Zennie62Media obtained this Oakland Athletics Howard Terminal Ballpark Project Scheduling letter from a fan of our network. It is dated March 31st 2021 and is from City of Oakland Deputy City Administrator Betsy Lake and to Oakland A’s President David Kaval, and includes a schedule map and a letter from City of Oakland Planner Peterson Z. Vollmann to Mr. Kaval, dated March 22, 2021.
The letter reveals a City of Oakland process that was already behind when the A’s presented a new schedule seeking a Summmer 2021 Oakland City Council meeting to get a decision on the Howard Terminal Project. Already, according to Lake’s own words, the city staffers were working overtime to meet the Oakland Athletics’ request.
She wrote:
Our teams have worked on several schedule iterations, and unfortunately, we are now forced to work under an extremely compressed time schedule. Should the A’s wish to proceed to a fully approved project in 2021, I strongly encourage you to undertake immediate action in order to:
1. Prepare and submit a Tentative Tract Map for the project site for Planning, Engineering, and Fire Department review no later than April 26, 2021;
2. Prepare and resubmit a full Preliminary Development Plan application (including Design Guidelines) responsive to the comments previously provided by Pete Vollmann, the project planner, on March 18 and 25, 2020 and March 22, 2021, no later than April 26, 2021;
3. Complete negotiation of a term sheet with City staff, detailing the essential terms of the proposed Development Agreement, including the team’s commitment to stay and play in Oakland, no later than April 30, 2021; and
4. Execute a community benefits term sheet with community representatives, setting forth the project’s comprehensive package of community benefits pursuant to AB 734, no later than July 9, 2021.
Failure to meet any of the above key schedule objectives will very likely push project
approvals into 2022.
Then came Major League Baseball’s insistence that the A’s organization seek out other cities (Las Vegas, most notably), to relocate to. That directive was made public May 11, 2021, just 42 days after the release of the Betsy Lake Letter.
The question is, now, have the Oakland A’s made the April 26, 2021 deadlines set by the City of Oakland, considering its partial focus on Las Vegas? Did they violate the rule of The Time Variance Authority? Here’s the communications, and stay tuned to this post for updates.
The City of Oakland Letter From Betsy Lake To David Kaval, Dated March 31, 2021
CITY OF OAKLAND
CITY HALL + 1 FRANK H. OGAWA PLAZA + OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
Office of the City Administrator
March 31, 2021
Mr. David Kaval
President
Oakland Athletics
55 Harrison Street
Oakland, CA 94607
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
RE: Waterfront Ballpark District at Howard Terminal
Dear Dave:
Enclosed please find a schedule of activities remaining to be completed in order to bring the above-referenced project to a vote of the City Council in 2021, a goal that I know we both share.
As you know, the project requires the following actions by the City Council in order to proceed to permitting and construction:
Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report;
Amendment of the City’s General Plan;
Rezoning of the Howard Terminal site;
Approval of a Preliminary Development Plan for the project, including Design Guidelines to govern future Final Development Plan approvals; and
- Approval of a Tentative Tract Map to allow for subdivision of the property, including creation of a legal parcel for the A’s new ballpark.
Further, AB 734 (now codified as California PRC Section 21168.6.7) requires that the project be “subject to a comprehensive package of community benefits approved by the Port of Oakland or City Council of the City of Oakland, as applicable, which may include local employment and job training programs, local business and small business policies, public access and open space, affordable housing, transportation infrastructure, increased frequency of public transit, and transit accessibility and sustainable and healthy development measures for the surrounding community.”
Page 2
Howard Terminal March
31, 2021
In addition, the A’s have requested a Development Agreement for the project. As previously discussed, Section 17.138.015 of the Oakland Municipal Code (“OMC”) requires that the Development Agreement be considered together with the project’s core planning permit(s), specifically stating:
The development agreement shall not be approved unless the project has received, or simultaneously receives, whatever design review, conditional use permit, preliminary Planned Unit Development plan approval, and/or variance it may otherwise require.
Section 17.130.080 of the OMC provides that “[w]hen a development application requires both legislative and adjudicatory actions, the entire application shall be considered by the City Council for final action” (emphasis added). Given these requirements, the City bundles all discretionary actions for consideration and final action, at the same time, by the City Council.
Finally, it is anticipated that many of the community benefits contemplated by AB734 would be contained within and enforced through the Development Agreement.
Therefore, I wish to be clear that it is the City’s intent, consistent with the direction of our Council, AB 734, the OMC, and the administrative practices of our Planning Department, to consider all of the above discretionary actions concurrently. As we have discussed this approach on numerous occasions over the past two years, I’m confident it will not come as a surprise to you.
Our teams have worked on several schedule iterations, and unfortunately, we are now forced to work under an extremely compressed time schedule. Should the A’s wish to proceed to a fully approved project in 2021, I strongly encourage you to undertake immediate action in order to:
- Prepare and submit a Tentative Tract Map for the project site for Planning, Engineering, and Fire Department review no later than April 26, 2021;
- Prepare and resubmit a full Preliminary Development Plan application (including Design Guidelines) responsive to the comments previously provided by Pete Vollmann, the project planner, on March 18 and 25, 2020 and March 22, 2021, no later than April 26, 2021;
- Complete negotiation of a term sheet with City staff, detailing the essential terms of the proposed Development Agreement, including the team’s commitment to stay and play in Oakland, no later than April 30, 2021; and
- Execute acommunity benefits term sheet with community representatives, setting forth the project’s comprehensive package of community benefits pursuant to AB 734, no later than July 9, 2021.
Failure to meet any of the above key schedule objectives will very likely push project
approvals into 2022.
Page 3
Howard Terminal March
31, 2021
The City of Oakland remains deeply committed to keeping the A’s “rooted in Oakland”. | was thrilled that our staff, through extraordinary efforts and many late nights, were able to publish the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project just 15 days following the A’s receipt of the Governor’s AB734 certification. This was an important and much anticipated milestone for the project. I trust you will not lose this hard-won momentum through delay on any of the elements required for approval of this project in 2021.
Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
CEgabett Lake
Elizabeth Lake
Deputy City Administrator
Real Estate & Major Projects
cc: Mayor Libby Schaaf, City of Oakland
Edward D. Reiskin, City Administrator, City of Oakland
Molly Maybrun, Project Manager, City of Oakland
John Fisher, Owner, Oakland Athletics
Sandy Dean, Partner, Sansome Partners
Attachments:
- Schedule as of March 24, 2021
- Letter from Peterson Vollmann re Case No. PLN-20-048, dated as of March 22, 2021
Waterfront Ballpark District @ Howard Terminal
The City of Oakland Letter From Peterson Z. Vollmann To David Kaval, Dated March 22, 2021
CITY oF OAKLAND
DALZIEL BUILDING e 250 FRANK H. OGAWA PLAZA e SUITE 3315 e OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
Planning and Building Department
Bureau of Planning
March 22, 2021
Dave Kaval, President
Oakland Athletics
55 Harrison Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Re: Case Number: PLN20-048
Project Address: 1 Market Street (APN’s: 018-0405-001-00; -002-00; & -004-00; -003-01;
& -003-02 and 018-0410-001-04; -001-05; -003-00; -004-00; -005-00; –
006-01; -006-02; -007-00 & -008-00)
Dear Applicant:
Section 65943 of the California Code requires a determination in writing as to the completeness of an application for a development project. This letter does not constitute either an approval or a denial of your application.
Your revised application submittal for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), submitted on February 23,
2021 has been found to be:
[X] INCOMPLETE. Additional information or materials are needed in order to process your application. Please submit a revised set of plans that address the comments previously provided on March 25, 2020, as well as the specific ttems listed below:
1) Given that the proposed PUD submittal incudes new parcels as future development sites, please submit the required Tentative Tract Map (TTM) for the proposed subdivision to be reviewed concurrently with and as part of the PUD application. In addition, as part of the TTM submittal please be sure to demonstrate how the proposed parcels that include abutting property lines with the proposed ballpark parcel will be able to accommodate openings that comply with the Building Code. A vertical air space subdivision may be required to allow this.
2) In addition to the “Maritime Reservation Scenario” that was provided as an alternate Preliminary Development Plan (PDP), please also include an alternate full site PDP that includes the alternative Water Street approach that removes the Fire Station as well as the on-site “Peaker Plant Variant”. This is necessary to ensure that in the event either of these options are pursued that they will be covered by the PUD entitlements.
PLN20-048, 1 Market Street Page 2
3) Please include a phasing plan for the site grading since it is understood that this will likely occur over two phases (east and west of Market Street).
4) Please include a phasing plan for the implementation of the publicly accessible parks/open space on the project site.
5) Please include a phasing plan for the installation of on-site infrastructure (streets/sidewalks, storm drains, sewer, utilities, etc.).
6) Please provide an interim site plan that incorporates the anticipated surface parking lot and access plan that would exist between the major Phase 1 and Phase 2 implementation of the project buildout (assumed to be consistent with the phased grading and horizontal infrastructure improvements of the project site).
7) The current PDP submittal includes the proposed street layouts with cross sections. As part of the revised submittal please check the Streets and Pedestrian Key Plan reference numbers and align them with the mdividual cross sections that are provided on the pages that follow the Key Plan. The plans and cross sections in the PDP submittal need to be consistent with those that will be included with the TTM filing as well.
8) Given the long term projected build out of the site and the lack of detailing on the building massing models in the PDP, please submit an updated Design Guidelines packet as part of the PUD application that will guide the future development and character of the site through the review of the Final Development Plans (FDP’s). These should include guidelines that address the proposed buildings, parks/plazas, and streetscape features, and should also be responsive to the comments provided by staff on the initial submittal on March 25, 2020.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you for your prompt response to this request.
FA
Peterson Z. Vollmann
Bureau of Planning
Planner IV