Community and Economic Development Committee meeting starts now 7/7/2021. Chair Kalb announces that all of the Council members will be present on the meeting, despite not being in committee. He also says Dave Kaval will present for about ten minutes.
Kalb announces public comment, then presentation by A's, followed by staff presentation, then questions from CMs
You can find the City's reports that will be discussed here. oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDet…
Taylor asks if the comments should be after the presentation, but Kalb says that people are already used to the current structure of comments at beginning. He says you can make a second public comment at open forum at end of meeting.
Gallo also asks for Kaval to speak first before speakers comment. He says there's been a lot of disinformation, and wants to allow the A's to present first before public comments.
Kalb says that he isn't willing to have A's give presentation then public comment, and staff presentation after. Gallo says he wants to hear about A's and City first and then response. Kalb is concerned commenters aren't ready for that structure.
Taylor also wants this...A's and City staff first. Fife says that there's a process, and they should stick to it. Fife says she doesn't want the public to be influenced by the presentation and just wants to hear what they have to say and they can speak after
Kalb says he's getting texts that people need to give their comments now, they've scheduled this time and can't wait another hour to give comments. He's sticking with regular structure, and public comment
Because a majority of members are present, they have to adjourn into a full session of Council, then it's considered a special meeting of the Council. Kalb adjourns into special meeting. Now all CMs can comment and participate. Traditionally, committee members will guide process
There's going to be a lot of public comment.
Cheryl Walton says the EIR needs to be considered first and she worries about Port operations co-existing, and loss of good blue collar jobs. She says you can't compare Oakland to SF which lost its container ops.
Kellie Epstein, a KPFA radio journalist says she's against the deal. There's an incompatibility between residential and industries, the port is noisy and dirty, that's just what ports are, new residents will ask to get rid of port. She says that's the most important factor.
Tony Evans, native Oaklander asks Council to do the right thing for Coliseum workers, keep As in Oakland.
Margie Lewis of East Oakland says that theres a report that says the level of public subsidy requested for the project is out of scale with other stadium projects. She also says its not clear if the changes dictated in EIR are considered in the expenses for the IFD.
Eunice Kwan of Chinatown Coalition & CBA steering committee. She says current terms of project show they've abdicated CBA. She says Chinatown was excluded by EIR, tho it will be impacted heavily, lack of interest in Chinatown from A's, they're not taking community needs seriously
Kwan says the Council needs to say no to the A's unless they take the CBA seriously, contribute to it directly and take Chinatown issues seriously
William Chorneau says he's lived in West Oakland for 32 years, and during that time watched gentrification displace historic residents. He says the extensive CBA process has resulted in the A's saying they won't provide any community benefits.
Liz Ortega Torro of Alameda Labor Council calls in support for the HT project, says it will provide economic benefits. She says that the Council needs to sign a CBA agreement, regardless.
Cheri Murphy, an organizer with EBASE and Oakland United. Murphy says a strong CBA with local hiring and strong environmental protections is needed from the A's. She asks at what cost HT would come
Aaron Wright, an ILWU Local 10 business agent says that the DEIR disregards the port industries, the level of traffic that will be created. He says port has never had this much work, they are hiring more than ever, with 300 new hires getting on the job training.
Wright says the new residential area would be in conflict with port industry, the jobs labor council wants to keep can be kept at coliseum.
Doug Blackshear, 58 year resident, former NAACP principal, member of East Bay Democratic Club. He says that Oakland is suffering right now, but the City is going to give the Fisher family two critical public lands.
Tai Hudson with Unite Here, one of the unions that represents Coliseum service workers. He says that many Coliseum workers have lived in Oakland for decades, they're decent jobs with union protections. He says A's leaving will be like the effects of Covid, but permanent.
Hudson says that its clear that the size of the project needs public investment, but he says its also necessary to make sure there's a good CBA
Another member of Oakland United says they're supportive of HT, but that it needs to come with a strong CBA. Many members of OU and the CBA steering committee say they want HT, but they say only if the CBA includes much larger amt of affordable housing and etc
Cheuk Ning-Li says Oakland Chinatown Coaltion opposes the project unless it has a CBA that comes out of Fishe, Fisherdoesn't care about CBA structure, CBA shouldn't come out of IFD. She says there's no traffic study, the parking idea is wishful thinking.
Dolores Tejada from EBHO says there's an opportunity with Howard Terminal, but Council needs to advocate for it. She says Council need to say "its our town and our terms". Key point in CBA process was a demand for 35% affordable housing with affordability of at least 60% AMI
Tejada says the City's idea of reimbursing A's with IFD money for building affordable housing is not in spirit of IFD. Several CBA members have said that the CBA needs to come out of Fisher et al., not the IFD as a start.
Ning-Li also said that the process around Howard Terminal showed another kind of "asian hate", contempt for working class people and communities.
Sierra Club rep says that the A's have taken several short cuts on the environmental process, urge Council to take another look at the Coliseum site, the economic and environmentally superior site.
Speaker says that two minutes isn't long enough, they need a whole retreat day to talk about the issue. She says traffic congestion will be increased, she says the contruction jobs are temporary, Coliseum site has infrastructure, etc.
I'm not noting every comment here, but will try to get those speakers that represent groups and orgs, and CBA. I will say so far the comments have been overwhelmingly against HT, and even some pro comments have come with caveats and concern about the CBA.
Charise Fong of EBALDC says concerned with impact of Chinatown, & studies show that Asian owned businesses have been more impacted by Covid than other businesses. She says stadium deal doesn't address impact on CT, lack of parking spaces will bleed into CT, increase displacement
Speaker with Public Advocates also repeats the 35% affordable housing/60% AMI demand. She says the City's 15% offer isn't enough. 35% of the housing would be over 1000 units.
Another speaker worried that the A's have claimed they're not necessarily going to build affordable housing on site [they are required to build SOME]. She says the city's proposal also has A's getting IFD money to subsidize the affordable housing.
Another Sierra Club rep, concerned about HT toxic contamination [under asphalt cap] would be released during construction. Dept of Toxic Substance Control has a limit on site, residences are prohibited, they require extensive plan to pull off cap. Not adequately studied in DEIR
It's interesting that the Alameda Labor Council had a mass text blast asking people to support HT, but there's been very little sign that it translated to this meeting.
Adrian Guerrero of Union Pacific says they have three rail yards adjacent to HT, with repositioning yards, freight and passenger traffic. The train traffic is unpredictable, and HT ballpark would be a significant change that wasn't covered in DEIR.
GSE Logistics is obviously against the Port. He says Council has a chance to tell a billionaire enough is enough, and not give him a monument to himself. He's comparing it to the Raiders deal [which would be hard to top in how bad it is]
Alvina with APEN, and is on CBA steering committee. Asks how can we support a project that doesn't include us [Chinatown]. Says highest contributions to tax base, and nexus for vital culture/services, Chinatown already experiences high rates of air pollution because of traffic.
Alvina says the traffic increases haven't been studied in DEIR, but she thinks its possible to move foreward with an impact on CT clause. She says the A's also have to pay fair share into CBA.
Fernando Echevaria of East Bay Community Law Center, says the project could be positive, but CBA isn't a bonus, they exist because developers must compensate for the impact on Black and Brown community, repeats 35% demand, good jobs, environmental mitigation...
Many speakers have been cautiously supportive of a good deal on HT, but have really been critical about the behavior of A's [Kaval] to community benefits and need for IFDs. Bad faith on CBA, at least in these comments, is a big issue
Sonya Karabel a member of the CBA steering committee says the project has the potential to be a good deal. She says the A's talked a good deal about CBA, but when it came time to do it only talked about the IFD.
Another Sierra Club rep says the DEIR has no detail about toxic remediation on HT and what the risk of mediation failure are.
Over an hour of public comment now, w/no end in sight. Vast majority have been split between those who are agnostic about the HT development, but say the A's bad faith approach to CBA is fatal and people who absolutely say no. Very few have been supportive
Ms Asata, a regular contributor to public comment, says her concern is that the Council can't be impartial and bases decisions on political concerns. She mentions the Derby St project that Gallo pushed several years ago for a charter school development.
Susan Ransom of the SSA Terminal. They're against the project, as many people know. She's reading a list of concerns, the one that stood out to me was the concerns about small craft congesting the turning basin like they do McCovey Cove.
AJ Hudson from Public Advocates brings up issues that many Oakland United members have. But brought up an issue that so far hasn't been focused on. According to the A's "term sheet" they expected sea level rise mitigation to be covered by IFD. But it doesn't appear City agrees
Hal the Hot Dog Vendor, a self-proclaimed hot dog vendor and PhD student says that market rate housing increases affordable housing. He says that economic theory show that. Hal the Hot Dog Vendor appears to be a YIMBY.
Hal also says that though the City should try to get a CBA, but it's less important than getting the deal done.
Mike Davey concerned Oakland will be flooded with Giants fans and the loss of Oakland's "entire identity". he says he doesn't like Fisher and is annoyed with Kaval.
Melvin Mckay, VP of ILWU Local 10. He says Fisher is after a land grab. He says once they build the condos, those residents will complain about the port, it won't be affordable housing. He asks what happens to ILWU and trucker jobs that may be lost to be replaced with concessions
ILWU speaker says that construction jobs don't have many Black workers, he says that people should learn about the history of ILWU and its struggle. He says he's an Oakland resident for 41 years.
Zennie Abraham says that consultants have gotten the IFD calcs wrong, says that it will produce 1.6 billion that's bondable. He says they should get OUSD to throw in [I thought that was not allowed]. He mentions SB293 and asks why they didn't start negotiating w/County years ago
David Peters a member of the CBA steering committee, the first CBA committee member to say they support the staff recommendations, many have said that it doesn't require enough affordable housing. He says the community benefits in the City's plan is good.
Public comment winding to a close, according to the clerk. I'd say the critical and negative comments outnumber the positive ones about 4 to 1 or more.
Public comment's over. Kalb detailing schedule of remaining meeting. Kaval will talk for ten minutes, then staff presentation, including report, then questions from members of the committee and council members. Rep from port of Oakland Aaron Davis...I believe Davis is ILWU rep
The second item on today's agenda is a report on maritime industry impacts, community benefits and analysis of toxic contaminants, but there's no reports.
Kaval is giving his presentation on the HT project. If you've heard it once, you've heard it.
Kaval says they've spent the last five years working as hard as they can to make Oakland work for the A's. He says the Laney College idea failed, then shifted to Mayor's preferred site at HT. Says they've spent 200 MM trying to get approval [would love to see evidence]
Kaval says he realizes the new use wouldn't be the old maritime use, but it can co-exist. He says that some of the key aspects to financial terms they've spent a year working with City.
Kaval says they see the infrastructure at JLS to be "deferred maintenance" that is the responsibility of the City, that can be paid for by the second IFD. He says A's still believe the second IFD is needed and part of that can be used for CBA
Bottom Line: Kaval still wants the second IFD, and doesn't want to pay A's money into the CBA.
Kaval says he wants to address oft-said criticisms. He says that its a false narrative that the project would hurt the industry of the Port. He says they worked with Port Commission on the project, seaport compatibility measures to separate.
Kaval says the second critique he wants to rebut is that this won't be another Raiders deal. He says the IFD money won't exist unless there's an HT project. He also says this is the last option in Oakland, he says the Coliseum is ten years past useful life, lease ends in '24
Kaval says they need to see if the City shares the A's vision and that's why they've pressured on the July 20 vote. Given what Kaval has said, the City and A's are very far apart, and Kaval says they will say no if the City doesn't come around on 2nd IFD.
Betsy Lake, the Real Estate Dept Asst City Admin is going to give the City's analysis and report.
Lake says that the A's only proposed HT in 2018, and altho they began negotiating in April 2020, the A's first verbally expressed financial plan in February. That was followed by A's releasing the proposal to the public in April [wow, Kaval].
Lake says that there is a responsible and reasonable fianancial plan that can achieve both A's and City's objectives. She says guiding principles are: deal must be in form of IFD that doesn't leave city at risk or taxpayers on hook.
Lake says that they learned lessons from Raiders deal on general fund backed debt and lack of non-relocation agreement. She says A's in agreement with City on: the A's will build the ballpark; onsite IFD; non-relocation agreement; significant CBA investment needed.
Lake says the A's and City are still apart on the details of all these, tho. She introduces Molly Maybrun to go over the details.
Maybrun says she'll walk thru the project to begin with.
Maybrun setting record straight, no vote today, staff will take feedback and make recommendations. They'll focus on IFD, CBA and non relocation today, and the fuller term sheet will be presented to Council July 20
If this is the first time you've seen this slide, you are lucky.
I sometimes repeat the stats of the proposed ballpark to help me fall asleep.
Here is the timeline so far, very different than Kaval's public statements
Maybrun explains what a term sheet is
Maybrun on the IFD: repeal of RDA left Oakland unable to promote projects like this, the IFD is viewed as a viable successor to the RDA process, aka Redevelopment 2.0. First IFD in state was only formed in 2017, relatively new tool
The EIFD is implemented by a public financing authority, which is formed by members of the governing body [plus county if they join in]. Directs the participation in the IFD
Maybrun says that the IFP [plan] would have to be voted on by both city and county if they opt in. It specifies the expiration date of the EIFD, max 45 years, describes facilities, projects that will be financed by EIFD
It gets complicated. Community Facilities District, aka Mello Roos. Property owners agree to impose a special tax on their property & are considered secure revenue and can give relatively inexpensive financing for infrastructure. Would only apply to HT [in city plan, not Kaval's]
The CFD and EIFD are the same boundaries, EIFD captures incremental tax revenue, CFD is used to issue bonds that are backed by the revenue from the special tax. The EIFD revenues are meant to pay back that debt.
Maybrun says that the nature of the CFD is one of the lessons they learned from the Coliseum. The bonds are non-recourse to the City, revenue shortfalls are back stopped by the developer, not the City general fund.
Maybrun says that the property tax revenue of Howard Terminal is 73k per year atm
Maybrun says that a ballpark district at full buildout is 25.6 MM/year...it would reach 7.6 B by 2037
Maybrun explains "but for"/incremental taxes. Those are revenues that would not exist unless the project were built. The EIFD captures those taxes to support the infrastructure. After the district expires after 45 years, all the tax revenue flows back into.
A now familiar diagram, but helpful, The black wedge in the middle is the increase in tax revenue that comes from the construction of the development.
IMO, a lot is missing in these 45 and 66 year spread predictions. maintenance costs really is one.
Maybrun says that the construction of the project will create 60 MM in one time revenue. 10.4 MM in property tax/yr goes into EIFD, they estimate that 25.5 MM in other knds of taxes or revenue. Maybrun says this doesn't include parcel taxes [hm]
Maybrun says that the estimates are in 2020 dollars as if the project exists today, how would our city budget be different.
This slide was actually presented to ALCO board. Media and Kaval have known for weeks that the City does not want a JLS IFD
Maybrun lists all the reasons off site IFD at JLS doesn't work: It's not clear that the off site captures "but for" taxes given the historic tax growth and predictions for future growth. 6.4% growth historically at JLS assessed values. She says A's projecting 6.8% growth after HT
Maybrun says the majority of the growth likely in JLS would happen without HT. She also says the majority of the JLS IFD lies in the Downtown Specific Plan area, which isn't connected. It will result in a lot of changes in use. Maybrun added a line in the A's JLS image
Maybrun also says that no IFD has been issued to date without a CFD, the CFD requires 2/3 of property owners to opt in to pay that tax. That makes it uncertain. They'd have to get hundreds of individual owners to agree to raise their own taxes. IFD has a protest procedure as well
Maybrun says perhaps most important, the IFD at JLS doesn't produce the amount of money needed when its needed. She says the JLS IFD estimate is grossly inadequate to pay for grade separation and other infrastructure of about 300 MM before opening ballpark.
Maybrun's NOs and Yes
Maybrun says that they should do the EIFD with the County, and adds that state and federal funding related should be maximized [hm]
Maybrun moves on to non-relocation agreement. Put in place to protect City investment, etc, etc.
Maybrun says these are areas of agreement with A's on non relocation, it includes injuctive relief for violating.
The City wants a non relocation agreement that lasts as long as the potential lease and IFD terms, 45 and 66 years, but A's are just offering 20 years at the moment
Maybrun says that the A's proposal on CBA is 450 MM, which is 20% set aside from two IFDs. It would be funded entirely by the IFDs. A's would commit to unionized labor in construction, and they've made no other commitments, say the City directs those funds.
Maybrun runs through the limits of the IFD to offer CBA benefits. Using an IFD as the sole source of CB limits the scope of benefits to infrastructure, no services. Funds grow over time, without another source of fund, most benefits not realized for a decade [whoa]
Staff recommendations: affordable housing strategy, asking for 15% AH, 450 units. IFD fund would go to pay for offsite affordable housing, including preservation.
All construction would occur under Maritime Aviation Project Labor Agreement, including per labor hour investment in Social Justice Trust Fund,
Maybrun says there would be four sources for CBA. The Port Social Justice Fund, 50MM from IFD, .75% transfer fee on all title transfers of condos, developer 11 MM deposits in the fund instead of transport impact fees. Total 410MM over 66 years [or 1.5 years of police funding]
The city would want a community benefits advisory committee with fund manager and initial five year plan for disbursement of fund. Maybrun says the idea still needs to be vetted by city attorney etc
Maybrun says the Port won't participate in IFD because they don't pay taxes, there's no tax increment, explains that HT was no longer useful for today's cargo industry and that's why its used today for container staging.
Maybrun says that the Port has under-utilized capacity at the outer harbor and 150 acres of converted army base land. Says agreement part of the development area is reserved for study of an enlarged turning basin
Maybrun says that the residential uses would be focused on easterly portions of the site closer to JLS. She says that seaport compatibility measures will be maintained by Port, and that the City will ccreate the separation infrastructure
Maybrun's list of what's done and to-dos. Non binding term sheet with A's at Port is done. Still left to do, County opt-in, certifying EIR. Nothing can go forward without the certification of EIR. Port needs a lot of approvals, master agreement, seaport compatibility measures.
Maybrun ends her presentation. Maybrun says they will post today's presentation on the City's website. Chair Kalb calling on CMs on the committee first, then all the remaining CMs in order.
Fife goes first, as CM of the district. She says many constituents and members of CBA have asked: are the A's owners going to contribute any private dollars to the CBA. Kaval's response is the rote IFD, privately financed ballpark, using union labor, required environmental duties
Fife asked if it was a yes or no, and typical Kaval said yes, even though the answer is no. Fife says she's familiar with the "four pillars approach" but that they don't really fill the bill. Asks if A's will invest private dollars. Kaval responds with four pillars.
Kaval is just incorrigible.
Kaval says that the "four pillars" derive from private capital and so yes, they are community benefits. She says that's not sufficient, but thanks Kaval. Kalb says he agrees with Fife that Kaval didn't fully answer the question.
Gallo says he has to go, and he'll read his answers and take response: What is the deadline for the Council that they have to vote yes or no on the project. He says that they need to develop the Coliseum site and these can drag on. He asks if the A's need Coliseum for HT to work
Gallo: what is the role of the port of Oakland? He mentions the rail road issues, safety. And what is the County's participation? Are my taxes going to increase? [not great questions]
Maybrun says the A's haven't turned in all their applications, she says they're expecting them next week and it will take time to review. She says EIR team is working to respond to overt 400 comments received by EIR.
Maybrun says its impossible to predict the real timeline, given they haven't received all applications from the A's [under-reported point, it's the A's that are behind]. She says that the EIR may be done in October, so next first step would be Planning Commission in November
Maybrun says that the Port issues a building permit, it's a planning document unlike other permits. They still need to do that.
Maybrun rhetorically, if you don't live on Howard Terminal your taxes won't increase.
Kaval answers about whether or not the Coliseum site is necessary for the HT project. He says there's never been any intention of having the projects linked. [Kaval never says what they want to do with Coliseum tho.]
Port of Oakland reps Matt Davis and Pamela Kershaw are now joining in.
Kershaw: ENA w/A's approved in 2019. Port does not have lead agency role. project requires a general plan amendment, EIR, from City. She says property has trust encumberances, project needs a BCDC major permit, toxic substances covenant would have to be revised for residential
Kershaw says that all these things would occur after the City's actions.
Kershaw says the board unanimously approved the ENA in 2019.
Kershaw says this is the second time they've considered a ballpark at Howard Terminal, first in 2014.
Davis says that the unanimous ENA was a vote of confidence that if the project is done right, with EIR and seaport compatibility discussions, which are ongoing, he mentions sea traffic management, rail safety.
The Port as an institution supports the project, but they don't really directly address the concerns by the port industries and unions
Fife says that her office will conduct a town hall for district area residents to go through concerns of residents. Deets will be on her social media page.
Will be interesting to hear Taylor's views, he's been a bit quiet on the issue.
Taylor says he wants to understand the two IFDs better. He says the HT IFD makes sense, but he struggles with the second for the same reasons staff laid out, and they have a standard growth trajectory that's been historically consistent.
Taylor also asks why the non relocation agreement would be tied to anything less than the lease terms and IFD terms
Taylor says he's also concerned about the CBA coming from future tax revenues and not the contribution from the A's
Taylor says that it seems the A's also want a waiver of affordable housing commitments. Taylor also says theres limits on how IFD can be spent for CBA. He asks staff if there's a way to plug into future taxes that's not through IFD [don't understand this one]
Kaval on non-relocation: most of other cases where there's a non-relocation agreement, they're paying for the ballpark. He says this is different, because A's are paying for ballpark, ONLY public aspect is tax increment [this guy!]. He says for that reason,NRA should be different
Kaval says that some of the infrastructure could be phased off site, and so the JLS wouldn't have to be fully up by then.
Maybrun says she has no idea what Kaval is referring to when he talks about $22 MM costs from the EIR. She says there's numerous requirements from the EIR before opening day. There's almost no requirements that wouldn't be needed before opening day.
Lake responds to Taylor's question about other uses of taxes, apparently, its Taylor's misunderstanding of what TIF is, its the basis of the IFD, tax increment financing is an EIFD/IFD.
Kalb now, wants to make sure that the word non-binding shouldn't make Council think the decision on 7/20 is no big deal. He says, non binding or otherwise, it will be blueprint for Development Agreement.
Maybrun says what non-binding really means is that Council can change mind later, but City staff is looking for direction that says, go and negotiate a development agreement that does, x, y, z.
Kalb says that the "term sheet" in April didn't include any mention of affordable housing on site, Kalb says that a developer would have to pay upwards of 75 MM of impact fees, or inclusionary units on site that are AH. He asks Kaval if he'll commit to abiding by laws.
Kaval says they approached the project that IFD would fund the affordable housing. He says its different from traditional approach of fee per unit, he says they weren't thinking of doing it that way [what?]
Kalb clarifies: Asking City to not enforce its current law on Impact Fees? He says I don't support that, but wants to be upfront about it. Thinks its a bad precedent. He says that's a shocking element that "I have difficulty swallowing"
Taylor says, "I'm surprised that's even being asked." Fife says that the development could have been a boon to affordable housing, but to not even do that, and instead ask City to use its own tax dollars..."its absurd"
The fact that Kaval envisioned not creating any affordable housing on the site has long been inferred from his statements and lack of them, but he just made it clear, Fisher would expect a dispensation from City laws on impact fees [not even getting into state laws]
She says the pedestrian/cyclist grade separation is required by EIR and would have to be done by opening day Jackson/Clay. The second grade separation for vehicles is considered an alternative, would be up to Council.
Kaval says that pedestrian safety is a critical component to the success.
Davis says that the seaport compatibility conversations are ongoing. Fife, the District CM, points out that there have been no conversations with her office about maritime issues. She says that she's had one conversation with Dave Kaval period, and one or two briefings from staff
Fife says that public thinks that Council has been sitting on their hands on this project, when this is really the first time they've been able to talk about it.
Taylor brings up the concerns about future residents trying to force the Port to shut down at some point in the future, asks if there's some kind of compact that could prevent that.
Davis says that there is precedent of communities that sprang up around the airport and then put pressure to shut down. Kershaw says that one of the things they're considering is that incoming residents have a covenant acknowledging their moving into a working port area.
Kaplan, a non member of the Committee, now: she says the seaport compatibility is a central crux of whether the project can be successful. She says that it could be possible to have a successful ballpark and port if its done right, or both failing.
Kaplan says that the issues are car traffic backing up truck traffic, pedestrians trying to cross tracks, not the fact that HT isn't used as a terminal.
Kaplan is going through a whole list of ancillary projects for the general area that could help the ballpark, and reinforces Chinatown Coalition request to make under-880 parking...she's going through a list of alternatives, but I'm not going to tick everyone
Kaplan says that in terms of phasing that housing is planned for a future phase with hotel and retail/commercial, she says they could phase out the housing.
Kaplan says that many aspects of project will need approval beyond Oakland. She's also mentioned something I may not have mentioned yet, the Port still has to finish their compatibility analysis, one assumes, to inform the City's decision on 7/20
Kalb asks if there will be a buffer zone between Port operations and businesses, and Howard Terminal project area, including residential. Kershaw says everything West of Myrtle is not allowed to be residential, 1000 foot boundary of Schnitzer Steel. He says he wants to see maps
Reid asks if CARB has weighed in on the project. Kershaw says that CARB weighed in on the EIR. She says they self-imposed CARB into the negotiations with A's.
Reid asks about lawsuits on AB734, governor cert for expedited judicial review of EIR. Maybrun says there was a lawsuit that was resolved in favor of City and State.
CARB had to look at the greenhouse mitigation plan to make sure that the project created no additional greenhouse gases [some people argue that it's not enough, because there may be displacement]
Maybrun says that many of the comments in the EIR show that there's serious intention to sue on the EIR. AB734 sets out procedure for handling lawsuit [this law was passed for the A's as well, to limit the impact of lawsuits]
Reid asks about one of the reports that a speaker asked for, the Port User Impact Report
Davis says he's not aware of the Port User Impact Report. He says the last in person meeting on seaport compatibility was pre-pandeic, and some Zoom meetings. This is interesting, because unless I misunderstood, Davis said these convos were ongoing.
Kalb asks if the term sheet will contain what the A's plan is for toxics remediation at Howard Terminal and what standard they'll use. Kalb also asks which agency is overseeing the A's toxic remediation.
Maybrun responds: State Dept of Toxic Substances Control is the lead agency on the toxics at HT. She says the City lacks any expertise on issues of toxic, anyway, so ALCO, state or state agencies are in lead. Oakland has to certify EIR before those other agencies do their thing
Port will also review all the requirements the City does. Kalb says he's concerned about relying on one state agency to make sure that everything got done right. He'd like to have a working group once plan ends up being implemented.
Pete Vollman of Planning says that DTSC really takes the lead on the toxics component. He says that in 2019, A's entered into a clean up agreement and last year they did a risk assessment which goes to DTSC, but DTSC will be relying on the EIR [seems very circular]
Kalb says that he'd want an agreement that would connect them with the City and stakeholders in a working group to keep tabs on what is going on in mediation on HT toxics
Bas comes in: project will impact Chinatown as well as West Oakland. Bas says that Chinatown community often feels that it is neglected, she says that it happened with EIR on this project, and downtown specific plan.
Bas asks Kaval about the A's traffic survey the Chinatown Coalition is asking for. Kaval says he's open to releasing any of the studies that they've done to make Chinatown community feel better about the deal.
Bas asks about the "compatibility with Chinatown operations clause" that some Chinatown advocates have been asking for.
Kaval says they'd be open to that and Maybrun has received that same request. She says she struggles with the idea, because they want it to be compatible with all impacted neighborhoods, which is why they went through EIR [but their complaint is that EIR ignores Chinatown]
Bas: says that A's remaining in Oakland is something she wants, but it has to be within fiscally responsibility, compatibility with port, West Oakland, Chinatown communities, and valid CBA agreement, that includes affordable housing.
Kaplan says that the CBA was not signed. She says that one of the demands of the CBA was tenant protection services, that is non-IFD, used for legal support for tenants facing displacement. She also says that there is a 15% affordability requirement on the land
[according to City, the requirement is a TOTAL 15% on the area of a large plan area, artifact of redevelopment agency. They calculate that there is already some affordable housing, so it would be less for the A's]
Kaplan says that the July 20 vote will give direction to staff as they continue to negotiate. She says that it will have a section where they can name the things that remain to be done, like the CBA agreements
Kaplan says they need to be aware of history. Promise that infrastructure will benefit the community is ahistorical, West Oakland history on major infrastructure projects, which demolished Black owned homes and businesses. She says that it is reasonable that it matter to people
Kaplan says that Chinatown's concerns have to be taken into account, she also says that the IFD has to be onsite. She says that they don't have the EIR or seaport compatibility plan either, and many of the public concerns overlap with those.
Kaplan says that many businesses want to open in Jack London Square but the State Lands Commission has prohibited a whole range of businesses from operating there
Kaplan says there's questions in general about whether the A's are acting in good faith. She says she doesn't know for sure how sincere the A's are in trying to make it work. She says if she wanted to make it work in Oakland, she wouldn't be tweeting from Las Vegas.
Kaplan says the housing is a bigger concern than the ballpark. Second time she's hinted that she would rather see a smaller project that is ballpark only [and hotel]. She says the relocation commitment should be no shorter than the term of the IFD.
Kaplan says they should pursue other funding sources, like federal transportation funds.
Reid says that she disagrees about Coliseum not being a viable site. But she recognizes that the A's aren't going to develop there. She says the deal shouldn't put the public on the hook, and let A's on hook. She says that includes CBA.
Reid says she was surprised that the A's attempted to negotiate via Twitter in April, she said she was in awe and it lacked professionalism. She says moving forward she wants an agreed upon standard about how city staff and A's communicate.
Reid says she wants to understand all the agreements on jobs, how to leverage funding with county & state, port social justice funding, affordable housing and reviewing EIR. Reid says this is a legacy development and they owe it to residents to do the best deal, there's concerns
Reid asked what the parcel layout was in one of Maybrun's slides, the westerly interior side. Maybrun says that would commercial/retail. The interior purple could be residential uses including condos, a hotel could go towards the bottom [with a wonderful view of Schnitzer Steel]
Kaval says they've had convos with "potential vertical developers" on some of the parcels. But they're more focused on getting the deal done. He says there will be other developers [Fisher runs an investment firm, Sansome Partners. Lake CC'd a partner in a letter]
Maybrun confirmed to Reid that parcel taxes would come out of the project for the general fund, and not go into the IFD.
Reid asks how the $450MM over 45 years would be realized if the A's offer on relocation is 20 years.
Maybrun says that if the A's were to leave 20 years into their lease, the facility would diminish greatly in value without a tenant [seems like they should dial down the potential funds estimates over 45 and 66 years, no?]
Vollman from Planning takes Bas' question about Planning Commission role and schedule. Vollman says that Commission acts to counsel Council, but they also need missing materials from A's, PUD and tentative tract map
Bas echoes Kaplan's concerns around pedestrian safety score for Chinatown, which is the lowest in the City.
Bas says that Oakland's Chinatown is one of the few functioning Chinatowns, and has its own history of struggle, they're saying that they don't want this project to choke their community. They say Chinatown feels forgotten in the process, in terms of pollution, traffic..
Bas says she thinks that the minimum on site affordable housing on site should be the CBA's demand for 35% affordable at 60% AMI [that's a pretty big statement, since Kaval says he doesn't even want to do AH]
Taylor has it wrong, the increment tax DOES NOT take care of the service needs that will increase. Those are over $10 MM, per report and Maybrun right now. City says it still will make 25MM off the additional taxes [not property]. Would love to see a year by year of this tho
No CM has said they want the second IFD. That appears to be a deal-breaker for Kaval. Non relocation terms also. Kaval doesn't seem amenable to either here.
Fife wants to drill down on the fiscal impacts of the project and how West Oakland and Chinatown and how community benefits work. Maybrun says the benefits are envisioned to happen in the four impacted neighborhoods
Maybrun says that staff's CBA finance proposal is less reliant on the IFD's than the A's proposal, and also confirms that County could still say no after the City moves forward, and the IFD doesn't work without them.
Fife asks Kaval why there was a big social media push to put pressure on City Council when its dependent on so many bodies? Kaval repeats his "five years" comment, he said A's hadn't heard anything from Council.
Kaval's line on this is that the state voted for laws that would make the ballpark easier, so he repeated that and moved off pretty quick. He says the County wasn't one of their targets, and theres other ways to make up the funding.
Fife tells Kaval that it appears that the Council will not support a second IFD. Fife says that she will be doing phonebanking and doorknocking in her district to see if constituents support HT.
Fife repeats her concerns about Kaval's issuing twitter demands. She says that a lot of fans and residents have been hurt by some of the conversations and "antics". "people in Oakland are going thru more than enough to have to deal with insult..."
Kaval claiming they just filed a clean air act complaint on Schnitzer Steel. Incredible, A's supported AB&I, did events with the company to buff their image, one of Oakland's biggest polluters, and East Oakland's biggest polluter.
Maybrun says that the Port's MAPLA local hiring requirements are lower than the Cities, and its broader than the City of Oakland.
Kalb says he thought that prior to April the A's and City Admin would come to the Council together, here's our term sheet, and they would be hand in hand. He says he thought that for almost two years before April.
Kalb: when A's released their draft term sheet and it's different, and the Mayor actually wanted the HT project, he says he's felt much more pessimistic that this would happen. He says he was hoping he'd feel more optimistic, and he wants to get there, but "we're not there yet"
Kalb says that he would tell stakeholders that they have to lobby the A's, not the City if they want the deal. He asks if Kaval is ready to go back to table to get somewhere.
Kaval said it was "going sideways for so long" during 2020 because City wanted one IFD and affordable housing. He's says that negotiation has to lead to a "very close derivative" of what Kaval proposed in January [and April]
Kaval keeps saying that because of this "standstill" because the A's presented a deal the City didn't want, they went to public and "directly to Council".
Kalb says that in that case, what he's hearing is that the City Council is supportive of City Admin about where they're at. Kaval says that the answer can't just be that the A's concede on all points.
Kaval is basically saying A's aren't going to budge on their relocation, affordable housing or IFD. So...
Kalb: 2nd IFD, that's just not going to happen; 20 year relocation seems ridiculously low; you've heard the reaction on affordable housing...
Maybrun went over the community benefits fund again, its the same as in the report. Kalb says that $411 MM seems like a lot of money, but not when it's over 66 years [thank you]
Kalb complains about City's process with DEIR, that they usually just respond to comments & dismiss them w/out changing anything. He says he wants to see a different EIR that evolves from comments. He says if he sees too many substantive comments ignored he won't say yes to EIR
They moved to receive and file the report. And are going on to public comment. Pretty curious how Kaval will spin this.
Important to remember, the City had been negotiating with the A's, but what Kaval appeared to say today was that in January, the City basically told Kaval there was not going to be a 2nd IFD. Kaval says there's no way without it, he said it then, apparently, and said it today.
Dolores Tejada of EBHO says that ground needs to break on housing as soon as the stadium, and it needs to be affordable.
Aaron Wright of ILWU, he says one day of economic activity is more than an entire season of A's games. He says that the Port isn't compatible with the development. He also says that Schaaf appointed all of the Port Commissioners.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Trash Night Heron

Trash Night Heron Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @hyphy_republic

6 Jul
Live reporting on City Council meeting thread, as per usual, 7/6/202.
Fife is moving the MOU's for the ALCO taskforces OPD wants approval for off consent. They are items 2.11 and 2.12. The OPD has been participating in these TF's, but they didn't have actual council approval to do so Image
In toto, 4 consent items were moved to non consent, and will be heard at top of non consent, 2.11, .12, .13 and .14
Read 16 tweets
6 Jul
Though this isn't at all news, it's also not surprising the Labor Council supports Howard Terminal. Building Trades obviously want HT because of the enormous construction money it will give it's non-Oakland base of workers. ALCO Building Trades Treasurer is a Port Commissioner
If it was just the workers unions who work low wage jobs at Coliseum, union support would count for not very much. It's the extremely sleazy building trades--who support environmental cataclysms throughout California, whose support matters her
I've been writing about the alarming effect of the extremely powerful building trades councils throughout CA for years. They partnered with Valero in Benicia in a gigantic money blitz in 2018 to dash the candidacy of a moderate environmentalist to City Council there. Image
Read 4 tweets
24 Jun
The Special Budget Meeting, 6/24/2021. Bas begins the meeting by announcing that there will be simultaneous interpretation [after popular demand]. Bas will present today's agenda order, and then go to public comment [which I assume will be big]
Bas announces that the four budget related items will be discussed together, those are 5, 6, 7, 8. Items 3 and 4, which are ARPA budget adjustments and City union MOU's will be taken after the budget decisions. Public Comment beginning now.
Several young speakers have called in to support the creation of a Dept of Children, Youth and Families. Bas' budget has an allocation of 50k and direction for the City Administrator to pursue analysis and development in second FY
Read 203 tweets
24 Jun
Some good stuff in here. Not least: official projections on how many police are produced by academies is based on faulty data. The actual number is nearly half as much after field training, something Schaaf and OPD have ignored because the academies are PR, not a real solution
Another issue buried in Thao/Taylor/Reid amendments: they're asking for 75k to fund surveillance cams in Eastmont & Seminary. Sounds similar to Chinatown cams that the Privacy Commission said couldn't be reconciled with the City's surveillance ordinance. patreon.com/posts/52866550
The OPD's $7.5 MM ask from CIP budget for a "violence prevention office" disappeared after pushback last month. But now it's back under a much more humble name, for $5 MM. Was slid back into the budget last week, quietly.
Read 6 tweets
23 Jun
For Thursday's Police Commission meeting, the CPRA has included a report on the high number of complaints the agency received from the May 29-June 1 protests inspired by the murder of George Floyd. cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Agen…
The report is really worth reading for people who want to know more about what the CPRA does, and how it investigated reported police abuse from the protests. It also has this, an indictment on the use of "mutual aid", which appears to have no local accountability process.
One interesting development here is that the City Council recently passed [1st reading] an OPD equipment oversight resolution that may actually limit the kinds of weapons and equip that responding agencies can bring with them to the City of Oakland on mutual aid requests.
Read 4 tweets
22 Jun
Been asked recently why I am salty with folks who want HT ballpark. And it's because for years I and other people have whittled ourselves to splinters trying to get city to prioritize homeless, but HT is fast-tracked because of how much more power people who like baseball wield.
Honestly, who looks at Oakland and says we need a new development behind a railroad tracks, instead of screaming oh my god, this city is quickly on its way to institutionalizing the shanty-town as its official affordable housing policy.
So, if that's you, I can understand why maybe you'd say, whoops, you're right, it doesn't make sense to devote all my energy to making this happen, when there are so many other things in Oakland that needed attention yesterday.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(