Dumbarton Quarry won’t become Dumbarton Lake
By Matt Artz
Saturday, August 6th, 2011 at 10:31 am in Uncategorized.
For years the plan has been to fill as 300-foot-deep, 20-acre wide quarry pit with water and turn it into a lake just north of the Dumbarton Bridge.
But that’s not going to happen. The old quarry operator, which is required to build Dumbarton Regional Park, and was supposed to have finished it by now, can’t get a water supply to the pit. A plan to bring water over from Alameda Creek drew the ire of regulatory agencies because that would mean less water for those future steelhead trout runs they’re counting on.
Meanwhile, the park district isn’t having the easiest time negotiating with the quarry operator. In June, the district wrote the city a letter alerting it that it couldn’t guarantee that the company (Dumbarton Quarry Associates, a.ka. DeSilva Gates) would live up to its end of the bargain and build a park with as fine amenities as a big lake.
Read the letter below:
East Bay Regional Park District Letter
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
August 12th, 2011 at 10:23 am
My understanding is that a commitment was made that allowed DQA to continue to quarry that hole (and create one of, if not the deepest holes, in the United States). If they are now saying “we don’t know how to keep this commitment” – they have got some “splainin’ to do” and better get ready to open up that checkbook. It seems to me that all of those revenues gained on the back of this commitment could be on the table.
Who okayed this lunacy without a solid plan?
August 12th, 2011 at 10:45 am
There are a couple of issues here . . . one is the willingness and ability of DHQ to deliver as promised, but the other is the viability of the original “plan” which, as the details become known, is (again) looking increasingly ill-conceived.
Specifically – “..agencies also were concerned that, with no feasible way for lake water to flow into the bay, the lake would accumulate unhealthy concentrations of metals and salts, making it inhospitable for fish.” – this concern is in addition to the logistics of filling the thing.
Oh my . . . oh gosh. . . we’re JUST NOW getting around to considering these points ???!!!!
Oh well, at least we had good intentions.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/fremont/ci_18636443
August 12th, 2011 at 11:07 am
This is the result of part time city council politicians making these bad decisions, that the residents of Fremont have to live with forever.
We need a strong full time Mayor and better representation for the city of Fremont. Go to seven Council Members and some form of district elections
August 12th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
When the use permit extension was granted, Tri-City Ecology Center, represented by John Bernstein and John Landers, told the Planning Commission, the City Council, and the Park District exactly what the problem would be. In Matt’s article, you could substitute the speaker in each quote and it would almost be exact.
DQA won the extension by guaranteeing a turn-key park at the end of ten years, and that they understood the problems and there was ten years to solve them. They would find a source for water and they would resolve the issues of the lack of an outflow from the lake (320 feet deep.) The park district supported the extension and the agreement offered by DQA for the completed park.
The Dumbarton Quarry has been an item on the ecology center’s board meeting agenda for years, with constant reminding of city and park district staff and our elected representatives. I recently spoke to the Planning Commission when DQA decided they wanted to start filling the hole with dirt.
I think much of the problem is the turnover of staff and elected officials and the loss of the institutional memory. The completed park was offered by DQA, not demanded by the city or park district, and is a legally, contractual requirement. It must be delivered as commtted, or with a revised plan approved by the city and the park district.
For me, I still think it is a great place for bungee jumping into the pit.
August 12th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Which problem are you alluding to (there are so many here) when you say “….much of the problem is the turnover of staff and elected officials and the loss of the institutional memory.”?
I’m shocked that a modern day institution of ANY kind could be subject to any material “..loss of institutional memory.”
Isn’t that why we create written records and filing systems ??? You know, so that we do NOT have to rely on individual memory ????
wowie !!!!
August 12th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Gus,
Thank you for the explanation.
Regarding:
DQA won the extension by guaranteeing a turn-key park at the end of ten years, and that they understood the problems and there was ten years to solve them…. The park district supported the extension and the agreement offered by DQA for the completed park.
Was EBRPD the sole decision maker here or did DQA need to get additional permission for this? If so, from who?
Thanks again. Dan
August 12th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Thanks for the explanation Gus.
Regarding:
“DQA won the extension by guaranteeing a turn-key park at the end of ten years, and that they understood the problems and there was ten years to solve them. They would find a source for water and they would resolve the issues of the lack of an outflow from the lake (320 feet deep.) The park district supported the extension and the agreement offered by DQA for the completed park.”
Was EBRPD the only gate or did other agencies have to approve this as well?
Thanks again,
Dan
August 12th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Sorry, didn’t think the first one went.
Sincerely,
Jimmy two times
(I’m gonna go get the papers …get the papers)
August 12th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Is our City Attorney getting ready to sue DQA? I sure hope so.
August 12th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
I attended the meeting where DQA gave their song and dance. Big promises of a lake with fish, parklands and a campground for tents and recreational vehicles. Public concerns about water sources and how fish were expected to live in a stagnant lake pit were disregarded. Oh, this was going to be a tourist attraction, close to the Dumbarton Bridge. The park district and the city had already made up their minds. The public meeting was just for show.
But Fremont and the park district are not alone. The City of Newark has been promising a championship golf course and high-end housing for years; to be located on former duck club land surrounded by industrial uses. It’s a game cities play.
August 13th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Dan,
The city approved the extension of the quarry use permit, based on the stated conditions about the park. I think DQA has bonded to guarantee the park improvements, so a law suit may not be required. The park district did not get a vote, but I don’t believe the permit would have passed the council without their endorsement of the project.
August 13th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
Conditions of Approval for the quarry reclamation plan state that completion of deeding the site to EBRPD comes with an irrevocable agreement bonded for at least $2 million. The bond is between the applicant (DQA) and the park district.
The Concept Plan adopted by the City of Fremont March 25, 1997 promises “The 30 acre lake circled by a path is the centerpiece of the park. The 6 acre meadow adjacent to the lake provides space for family recreation.” Looks like there will have to be a new centerpiece.
August 13th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
A new “crown jewel” – -
Where have I heard that before ?
So we gave up 10 years of incremental mining which had a value of $______ – - – In return the city will now realize a $2M bond settlement . . . . maybe.
Good deal or not ????
If DQA had ORIGINALLY offered COF $2M in exchange for another 10 years use, instead of the lake/park promise, whatdya think – we would have taken the deal or not ???
August 14th, 2011 at 10:00 am
Thank you Gus and Margaret.
What an absolute shame.
However, it might be interesting to see what the value of that incremental mining bBox mentions. Could DQA monies help out reversing the mistake of zoning the lands in front of the southern part of the Park for that Cargill 900000 square foot development?
That’s an even bigger mistake….
August 14th, 2011 at 10:46 am
…or I should say shame
August 14th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
ANY monies in this economy would be welcome and could be put to good uses (or not).
What those monies cannot begin to resolve is a process which permitted our community to arrive at this outcome in the first place, and, more imporantly, what we do to reduce the likelihood of a recurrence.