Thread by @SarRavani

Oakland City Council has started. @nikki4oakland: "I believe lots of progress has been made thru the discussions to date with the A’s." She notes that today's vote is not a final vote and many more approvals need to happen, including final EIR. sfchronicle.com/eastbay/articl…

Public comment now. Each speaker gets 1 minute. #oakmtg

Most speakers so far are against the project:
Oaklander: "The A’s are like an abusive bf & u need to stand up to them"
Coliseum worker: "The A’s have not done anything for the employees, they have not done anything to upgrade the Coliseum ... they just want to leave the Bay Area"

Delinda Horton, who has worked at Coliseum for 24 years: "If A’s move from Oakland, it would be devastating. We have already lost the Warriors and the 49ers."

Barbara Edwards, Coliseum worker for 17 yrs: "For oakland A’s to leave Oakland... Oakland will be horrible."

Eunice Kwon, Oaklander and member of Oakland Chinatown Coalition, said she's concerned about the level of community benefits the city will get and the impact of the project on Chinatown. "Chinatown needs to be included. Affordable housing needs to be included."

Liana Molina from @workingeastbay urges council to get affordable housing in the A's proposed development of 3k residential units. She calls for 30% onsite at or below 60% AMI. Here is a link to more on the city and A's discussion on affordable housing: sfchronicle.com/bayarea/articl…

Some people are calling for a "win-win" outcome. Oakland resident urges council to vote yes and continue negotiations. Wants good faith negotiations from both sides: "Oakland can do a win win for both sides."

Public comment has ended.

Council president @nikki4oakland reiterates that today's vote is not the final decision on the project. She says city staff will start off with a presentation. Then Vice Mayor @Kaplan4Oakland will present. After, @DaveKaval will speak.

Betsy Lake, the assistant to the city administrator: says the A's have identified about $352 million in offsite infrastructure costs that need to be covered. Lake said the A's will not responsible for these costs. Federal and state funds can help pay for these costs.

Lake also said additional work must be done to identify the possible funding sources. She also said council will intro amendments that will require overall 35% affordability in the project. And non-relocation agreement begins at first home game.

Lake said what the city has outlined, which requires "the A's to play by the rules," pay impact fees, etc. is a "great deal."

"We believe the A’s can and should agree with these terms." #oakmtg

Molly Maybrun, the city's project manager on the HT project, is presenting the key terms of the city's proposed term sheet. This is her slide on the IFDs... City wants one, the A's want 2. The single IFD is reliant on county agreeing to join. sfchronicle.com/local/article/…

This is the slide on the offsite infrastructure needs. The estimated cost is nearly $352 million and the city says that the A's will not be responsible for these costs.

This is the timing -- the term of the DDA would be 35 years. And ballpark construction will have to occur no later than May 13, 2028.

The non-relocation agreement requires the A's to stay and play in Oakland for at least 25 years. The A's previously had agreed to non-relocation for 20 years. Also A's will be on the hook to pay for any outstanding debts if they leave.

Phasing plan here. Ballpark must go first.

This is what the city wants the A's to commit to re: affordable housing. This is different from what the city had in their Friday report. The 35% affordability comes from council.

In addition to affordable housing and jobs, the city has proposed the A's make "significant contributions" to community benefits -- noted in slide below.

These are the city fees and costs. The A's would pay costs for providing services to ballpark and surrounding neighborhoods on game and event days: parking, traffic, police, cleanup, etc.

And Maybrun presents the next steps on what approvals are needed for the project.

Next up is a presentation on the amendments to the resolution from Vice Mayor @Kaplan4Oakland and Council President @nikki4oakland. The updated resolution was sent to Molly's email during her presentation.

@Kaplan4Oakland @nikki4oakland These are the amendments. One is on single IFD with Alameda County over project site.

More amendments...

And more! "The City Council expects the City Administrator to continue discussions and negotiations" on costs for necessary infrastructure while protecting city's general fund.

Includes affordable housing requirements and non-relocation agreement.

@DaveKaval thanks city staff for an "incredible report."

"I thought there was a lot of really thoughtful comments. We understand this is an incredibly large and bold and audacious undertaking but one that can bring so many positive benefits to our community"

Kaval: "The current term sheet even with these amendments is not something the A’s have consensus around. I just really want to stress voting yes on something that we dont agree with or we dont have consensus around is not an effective path forward."

@carroll_fife is speaking now. She says there are over 1k people on the Zoom meeting and likely many more watching from home. She asks @DaveKaval for clarification on his comments -- do A's ownership not support what is being presented today?

@DaveKaval says, "The current term sheet as its constructed and its current language is not a business partnership that works for us. "

@carroll_fife says she feels like this convo is moot. "If the A's are not happy with what was produced today and are still talking about leaving after the city has bent over backwards... I dont know where we go from here."

@carroll_fife @nikki4oakland: "While I know this is the first time that the A’s is seeing the specific amendments to the resolution, none of these ideas should be new."

@DanKalb says if he votes for this, he will "be going to the bathroom to throw up afterwards. I will not be very happy." He has reservations. Not happy w/everything (for ex., lack of commitment from A's to affordable housing, no A's funding for offsite infrastructure, etc.)