A’s proposed ballpark has no ‘show stoppers’
OAKLAND >> A crucial environment report outlining what it will take for the A’s to build a 35,000-seat waterfront ballpark doesn’t contain any “show stoppers,” according to team President Dave Kaval.
The exhaustive report, released Friday, details the impact a ballpark development that includes housing, offices and a hotel would have on everything from traffic congestion to air quality to noise to safety.
Kaval said he’s now watching for an upcoming Court of Appeals ruling on whether the environmental review approval process can be fast-tracked, as a lower court decided. Any decision prolonging the process “would kill the project,” he said.
A court-ordered delay also would raise questions over where, if not Howard Terminal near the Port of Oakland, the A’s would build a ballpark. It raises the possibility that the team, which now owns half of the Coliseum site, could look outside Oakland.
But on a day fans have long awaited, Kaval did not wish to discuss details except to say the team is committed to and excited about the Howard Terminal ballpark.
“If you read the content, there are really not any show stoppers in this environmental impact report,” he said in a phone interview from spring training in Arizona. “Sometimes when you do a report like this, it becomes obvious that certain things are just not going to happen. That’s not what this is about. A lot of these key areas that people have a lot of concerns about, there’s a defined plan to show how these things can be handled appropriately.”
According to the environmental report released Friday, it would take two years after approval to complete the ballpark, up to 540 housing units, small portions of the planned retail and commercial space and the hotel rooms. A dozen of the project site’s 55 acres would be outdoor park space.
Once built, the estuary site near the Port of Oakland and Jack London Square would have 3,000 residences, up to 1.5 million square feet of commercial office space and 270,000 square feet of retail or dining. It also would include an indoor performance venue that could accommodate 3,500 people, up to 400 hotel rooms and more than 18 acres of open space.
No specific date was given for completion of the entire project.
Among the project’s impacts that could not be mitigated to a “less than significant” level is the noise that would be created by ballpark operations.
Also, pedestrians, cyclists or those driving into the ballpark area would have to cross over the railroad tracks on Embarcadero, exposing them to some safety risk, although plans call for upgrading the railroad crossings at an estimated cost of $13 million.
The report also said the ballpark development would lead to more traffic on Interstate 880 in the northbound direction between 23rd Avenue and Embarcadero, Highway 24 eastbound between Broadway and Highway 13, the Posey Tube and the Webster Tube that each connect Oakland and Alameda, and Market Street.
The project would have 8,900 parking spots, according to the report, but about 6,900 would be for the commercial and residential uses of the complex. About 2,000 of the spaces would be shared between the ballpark and the indoor performance venue.
The A’s are privately financing the project, according to Kaval, speaking on behalf of owner Jon Fisher. They have not said how much it will cost.
The environmental impact report will be used by the Oakland City Council in determining whether to approve the project, but it’s not the only hurdle the project must clear.
Earlier this month, an Alameda County Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, the Harbor Trucking Association, the California Trucking Association and Schnitzer Steel Industries Inc. that would have prevented the project from being built under a fast-track process.
It was a win for supporters of the project, but the plaintiffs have filed an appeal. Critics of the proposed ballpark project have said it would hurt neighboring businesses and prompt longtime port tenants to leave, costing jobs.
Kaval said the appeal “poses an existential crisis for the entire endeavor,” but he is optimistic the A’s will prevail at the Court of Appeals level.
Kaval hopes the project receives approval this year, keeping the A’s on track with opening the ballpark as early as 2023, a year before their lease at the Coliseum expires.
“What I’ve been saying from the beginning is that we are 100% focused on getting this project approved at the waterfront,” Kaval said. “This is where we feel our future is. We are going to do everything we can do to bring that to a head this year. We need a vote, our lease is expiring in 2024 at the Coliseum so we can’t play there forever and we just need to go. We are hopeful that these things can come together and we can get a positive affirmative vote and none of this additional litigation gets in the way.”
The Coliseum site already has environmental clearance, but the A’s have made it clear their focus is on developing a property closer to the heart of the city, following a trend of other successful professional sports stadiums and arenas.
The A’s purchased Alameda County’s half of the 120acre Coliseum site for $85 million, offering the same for the city’s equal share.
Mike Jacob, vice president and general counsel of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, said in an emailed statement that members of the East Oakland Stadium Alliance — a coalition of those who want the A’s to stay at the current Coliseum site instead of building at Howard Terminal — would review the impact report in the next few days.
“We anticipate that the Howard Terminal Draft EIR will once again confirm the obvious and what everyone already knows — that the current Coliseum site remains the ideal and most logical location for a new ballpark that will make A’s fans proud to call home,” Jacob said.