Area 3 & 4 Project Gets City Council OK; A Completely Preventable Disaster Waiting To Happen (2024)

Neighbor News

The transcript of my speech given at the 3/26/2015 Newark City Council public hearing outlining the many issues with the proposed project.

Posted Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 7:56 am PT|Updated Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 11:26 am PT

Good evening City Council members,

My name is Ricardo Corte. Today, I will present why the Area 3 & 4 Development is an irresponsible project that will impact all current and future Newark residents. I want to make clear that I am not against development of Area 3. Rather, the majority of the controversy surrounds any development of Area 4, which contains invaluable and irreplaceable wetlands, marshlands, and uplands.

First, I would like to note that Assistant City Manager Terrence Grindall stated on March 12, 2015 during the Planning Commission hearing for this project that: “landfill from this project would not increase the risk of flooding in any part of Newark”. I am concerned at the continued failure by the City to properly and candidly disclose the dangers of this project even after a lawsuit criticized the City for doing the same with its prior environmental impact report. Mr. Grindall’s claim is at best a misleading statement. Rather than give an extended scientific lecture, I would like City Council members to imagine that all the wetland, upland, and marshland are a giant sponge. By developing half of the lands to place in-fill, cement, and homes; this will cut this imaginary sponge in half. Now, which sponge will be more effective, the one that has not been damaged in any way, or the one that has been cut in half and has cement? This analogy is exactly what is going on with the development on Area 4. Developing these lands will increase the risk of flooding to future residents of Area 4 and the rest of the City. Additionally, no artificial levees or man-made barriers will ever be as effective or economical as nature’s own protections against flooding like our undisturbed wetlands, marshlands, and uplands.

Secondly, I fail to understand why the City continues to insist on Area 4 development when on multiple occasions several regulatory agencies like United States Fish and Wildlife Service, San Francisco Bay Area Conservation and Development Commission, San Francisco Water Board or environmental groups like San Francisco Bay Keeper, Greenbelt Alliance, Citizens to Complete the Refuge, and Ohlone Audborn Society have expressed their disapproval for the project. On page 159, of the Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report, The Regional Water Board has outright stated that “no commenting federal or State agency with jurisdiction over waters and wetlands has indicated approval of the proposed mitigation measures”. It is likely that many regulatory agencies will not grant the permits necessary to develop on the land. Perhaps, despite the countless mitigations suggested, the reality is that Area 4 cannot be developed without damaging it permanently and forever.

Developing on areas that serve an irreplaceable ecological purpose for countless animals and plants, some of which are endangered, is not considering the future well being of the city. Building a golf course when golf courses around the nation and the Bay Area are closing down from lack of demand and current drought conditions is not considering the future well being of the city. Suggesting to construct another recreational facility when our City subsidizes the Silliman Center $3 million every year and can only afford to have our Community Center open on the weekends is not considering the future well being of the City. Building entire neighborhoods on marshlands covered with up to 2.1 million cubic yards of in-fill and that will forever be in risk of liquefaction is not considering the future well being of the City. Destroying our City’s flood protections provided by nature that are better and cheaper than any artificial levees or man-made barriers, is not considering the future well being of the city.

In light of all this, I request that Alternative 3 identified in the Environmental Impact Report should be the option selected going forward. Simply, no development would occur on Area 4, and would instead focus on Area 3. With this alterative, the City gets their housing and space for a school. The marshlands can become an untouched bayside park destination that is unique and will add to our Pride as a City. They can also serve our Ohlone College Newark campus as a real-life research site. Newark citizens win by not creating a water wasteful expensive golf course, more recreational facilities that cannot pay for themselves and building homes that will forever be in danger of liquefaction or flooding. This is an alternative that makes everyone happy and resolves a majority of the controversy. So why not pick the alternative that just makes good sense?