OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — Under threat of another professional sports team moving to Las Vegas, the Oakland City Council on Tuesday approved a roadmap for building a $1 billion Oakland Athletics ballpark near the Port of Oakland, despite staunch opposition from some residents and labor groups.
“This is an opportunity for the team to stay rooted in Oakland and to do so in a way that’s effective for our community,” said vice mayor and city council member Rebecca Kaplan during a four-hour meeting on the contested ballpark proposal.
The city has been negotiating with the Oakland A’s since April last year on a plan to build a 35,000-seat waterfront stadium. The project would include 3,000 residential units, 1.5 million square feet of office space, 270,000 square feet for retail, a 3,500-seat performance center, 400 hotel rooms and more than 18 acres of open space.
Before approving a term sheet that will serve as a framework for future negotiations, city council president Nikki Fortunato Bas and vice mayor Kaplan amended the document. They upped the amount of affordable housing required for the project from 30% to 35%. The city will require at least 450 units to be affordable, 15% the of 3,000 planned on-site housing units. The remaining 20% of affordable housing will be generated off-site in the form of new construction, preservation, renovation, down payment assistance and help for seniors in impacted neighborhoods.
An amendment was also added to clarify that the Oakland A’s will not be responsible for an estimated $352 million in off-site transportation and parking improvements, a decision City council member Dan Kalb strongly disagreed with.
“It’s disturbing that the A’s are not agreeing to pay for any of the infrastructure, including the mitigation required by the [environmental impact report], outside of the ballpark,” Kalb said.
The city says it will seek funding and grants for off-site transportation improvements from federal, state and county government sources.
Oakland A’s president Dave Kaval, who has gained some leverage in the negotiations by exploring a potential move to Las Vegas, told the council that while he appreciates those amendments, the new term sheet is still far afield from the team’s original proposal for the project.
“The current term sheet even with these amendments are not something the A’s have consensus on,” Kaval said. “I want to stress that voting yes on something that we don’t agree with or don’t have consensus around is not the best way to move forward.”
The Oakland A’s also made a concession by agreeing not to relocate the team for at least 25 years after the ballpark is built. The team would be required to pay off remaining debt associated with the project if it breaks that promise.
During more than two hours of public comment, several residents argued that the city was giving away too much by allowing the team to be reimbursed for infrastructure, affordable housing and open space beyond what is required by city laws. The reimbursements will come from a special tax on those who own property at the future development site.
Critics also complained the new stadium would create parking problems for nearby Chinatown, threaten existing businesses and interfere with port operations that serve as an important economic engine for the city and provide jobs for dockworkers.
A smaller group of residents and Oakland Coliseum employees urged city leaders to reach a compromise that will allow the team to stay in Oakland. Several speakers said keeping the A's in town is especially important after the city’s football team, the Raiders, and the Golden State Warriors basketball team left Oakland for Las Vegas and San Francisco, respectively, in 2019.
Labor groups are split over the proposal. The Alameda Labor Council, AFL-CIO and United Service Workers West SEIU, which represents Oakland Coliseum employees, support the project. Unions representing dockworkers, railroad employees, truckers and sailors largely oppose the plan to build a ballpark, hotel and 3,000-unit housing complex close to where ships unload freight to be transported by rail and truck.
City council member Noel Gallo represents the East Oakland district where the team’s current stadium, the Oakland Coliseum, is located. He said it makes no sense to build a new ballpark close to an industrial area with no existing public transportation when the current stadium is right next to a Bay Area Rapid Transit station.
He suggested that the Oakland A’s should tear down their old stadium and build a new ballpark on the Coliseum site.
“I do support going and staying at the Coliseum because you have all the structures, the land, the money and certainly the commitment of the city to rebuild a new stadium in East Oakland,” Gallo said.
City council member Carroll Fife, who represents the district where the new stadium would be built, criticized the A’s management for refusing to accept the term sheet even after the city made multiple concessions.
“If the A’s are not happy with what was presented and are still talking about leaving after the city has bent over backwards and come up with all these concessions that these wealthy owners don’t have to pay for … I don’t know where we go from here,” Fife said. “It’s not a negotiation. It’s a ‘do what we say or we will leave.’”
Fife abstained from voting on the amended term sheet. Gallo voted against it and the six remaining city council members voted in favor.
After the vote, West Oakland resident Melody Davis stood on the steps of City Hall and denounced council members who voted in favor of the project. She said the deal doesn’t provide adequate community benefits, such as affordable housing and services to support young people and students. She also voiced concern that the project could interfere with port operations and cause dockworkers to lose their jobs.
“The only way it won’t get built is if we close down the streets,” Davis said.
To move the project forward, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors will need to approve the creation of special tax districts, called enhanced infrastructure financing districts, to help fund aspects of the plan. The county board is expected to vote on that proposal in September.
Project manager Molly Mayburn said the city will continue negotiations with the A’s and review an environmental study for the project by the end of October. She expects to present a finalized project proposal to Oakland City Council by the end of this year.
Follow Nicholas Iovino on Twitter
Follow @NicholasIovino
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
