Bridge for sale: CESP responds

This is the response from CESP, probably provoked by my letter to the funding agencies and some City commissions. Does anyone really believe that CESP can isolate its own agenda from the work it proposes to do with public funding?

Citizens for the Eastshore State Park
P.O. Box 6987, Albany, CA 94706
(510) 526-2629

July 13, 2000

To:
Berkeley City Council
Berkeley Waterfront Commission
Berkeley Planning Commission
California Coastal Conservancy
East Bay Regional Park District
California Department of Parks and Recreation

Re: Use of conservancy grant funds by CESP

This relates to criticism of plans for the use of money from the Conservancy by Citizens for the Eastshore State Park for "public outreach," particularly the letter from the Berkeley Waterfront Commission to the Conservancy.

There has been confusion and misunderstanding about whether CESP will use public funds to promote or lobby for adoption of its views about development plans for the Eastshore State Park, which CESP formulated with broad participation over the past many years.

Much of this confusion is the fault of CESP, mainly because of our use of the term "public outreach" in our grant request and communications to support it, and our early discussions about setting up public workshops, etc.

Some of our correspondence and minutes used the term "public outreach" very loosely and without consideration for how it may be interpreted, and this has regrettably caused misunderstanding. Our goal has always been to ensure that there is the maximum public involvement in the planning for the Eastshore State Park. For our own ideas about the future Park, we want to now make it clear that only those funds from voluntary contributions to CESP will be used in its advocacy and lobbying efforts and that the Conservancy grant will only be used by CESP to assist the Park District and State Parks in the following ways:

1. Provide the Park District with a list of persons, organizations, and agencies that have participated or shown interest in plans for the Park;

2. Assist the Park District in assembling an inventory of documents, scientific studies, and reports about the physical aspects and legal constraints and opportunities of the park lands, and past park planning documents;

3. Preparation of a background document including history of efforts to stop commercial development of the area and public acquisition by the State;

4. Assist in documentation of the current environmental status of the Park area, including identification of the wetlands, wildlife, and plant habitats and other pertinent environmental information.

At a May 2nd meeting of representatives of the Coastal Conservancy, the Park District, State Parks and CESP it was agreed that CESP's use of public funds will be limited to the above and that no public funds will be used in advocating or lobbying for acceptance of CESP's park plan proposals. CESP will receive funds from the Conservancy only after pre-approval of the specifics, budget, and time line for CESP's publicly funded activities.

We hope this clarifies any misunderstanding of CESP's role and addresses any concerns anyone might have. Certainly feel free to call the undersigned, if you wish to discuss this further or have additional questions.

Very truly yours,

Dwight Steele, Chair
925-939-4706

Norman La Force, Co-chair
510-526-4772

My comments:

"Much of this confusion is the fault of CESP, mainly because of our use of the term 'public outreach' in our grant request…"

Now we find that CESP freely admits that their use of the terms "public outreach" and "workshops" in their grant application was in error. Does this mean the grant request was fraudulent? Did CESP really intend to use the money for public outreach and workshops, or what? If CESP misrepresented their intentions, shouldn't the grant be withdrawn?

"Our goal has always been to ensure that there is the maximum public involvement in the planning for the Eastshore State Park."

Keep in mind that this letter is signed by Dwight Steel, same person quoted in the June 7 CESP minutes: "Dwight stated that a proper outreach role for CESP will be drafted and alliances created so that our views can prevail"

"…we want to now make it clear that only those funds from voluntary contributions to CESP will be used in its advocacy and lobbying efforts…"

As if money in one pocket doesn't help with projects that would have otherwise been funded from another. And even the list of tasks "to assist the Park District and State Parks" are clearly in support CESP's agenda. These tasks evidently remain within the scope of the revised grant.

It must be recognized, of course, that CESP's agenda is not an unpopular one. To the casual observer of the waterfront, protected open space and not much else seems like a natural response to overdevelopment and poor access elsewhere along the East Bay shoreline.

However, this judgment is often made in the absence of creative alternatives. This is an urban waterfront on an artificial shoreline alongside a major freeway. A park modeled after wilderness open space is a force fit at best. By ignoring the need to buffer the freeway, the CESP plan paces views from cars above views from the water. It all but precludes active participation in water-related activities (see the deletion of boathouses and related support facilities from CESP's recent markup of the 1986 waterfront plan). The water is what makes the site unique and gives it special value, but to CESP the uses of the water are an afterthought. This shoreline should not be painted with the same broad brush as inland open space.

The big irony here is that just north of the Albany border, the new owner of the race track plans to construct a major commercial development - with a horse racing theme - on the last remaining bit of natural and original East Bay shoreline. This section of shoreline is removed from the freeway and probably deserves the sort of open-space protection being attempted on the Berkeley North Basin Strip. Perhaps there are hidden economic factors at work, or perhaps it's because the race track development isn't likely to block the views from car windows. But on our current course, the result will be commerce and open space where both are least appropriate.