure that our comments have been incorporated to our satisfaction. It is unrealistic to provide just over 30 days of comments to review such an extensive document over the holidays. Therefore we respectfully request a 60-day extension for review of the FEIR and accompanying documents.

As noted in April 2021, Howard Terminal has insufficient transit access and would require residents and visitors to make at-grade railroad crossings perhaps multiple times per day. This creates a significant safety risk, including to pedestrians and bicyclists who might try to cross the tracks when trains are stopped, as the DEIR acknowledges is a common occurrence. While the FEIR begins to address these concerns, we do not believe that it sufficiently evaluates such public safety risks, including to children who might be drawn to climb on or around the trains. As we noted in the DEIR, this transportation conflict also could cause motorists to circle or idle for significant periods of time, increasing air emissions. We are not confident that the FEIR adequately study, present, or adopt feasible mitigation., and need additional time to evaluate its responses to our comments so that we can assuage ourselves that it does. The aerial gondola variant continues to be far-fetched and not reliable, nor required, and does not mitigate transportation and public safety impacts.

Thank you for your consideration of our request and comments on transportation impacts.

Respectfully,

Chance Cutrano, Chair
Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter

Fw: Oakland A’s EIR Report
Payne, Catherine <[email protected]>
Wed 1/19/2022 9:29 AM
To: Vollmann, Peterson <[email protected]>
Cc: Armstrong, Desmona <[email protected]>
For your records
Catherine Payne, Development Planning Manager
City of Oakland, Bureau of Planning
Phone/cell: (510) 915-0577
Email: [email protected]
From: Wendy Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:28 PM
To: Payne, Catherine <[email protected]>
Cc: burt boltuch <[email protected]>
Subject: Oakland A’s EIR Report

[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

I am a long time resident of Oakland and seriously concerned about the future economic growth of my community.

I strongly support and encourage the approval of the final EIR report for the Oakland A’s Waterfront Ballpark Project. It is time to move forward.

Yours sincerely,
Wendy Cohen
339 62nd Street
Oakland 94618
Get Outlook for iOS
Memorandum
To: Council President Bas and Vice Mayor KaplanFrom:Oakland Chinatown Working GroupDate: February 10, 2022Subject: Requested Changes to the Traffic Management Plan within the Howard Terminal EIR The Chinatown Working Group recommends limited changes to the text of the TrafficManagement Plan (TMP) in Appendix TRA-1 of the proposed Final EIR to carry out theChinatown-related directives of the July 20 th
, 2021City Council resolution that approved theHoward Terminal Project Term Sheet. 1 1. Role for Chinatown’s Representatives in Implementing the TMP a. Must be Consulted During Project’s Implementation Phase The Council stated that staff should propose an appropriate role for Chinatown representativesin implementing the Project’s Transportation Management Plan. The draft TMP only providesthat Community Groups such as Chinatown “may offer consultation and feedback on the projectdesign and operational planning to help ensure a smooth integration into the existingneighborhood.” (Table 1-1: Key Stakeholders, Roles and Responsibilities, TRA-1, p. 15). TheCommunity Groups’ role must include “consultation and feedback on project implementation,monitoring, and enforcement” to achieve the Council’s intent. Impacted communities need tobe able to monitor the Project’s impact and seek corrective action while the Project isoperational.

Minor language changes to Section 1.3 “Key Stakeholders” and ,Table 1-1: “Key Stakeholders,Roles and Responsibilities” are suggested in the Attachment. b. Must Be Included in Discussions Between A’s Representative and City/Port 1 The resolution sought measures to address community concerns regarding the compatibility of the HowardTerminal Ballpark with Chinatown, by Identifying and minimizing the potential safety, economic, and environmentalimpacts of traffic and parking congestion on Chinatown, through means including but not limited to:● An appropriate role for Chinatown representatives in implementing the Project’s TransportationManagement Plan,● Prioritizing the use of Chinatown parking garages for cultural events when they occur simultaneously withBallpark events,● Working with the A’s to promote patronage of Chinatown businesses by event attendees, and● Establishing a community oversight body to ensure that community benefits in any DevelopmentAgreement are realized, among other things.

The TMP provides for quarterly meetings between the A’s representative, the City, Port, andother transportation providers to evaluate the TMP strategies throughout the life of the project.Representatives of Chinatown and the surrounding neighborhoods must be invited to thesediscussions.

2. Including Community Protection In the TMP
The Council and the City Staff have assured Chinatown that policies and actions to protect thecommunity will be included in the TMP. The A’s will designate a mobility coordinator to overseethe ongoing implementation of the Ballpark TMP. The mobility coordinator would represent theA’s to the City, the Port, and surrounding neighborhoods to support the project’s “sustainabletrip making.” The duties of the mobility coordinator should also include overseeing measures reasonablynecessary to protect the safety economic, and environmental health of the surroundingcommunities. Minor language changes to Section 4, “Ballpark Travel Management Strategies”paragraph 1.

A Chinatown-specific performance measure is added to Chapter 16, “Monitoring, Refinementand Performance Standards” in the Appendix. This performance measure is modeled on themeasure for the Port of Oakland and is a place holder until the results of the Chinatown TrafficStudy are available.

Both of these changes are provided in the Appendix.

3. Prioritizing the Use of Chinatown’s Parking Garages
Staff has not proposed a program to prioritize the use of Chinatown parking garages for culturalevents as requested by the Council in July. It appears that any program will be introduced closerto opening day. To make sure that this principle is incorporated into the actual parkingmanagement program, the Council’s direction should be added as a guiding principle for theTMP’s Off-Site Parking Management Program.

The new term has been added to Section 8.4 “Off-Site Parking Management”, which appears inthe Attachment.

4. Discussion
a. These Changes Should be Made Now
These changes should be incorporated by action of the City Council to ensure that the City’sintent to protect Chinatown through the TMP is carried out. 2 The EIR states that the A’s will submit a TMP with its application for building permits. (EIR Table2-1, Mitigation Measure Trans 1-b, p. 2-83). We should assume that the TMP would address nomore than the minimum requirements of the Final EIR.

Presently, the TMP’s only purpose is only to set the standard by which the A’s compliance withAB 734 will be evaluated. Staff has said that Chinatown protection measures will eventually beadded to the TMP. Once the TMP has been adopted (as part of the Final EIR), changes to theTMP are subject to City approval (TMP p. 14).

It is unclear when the City would have the opportunity to amend the TMP. These changesshould be adopted now to provide the A’s with clear guidelines for the development approvalprocess. b. Neighborhood Protection is a Proper TMP Goal
EIR Table 2-1, Mitigation Measure Trans 1-b states that the one of the City’s overarching goalsfor the TMP is “to manage how the project interacts with the surrounding area, includingresidential neighborhoods, the Port of Oakland, and local industries and businesses.” It also listscertain high-level objectives of the TMP (p.2-83), including “Facilitate the safe and efficient flowof traffic into and out of the site and the adjacent neighborhoods during event and no-eventconditions.” This overarching goal indicates that providing Chinatown and surrounding neighborhoods aneffective role in minimizing potential safety economic and environmental impacts is consistentwith the TMP. 3 ATTACHMENT
RED-LINE CHANGES TO THE DRAFT TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLANText is quoted directly from the TMP, unless stated otherwise Section 1.3: Key Stakeholders
Overall management of the TMP will be overseen by the A’s, the City of Oakland, and the Port ofOakland. The A’s will have responsibility for implementation of the Plan, and the City of OaklandandPort of Oaklandand representatives of the Chinatown,Jack London, Old Oakland and WestOakland communitieswill provide feedback and directionto the A’s to modify the TMP asneeded, based on the results of monitoring reports. (TMP p. 14)
…
Table 1-2 (stet, should be Table 1-1) describes theroles and responsibilities for key agencies andentitites involved in implementing the TMP It is expected this table will change over time basedon which agencies and organizations are required to play a role in the TMP.

Table 1-1: Key Stakeholders, Roles and Responsibilities Community Groups: Community groups may offer consultation and feedback onthe project design,andoperational planning, monitoringand enforcementtohelp ensure a smooth integration into the existing neighborhood. Somecommunity groups include the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project,Jack London Improvement District (JLID) and other neighborhood and businessgroups in West Oakland, Jack London District, Chinatown District, and OldOakland District, as well as Bick East Bay, Walk Oakland Bike Oakland, and SPUROakland. (TMP p. 17)
Chapter 16: Monitoring, Refinement and Performance Standards Methods that will be employed to monitor TMP strategies include, but are not limited to,the following:

1. Coordination Meetings - -the on-site mobility coordinator and key Ballpark staff willmeet quarterly with the City’s designated representative, the Port of Oakland, andother key City staff,andother transportation serviceproviders,and representatives of 4 Chinatown and the other surrounding neighborhoodsto evaluate the TMP strategiesthroughout the life of the project. (TMP p. 110)
Section 4: Ballpark Travel Management Strategies…Under all circumstances, as part of the TMP implementation, the A’s will be required tocomplete the following:

1. The A’s will designate a mobility coordinator to oversee and coordinate theongoing implementation of the Ballpark TMP. … The coordinator will alsocoordinate with the Oakland A’s, other Ballpark site tenants, the City of Oakland,the Port of Oakland andthesurrounding neighborhoodsof Chinatown, JackLondon Square, Old Oakland, and West Oaklandon policies,operations, andcapital needs to support the project’s sustainable trip makingand measuresreasonably necessary to protect the safety, economic and environmental healthof the surrounding neighborhoods. (TMP p. 36)
Section 16.3: Performance Standards and Goals
The TMP is oriented towards the achievement of a 20 percent vehicle trip reductionperformance standard mandated by AB 734 legislation, wit various goals related to theperformance of the transportation system also used to assess whether furtherrefinements to the TMP are warranted.… The following standards have been developed for the project, and the A’s throughimplementation of the TMP monitoring, will be responsible for collecting the datanecessary to determine if the standards are being met, as well as preparing theperformance monitoring reports documenting whether each standard was met andwhat, if any, change are necessary to meet each standard. … ..12. Chinatown Operations: Travel times and traffic queues for vehicles travelling intoand around Chinatown are at reasonable and acceptable levels. The routes evaluatedmay include, but are not limited to, the following:a. Webster and Harrison Streets between the Webster and Posey Tubes,respectively, and 12 th
Street
5 b. Streets traversing or bordering Chinatown used to access off-street parking inDowntown, Jack London Square, and Chinatownc. Jackson street on-ramp to highway 880 north and off-ramp from 880 southd.

Oak street off-ramp from 880 north and theOak Street on-ramp to 880 southe.

Routes used after the Broadway off-ramp from880 north is removedf. Parking in public and city-owned lots, especially Pacific Renaissance Plaza andothers around Chinatown. (TMP p. 113)

8.4 Off-Site Parking Management
The City of Oakland prepared a Parking Management Plan (PMP) that addresses daily on-and off-street parking management in Oakland with additional details for parkingmanagement near the Project site on game days. The PMP identifies the followingprinciples to guide parking and curb management decisions:
● Parking is part of a multimodal approach to developing neighborhood transportationinfrastructure.● Parking should be actively managed to maximize efficient use of a public resource.● Parking should be easy for customers.● Parking policy and regulation should help the City meet other transportation, land use,and environmental goals.● Chinatown’s parking garages will be prioritized for Chinatown’s cultural events whenthey occur at the same time as A’s events. (TMP p. 74)
6

Oakland City CouncilFebruary 17, 2022

Oakland City Council
February 17, 2022