At the end of last night's marathon City Council session on two bills that would allow a major new development at Lighthouse Point, the Land Use and Transportation deferred a vote until the City Department of Transportation completes its study of traffic in Southeast Baltimore.
The decision came after three hours of testimony from City officials, representatives of Cignal Corporation and the adjacent Tindeco Wharf site, local community associations, independent consultants, and concerned members of the public.
"I think this project has begun to shine a light on traffic issues" along Boston Street and the surrounding area, testified Jamie Kendrick, a deputy director at the Department of Transportation. "A site-by-site survey does not give a clear overall picture." He recommended that the Committee not act on the two bills until its traffic study has been completed.
Representatives of the City Departments of Planning, Public Works, and Housing, as well as the Baltimore Development Corporation, announced their support for the passage of the two bills. The Department of Parking also supported passage, but urged the Council to hold off voting until DOT makes its final recommendations.
Visitors in the balcony of the Curran Conference Room craned their necks to watch the presentations by Department of Planning representatives Gary Cole and Laurie Feinberg, and later in the session by Icon designer Lou Bernardo.
"The opportunity for a meaningful project is there," Bernardo observed at the beginning of his review of the latest design, which features an 18-story residential tower, parking garage, and retail space.
City Council members James B. Kraft (1st District) and Mary Pat Clarke (14th District) actively questioned City representatives and other speakers throughout the evening, seeking clarification on issues ranging from the formulas used to compute the square footage that could be built on the site to the provision for affordable housing in the proposed development. State Delegate Peter A. Hammen (46th District) also spoke.
"There is such a thing as overdevelopment," said Hammen. "The last thing we want to do is to keep people from moving to Southeast Baltimore."
Marco Greenberg, Vice President of Cignal Corporation, which owns the site and seeks to build the Icon tower, reviewed the lengthy process that Cignal had followed in its efforts to find a workable compromise. Later, representatives from Tindeco Wharf testified that they believed the process to have been fundamentally flawed.
Tempers were comparatively restrained throughout the discussion of this highly charged and often polarizing development proposal. Councilman Kraft repeatedly commended all parties for their civility and professionalism throughout the years-long review process.
The tension crested, however, during the testimony of Anirban Basu, Chairman and CEO of Sage Policy Group and WYPR radio personality. Seeking Basu's opinion on affordable housing, Clarke was surprised when her question sparked vigorous applause from the audience. "I really wasn't trying to corner you," she explained. However, Basu's opinion that the City would see little economic benefit from affordable housing on prime real estate provoked a rebuke from Kraft, who called Basu's comments "elitist" and "flippant."
Basu noted that the proposed project represented a potential $75 million investment in the City and could create over 430 new jobs. "That's the amount of skin the public has in this game," he said.
Other speakers reiterated the development's potential negative impact on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, closure of the waterfront promenade during construction, blocked views, and lengthy shadows cast by the tower.
Throughout the evening, Committee members excused themselves to attend other meetings and prior commitments. Around 40 people signed up to testify, and Committee Chair Edward Reisinger (10th District) did his best to enforce reasonable time limits to ensure that everyone had a chance to speak.
Although proponents and opponents alike had hoped that last night's meeting would lead to a decision once and for all, ultimately it was the issue of traffic impact that decided the issue for the Committee. Until DOT completes its traffic study, the two bills will remain at the committee level.