What’s next for the A’s waterfront ballpark proposal?

OAKLAND — The A’s proposal to build a 35,000-seat ballpark and real estate development along the city’s waterfront cleared one hurdle this week after the city’s planning commission signed off on the environmental impact report, voting to recommend to the city that in the commission’s estimation, the document is in compliance with state law. But more milestones are ahead that will determine whether and when the project gets built.

So, what’s next for the proposed project?

The City Council will have to certify the environmental impact report itself. The certification is a requirement under the California Environmental Quality Act, which governs how municipalities deal with the impacts to traffic, pollution and air quality, noise and safety from developments like this one.  While there is no date yet set for a vote on that, city and A’s officials have said the City Council could vote on certifying the EIR as early as next month.

Also next month, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission will hold a public hearing on making an amendment to the Bay Plan, which guides the region’s development around the San Francisco Bay. The site where the A’s are proposing to build the ballpark and development is Howard Terminal, which has been a Port of Oakland property used for truck storage and other port operations. The BCDC would have to eventually approve a change to Howard Terminal’s designation as a “port priority use area” if the proposed project is to move forward. Later this year, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the Port of Oakland will have to review the final plans of the ballpark project to make sure it’s compatible with seaport operations and issue building permits for the site.

The City Council will be tasked with approving changes to the area’s zoning and general plan to make way for the 3,000 housing units, 1.5 million square feet of office space and 270,000 square feet of retail space, as well as hotel rooms and parks that the A’s want to build at Howard Terminal. It will also have to sign off on the financial terms of the project that will govern what the A’s are responsible for paying for and what the city — or state and federal funds — will cover.

The A’s have vowed to cover the costs of building the ballpark and other structures, but the team and the city are still working out a deal to finance the project’s infrastructure, affordable housing and community benefits.

Team President Dave Kaval said Thursday the A’s and the city’s representatives have been meeting multiple times per week to negotiate over the terms, and he expects the council would vote on it in the next four to six months.

City leaders had wanted the A’s to designate at least 15% of the 3,000 proposed housing units as affordable and shell out at least $50 million to build affordable housing elsewhere in Oakland. There is also the issue of who will fund $400 million worth of improvements to roads and sidewalks, sewer, water and electrical lines, and construction of pedestrian bridges to get people to and from the ballpark.

Kaval on Thursday said the city and the A’s were still going back-and-forth on those issues but would not elaborate on the specific terms that the team currently wants. The team had proposed last year that the city create special tax districts that would cover the costs of the infrastructure and affordable housing using tax money generated solely from the project. While city leaders are supportive of creating a tax district just for the housing and commercial property that will be built on Howard Terminal, where they can guarantee the tax increment will be purely from the development, they don’t want to expand the tax district into the surrounding area that is already full of businesses and homes.

Instead, city officials are exploring how to cover any gaps in funding using state or federal infrastructure funds. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors had tentatively signaled its intent to join the city in forming the special financing district, which would help pay for the improvements, but its support was lukewarm and nonbinding. The county supervisors indicated they would do their own financial analysis before jumping in.

Kaval said Thursday he expects the county’s decision to affect the way the development agreement plays out. The supervisors have not scheduled a public meeting on the issue yet.

As for other steps in the process, the project will also need to be cleared by the state Department of Toxic Substances Control for its environmental remediation plan, as well as approval from the State Lands Commission.