⏩ Howard Terminal:
City Council approves different terms for ballpark against A’s wishes.
The Oakland City Council approved a proposed term sheet Tuesday for the A’s $12 billion plan to build a waterfront ballpark and development against the team’s wishes, leaving the A’s undecided on whether to continue negotiating or walk away from the project.
Six council members voted in favor of the proposed term sheet for the Howard Terminal project, with amendments requiring affordable housing, tenant and antidisplacement protections and environmental protection measures. The term sheet also includes a 25year nonrelocation agreement with the A’s that would start when the team plays its first home game at the new stadium.
Councilmember Carroll Fife,
who represents the district that the proposed project would be in, abstained and Councilmember Noel Gallo voted against the project. Fife did not respond to a request for comment on why she abstained.
At the heart of the disagreement between the city and the A’s are who would pay an estimated $352 million for offsite infrastructure and transportation upgrades and the amount of affordable housing included in the overall project.
The A’s wanted to create two tax districts to raise the funds but Oakland has proposed using just one and finding additional funds elsewhere.
Dave Kaval, president of the A’s, said he was disappointed the council didn’t vote on the term sheet the team released in April. But team officials were analyzing the council’s amendments and what it meant for the future of the waterfront development.
“We are taking time to really digest what was presented to us for the first time in the meeting and become more knowledgeable about what it means for the project, its future and the A’s,” Kaval said. “We are talking to the league on that.”
Kaval would not comment on whether the A’s plan to continue negotiating or not. He also said the team needs time to understand the city’s timeline of approvals. City officials said they expect a final term sheet and development agreement to go for a council vote by the end of the year. Kaval said the A’s hope to have final terms voted on by the end of October.
Commissioner Rob Manfred echoed Kaval’s statements.
“For the last four years at my request and urging, the Athletics have invested significant resources and have made a major commitment to their community in the hopes of remaining as Oakland’s only major professional sports franchise,” he said in a statement. “We are disappointed the City Council chose to vote on a proposal to which the A’s had not agreed. We will immediately begin conversations with the A’s to chart a path forward for the Club.”
In a joint statement, Mayor Libby Schaaf, Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas and Vice Mayor Rebecca Kaplan said the vote marks a “milestone in our mission to keep the A’s rooted in Oakland and build a worldclass waterfront ballpark district that will benefit the community for generations to come.”
“Based on our extensive negotiations, shared values and shared vision, we believe the A’s can and should agree to the terms approved by the City Council today,” they said.
Schaaf said at a media briefing that now is the time for the team and city to return to negotiations to hash out details to a complex project. She said the city is doing “everything in our power” to complete the final environmental impact report and development agreement before the end of year.
During the meeting, Kaval rejected the council’s amendments.
“The current term sheet as it’s constructed and its current language is not a business partnership that works for us,” Kaval said at the meeting.
Fife fired back at Kaval and said the city has done “somersaults” and “bent over backwards” to reach a deal. She said it’s unclear if a yes vote will keep the A’s at the negotiating table.
“It’s not a negotiation, it’s really a ‘Do what we say or we will leave,’ ” Fife said, adding that the council is voting on “something that the A’s are going to turn down.”
Bas said the resolution and accompanying amendments allow the council “to be clear (on) what the parameters are and what the terms are for continued negotiations.”
At stake is whether the team will stay in Oakland or become the third professional sports team to depart in recent years. The megadevelopment would also bring jobs, tax revenue, economic activity and thousands of desperately needed housing units to the city.
The A’s project includes a $1 billion privately financed, 35,000seat waterfront ballpark at Howard Terminal, 3,000 residential units, up to 1.5 million square feet of commercial space, up to 270,000 square feet for retail, an indoor 3,500seat performance center, 400 hotel rooms and up to 18 acres of publicly accessible open space.
The A’s proposed an infrastructure tax financing district over a large swath of Jack London Square to generate $1.4 billion to help cover infrastructure costs, in addition to a tax financing district covering the actual stadium and development area.
But city officials have said the second infrastructure financing district is off the table and are instead proposing using the one tax district covering the actual stadium with help from Alameda County. The county is expected to take up that discussion in September at the earliest.
The city said Tuesday that the A’s would not be responsible for paying for the $352 million in estimated infrastructure costs. Bas and Kaplan released amendments making it clear the city would leverage regional, state and federal funds to cover the cost. The amendments were approved by the council.
City staff said they were optimistic that they would get funds to cover the cost. In addition, the state budget allocated nearly $280 million to the Port of Oakland for infrastructure costs that can be used for “enhanced freight and passenger access.” It’s unclear if those funds can be used for the Howard Terminal project.
Bas and Kaplan’s amendments also called for 35% affordability — 15% onsite affordable housing and 20% offsite.
Kaplan said antidisplacement services would be included. The city’s term sheet on Friday had stated that the project should include 15% onsite affordable housing and 15% offsite.
Bas acknowledged Kaval’s surprise at the amendments, but said, “While I know this is the first time that the A’s (are) seeing the specific amendments to the resolution, none of these ideas should be new.”
The amendments also noted that impacts to the surrounding communities in West Oakland and Chinatown must be addressed, as well as seaport compatibility.
More than 100 speakers during the public comment period were split between supporting and opposing the A’s project.
Emily Wheeler, an Oakland resident and member of Oakland Tenants Union, said the A’s project is “about greed.”
“The A’s are like an abusive boyfriend and you need to stand up to them,” she said.
Eunice Kwon, an Oakland resident and member of the Oakland Chinatown Coalition, expressed concerns that the project lacks consideration of its impact to Chinatown.
Port and maritime workers have expressed concerns over transportation, environmental and neighborhood impacts.
Susan Ransom, from SSA Terminal at Oakland’s port, said the project will have “unbelievable economic impact” because the port could lose business if the area is crowded on game days and with residents.
She said the port has “real concerns that we feel are not getting addressed by the A’s or anyone else.” Ransom added that if there are “workable solutions,” then “we are all ears.”
Team officials said before the vote that they plan to visit the Las Vegas area on Wednesday.
The nonbinding term sheet with the A’s lays out the framework of a potential development agreement with the two entities. The vote isn’t a final agreement between the city and the A’s. Negotiations can continue after the vote if both sides want to.
The proposed term sheet lays out the components that could go into the final term sheet. A final term sheet won’t be voted on until all sides — the A’s and the city — agree on its terms.