[ad_1]
Oakland City Council on Tuesday approved a proposed list of conditions for A’s $ 12 billion plan to build a waterside baseball stadium and accompanying development at Howard Terminal, but it is not clear whether the A’s will continue to negotiate or move away from the project.
Six council members voted in favor of the proposed list of conditions which included changes requiring affordable housing, tenant protections and travel and environmental measures. Councilor Carroll Fife abstained and Councilor Noel Gallo voted against the project.
In a joint statement, Mayor Libby Schaaf, President of Council Nikki Fortunato Bas and Deputy Mayor Rebecca Kaplan said the vote marked an “important step in our mission to keep the A’s in Oakland and build a neighborhood of World class waterfront baseball that will benefit the community for generations to come.
“Based on our extensive negotiations, our shared values and our shared vision, we believe the A’s can and should agree to the terms approved by city council today,” they said.
The As did not immediately return a request for comment, but team president Dave Kaval said the condition sheet was not achievable.
“The current list of conditions as it is constructed and its current language is not a business partnership that works for us,” Kaval said at the meeting. “Voting on something that we weren’t aware of and didn’t have time to digest is a difficult thing for us. It is difficult to understand why this is a way forward.
Ahead of the meeting, Kaval criticized the revised conditions sheet, which was released on Friday, saying the plan is a “step backwards.”
At stake is whether the team will stay in Oakland or become the third professional sports team to leave in recent years. Mega-development would also bring jobs, tax revenue, economic activity and thousands of housing units that the city desperately needs.
The A project includes a 35,000-seat waterfront ball park privately funded at Howard Terminal, 3,000 residential units, up to 1.5 million square feet of retail space, up to to 270,000 square feet for retail, a 3,500-seat indoor performance center, 400 hotel rooms and up to 18 acres of open space accessible to the public.
Bas said at the start of Tuesday’s meeting that “a lot of progress has been made from discussions so far with the Oakland A’s.” Bas noted that the vote “sets the terms for ongoing and future negotiations for the final development agreement which will go to the council for a final vote.”
His comments sparked public comment. The speakers were divided between supporting and opposing the A project.
Emily Wheeler, an Oakland resident, said the A’s project was “about greed.”
“As’s are like an abusive boyfriend and you have to stand up to them,” she said.
Eunice Kwon, an Oakland resident and member of the Oakland Chinatown Coalition, expressed concern that the project did not consider its impact on Chinatown.
Liana Molina, senior campaign manager for the East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy, an Oakland nonprofit, called on the council to consider stricter affordable housing requirements in the project – at least 30 % of affordable housing on site at 60% of the area’s median income.
“We are counting on your leadership,” she said.
Port and maritime workers have expressed their concerns about the impacts on transport, the environment and the neighborhood.
Susan Ransom, of the Oakland Port SSA Terminal, said the project would have an “incredible economic impact” as the port could lose business if the area is crowded on game days and with residents. She said the port had “real concerns that we don’t believe are being addressed by the As or anyone else.” Ransom added that if there are “viable solutions” then “we’re all ears.”
Some Coliseum workers who spoke in favor of the project said their work depended on the As’s staying in Oakland.
“If the As’s moved from Oakland it would be devastating,” said Delinda Horton, a 24-year Coliseum employee. “We have already lost the Warriors and the 49ers.”
Barbara Edwards, a Coliseum employee for 17 years, said she wanted the board to work with the As’s to keep them.
“We need our jobs,” she said. “I hope you can work with the Oakland A in some way or another to resolve this issue.”
Team officials said ahead of the vote that they plan to visit the Las Vegas area on Wednesday.
The non-binding term sheet with the A’s defines the framework for a possible development agreement with the two entities. The vote is not a final agreement between the city and the A’s. Negotiations can continue after the vote if both parties wish.
The proposed modalities sheet presents the elements that could go into the final modalities sheet. A final list of conditions will not be voted on until all parties – the As and the city – agree to its conditions.
The As presented their financial plan in April, but city officials balked at the level of public support required. City staff released their own financial plan on Friday.
The parties are differing on how to pay for approximately $ 351 million in off-site transportation improvements and infrastructure upgrades. The A’s want to create two tax districts to raise funds to pay for the infrastructure supporting the stadium and surrounding developments. The city rejected the proposal, insisting on a single tax district to reduce the burden on taxpayers.
The A’s have proposed an Infrastructure Tax Funding District across much of Jack London Square to generate $ 1.4 billion to help cover infrastructure costs, in addition to a City Funding District tax covering stadium and development area.
But city officials said the second infrastructure finance district was not on the table and instead offered to use the one tax district covering the actual stadium with help from Alameda County.
The remaining $ 351.9 million in infrastructure costs could be covered by local, state, federal and other regional funds.
The city’s proposal depends on the acceptance by the Alameda County Supervisory Board to join the fiscal district. The county is expected to resume this discussion in September at the earliest. A specific date has not yet been set.
The City and the A’s also disagree on affordable housing although it appears the team is softening their stance on the issue. The city’s Friday report established a framework that would require 30% of housing units in A development to be affordable. The team could achieve this goal by building 450 affordable units on-site as well as affordable units off-site and funding anti-displacement measures.
The A’s said their proposed community benefits program – about $ 450 million from tax revenues generated by the two infrastructure funding districts – can be used in any way the city wants, including building affordable housing. .
But last week, Kaval said the A’s would meet the city’s housing requirements.
This story is developing. Please check for updates.
Sarah Ravani is a writer for the San Francisco Chronicle. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @SarRavani
[ad_2]
Source link