The Port of Oakland recommended entering negotiations with ballpark proponents OWB, setting the stage for a feasibility study and EIR on the Howard Terminal site. The last few weeks have had the Port’s Board focused on entertaining maritime bids at Howard Terminal, in order to determine that there still could be potential shipping or cargo tenants. With subsequent bids rejected, the Port is entertaining the idea of a non-maritime use, a ballpark.
According to EBX’s Robert Gammon, OWB would pay $100,000 for a one-year exclusive negotiating term (option). Presumably, that $100,000 would pay for the feasibility study, with other money coming for the EIR once the Port considers the ballpark a project to be studied under CEQA law.
Ballpark proponents believe the EIR and land prep can be done quickly. My stance from the beginning has been that it will be significantly more difficult than claimed, due to the history of land use at the site, previous site contamination, and required input from the State Land Commission.
The SLC provided a hint of what’s to come, when they came out in support of a plan to revamp the now-shuttered Barnes and Noble space at Jack London Square. The building is set to become an entertainment center called Plank, which will contain a bowling alley, outdoor bocce court, arcade, and restaurant/bar. Though the scale and scope of the revamp of an existing is miles away from a brand new ballpark, it’s easy to see from the document how the SLC might react to different types of uses.
The SLC and Port of Oakland have for decades designated JLS as a mixed-use site with maritime and commercial uses. It makes sense that there is a public square, a limited amount of commercial development, ferry terminal, marina, and other water-oriented uses.
The Public Trust lands include all lands that were tide and submerged lands and beds of navigable waters at the time of California’s admission to the Union, even if these lands have since been filled. These lands are held for the benefit of all the people of the State and, therefore, must be used for statewide as opposed to purely local public purposes. And what is most pertinent to this discussion, Public Trust lands must be used for Public Trust purposes, which are generally maritime-related, including commerce, navigation, fishing, as well as water-oriented recreation, visitor-serving uses and environmental protection.
…
In prior analyses of trust consistency, Commission staff has given great weight to whether a proposed use enhances or facilitates the general public’s enjoyment of Public Trust lands. Likewise, Commission staff has carefully analyzed the proposed uses of the Pavilion 1 site in the context of the specific location and public’s trust needs. Although each individual component of the project can be considered as part of a project, each with varying degrees of Public Trust consistency, the primary use or purpose of a project must be in furtherance of the Public Trust. For example, a mixed-use development may be considered incompatible with the Public Trust not because it contains some non-trust elements, but because it promotes a “commercial enterprise unaffected by a public use” rather than promoting, fostering, accommodating or enhancing a Public Trust use. On the other hand, a project whose primary purpose is consistent with the Public Trust can still be considered consistent with the Public Trust despite some ancillary or incidental components that, standing alone, would otherwise be inconsistent with the Public Trust. At the same time, ancillary or incidental project components that are consistent with the Public Trust will not make a trust-inconsistent primary use permissible.
Although Howard Terminal is adjacent to Jack London Square, it has its own use covenant that is separate than the one written for JLS. To allow for Howard Terminal to be available for non-maritime use, both the SLC and the BCDC will have to get involved, as I mentioned last fall (my emphasis in bold):
Tidelands Trust Compliance
Howard Terminal is currently encumbered by the Tidelands Trust. Uses of the property are therefore generally limited to water oriented commerce, navigation, fisheries, and regional or state-wide recreational uses. Approval from the State Lands Commission would be required for any uses of the property that are not Tidelands Trust compliant. Many non-maritime activities are not considered Trust compliant uses and thus may require lengthy negotiations with the State Lands Commission, and potential legislation, before the Port could proceed with such non-Trust uses for the property.
That language came from a Port staff report on Howard Terminal. So did this:
Other Entitlement, Environmental & Regulatory Issues
Howard Terminal is subject to a complex set of regulatory permits and deed restrictions related to the hazardous materials in the soil and groundwater underlying the property. Development of new structures that penetrate the ground surface or changes in land use will require notices to regulatory agencies, and compliance with existing health, safety and soil management plans. Non-maritime uses will likely require extensive and expensive clean-up or other protective environmental measures, precluding expeditious turn-over of the property to a new rent-paying tenant. Further, non-maritime uses will likely require numerous land use entitlements including local land use permits, an amendment to the Oakland General Plan, and CEQA review. These activities could take several years to complete.
None of this impossible to navigate. However, as we’re seeing with the Warriors’ plans in San Francisco, projects on the water have an annoying tendency to get extremely expensive and bogged down in red tape. Oakland Mayor Jean Quan and many backers of Howard Terminal believe that Howard Terminal can be done without incurring significant costs or excruciatingly lengthy review periods. How long can all of this take? Brooklyn Basin, which broke ground yesterday, took 10 years to get to yesterday’s ceremony. While some of that delay was due to the recession, much more had to do with process, lawsuits, legislation, land swaps, and negotiation. Can a ballpark at Howard Terminal defy history? Perhaps. Then again, Mayor Quan may not be around to support it a year from now.
newballpark.org 
How was Pacbell or whatever it’s called now able to be built on the water in such an “efficient” way?
Who is going to pay the 500+ million for the ballpark?
What will be the cost of a new BART line or similar spur (bus) to this new place?
And the question that we all must ask of government, since the Roman Empire- Cui Bono? For whom the good? who benefits? I don’t want it to be swept under the rug the way Victory Court was.
@Yee Yee – I hope we have a chance to learn everything – and I mean everything – there is to know about what it will take to build at Howard Terminal. Because it may well be the last, best chance for Oakland to get it done, and the process should be thorough.
Can’t they just take the ballpark portion of Howard terminal (since it’s the part next to JLS) and make it part of JLS officially so that it would be easier to use it for non-maritime use??
@Ice – They could do that. I half expect it. It’s no way to bypass the process though. Can’t get around it.
Great work ML..here is my two cents to help Oakland, the A’s and Raiders out..
1. Im glad mayor quan and oakland leaders are doing something. Congrads on Brooklyn basin…if Oakland has a team of generous investors willing to pay for the entire prep work for Lew Wolff to agree to build a ballpark there, im sure wolff, mlb and Oakland will all agree to it
2. “KEEP THE RAIDERS HAPPY”..Remember there the only ones that want to stay…I still option that Oakland allows A’s to find a temporary ballpark while Raiders have full control of the Coliseum land to develop themselves and or with Colony Capital. ..either way Mark Davis can make extra money having the Coliseum land to himself
3. A’s still want San Jose…Oakland backers have to respect it…but I do wonder could Howard Terminal steal some thunder from the SF Giants??? Its realistic possible and can transform Oakland downtown area to a better venue…but we are in “overtime” and Oakland needs to clear all legal and money hurdles quickly. ..
4. LAST…did Warriors miss a opportunity. .some feel that Howard Terminal development would be better for basketball then baseball…Warriors management better hope the sf giants play nice and allow them to build by the ballparks because if this fails…the Warriors could be the ones left out without a new venue. ..while Raiders have a new stadium and A’s have a new Howard Terminal ballpark. ..karma Warriors lol?
HT looks like many years of re-investigation to re-find out what’s already been found out: not doable. HT = another decade of stalling
The entire process could very likely take many years of going through all the necessary red tape. Even after that is accomplished, it won’t guarantee that a HT ballpark will be built. There has to be a relatively quick and realistic estimation from unbiased sources to the total costs of all the phases of the project. Otherwise, the only guarantee coming out of the HT project will be to serve to keep the A’s in a state of limbo for many years to come. What matters even worse is that the A’s could be homeless for many years, and could be playing in a substandard temporary facility, or become a tenant at some other team’s ballpark. Lastly, we haven’t gotten to the question as to who will pay for each segment of the HT ballpark project? Hopefully, MLB will weigh heavily on the time factor in their decision on the A’s future home.
@ YY,
I’m no expert, but I don’t believe the waterfront where AT&T Park now sits was contaminated or capped; was port/shipping warehouses prior to ballpark, built in solid earth (or Bay fill) vs pier structure. South Beach as a whole was also in the process of being redeveloped and served by excellent public transit, unlike HT.
@ llpec,
The sideshow my brotha, the sideshow…
Damn u guys hating…but this could be another stall tactic by Oakland. ..look even if it takes 5 years to clear red tape..the Warriors should really focus on Howard Terminal to be their plan B…because as I have stated…if S.F fails or the Giants dont want to lay nice…its either back at Oracle Arena or looking at a crowded south bay …with the new 49ers stadium, the sharks, possible A’s ballpark…there might not be enough room for the Warriors to move into the south bay..
.not to mention the huge backlash from Oak and S.F media if Warriors wanted to move to San Jose…so if im the Warriors plan a: move next to the sf giants plan b: howard terminal plan c: Oracle Arena
HT: Maximum cost maximum risk, minimal return on investment
Folks, the Oakland officials NEED to find a way to GET IT DONE.
However, I can see how San Jose may be an option to get it done for the A’s. San Jose, I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!!! I do, however, feel that Oakland can get it done, but I hold little hope for that. If Oakland fails, then San Jose is the option for the A’s. My thing is that Lew Wolff needs to keep the name sake so EVERYBODY can be happy. The Oakland A’s play ball in San Jose. What do u think???
The Raiders need to look at Santa Clara for an option as well. Let the 49ers and the NFL know that too.
Even if you get past all the red tape and regulation, HT is just not a very good spot. It has accessibility approaching Candlestick levels of terribleness. And on top of that, the location was misrepresented in those shiny renderings a while back to people who aren’t familiar with the specifics of the site (i.e. pretty much anyone outside the Bay Area). They showed it as having this expansive waterfront, which as we all know is just a narrow industrial channel about 3 miles (by boat) to open water. The city and county can have their fun ineptly pursuing that site, but it’s just not going to happen. And the idea of putting basketball there instead of baseball doesn’t make the site any less bad.
@John Marx
There is no way they’d keep Oakland in the title if they went to San Jose. The only reasons the 49ers can reasonably retain ‘San Francisco’ in their name is because 1) they are still in the SAN FRANCISCO Bay Area and 2) Santa Clara is a no-name city on a national scale.
San Jose is an actual major city (10th largest), twice the size of Oakland.
@SMG good point. I still would feel better if Lew kept the team name sake. If it doesn’t happen, then it doesn’t happen. Welcome the San Jose A’s.
It’s nice they are moving along on this (snail’s pace), but if HT is a place MLB is interested in, it should help Lew Wolff get his 5-10 lease extension at the coliseum he wants.
Wolff’s motive for getting the extension is to gain a little time for San Jose vs. MLB to run its course, or to take a second look at Fremont, but if MLB is going to consider Oakland (H.T. / C.C.), or try to convince Lew to move in that direction, it will be required Oakland to work out that lease (without demands), so they may be considered in the future.
I realize the Giants did offer to help (Good Nabors, yeah right), but Oakland probably fills if the A’s ever leave, temporarily or otherwise that’s it for them, so both Oakland and Wolff have motivation to make this lease happen, even if their motives for doing it are not the same.
As a fan that wants the A’s to stay anywhere in the Bay Area, I see this as nothing but good news.
I for one feel this is great news.
Like victory court before I am willing to bet this EIR doesn’t come close to the finish line.
This site has so many more hurdles than VC I am SMH.
Once this EIR comes an halt because of all the issues with the site everyone will see clearly once and for all San Jose is the only way.
Oakland will need at least $300 mil. to keep the Raiders, $300-$400 mil. to prepare the HT site before the A’s could build a ballpark there. Wolff (an experienced real estate developer) has already estimated that that the total cost of a ballpark at the HT site would be $1 bil. How would Oakland fund $600-$700 mil. required for both the Raiders CC stadium and an ballpark at the HT site?
@Sid yeah if the site has so many problems, they will not be able to finish an EIR that would take another site out of consideration, either way good news.
Damn watching this A’s game on the Giants telecast sucks! If I see another commercial featuring AT&T Park I’m gonna throw my beer at the flat screen.
@duffer,
Oakland will be lucky if they could scrounge $300 million for Da Raiders. IMHO the A’s don’t even factor into Oakland’s future anymore..
5 more years of BS if the SJ’s lawsuit fails or MLB refuses to allow a vote on the A’s situation.
This isn’t a stall tactic. This is being pushed by private interests. The developer most likely to benefit is Signature Properties (the same that has been patiently pushing oak2ninth, now Brooklyn Basin for a decade).
.
Draw your own conclusions. The two biggest hurdles are process and money. More power to them if they can really get the process completed in less than a decade.
.
Infrastructure costs, making the site accessible, are the real big money item. A BART infill station was studied and rejected for costs. An alternative was a street car system, which has gone nowhere.
I agree with Jeffrey. In order for HT to be considered a “stall tactic,” Wolff and MLB would have to care and/or be completely stupid.
Agree Jeffrey- however city of Oakland knows the challenges- process and money- and as long as they have gints claiming they have a viable site then they can continue “working” mlb’s process until phase III of CC could potentially become viable. That’s why LW is pushing for Oakland to either choose the A’s or Raiders at CC- if/when they choose the Raiders than the A’s are homeless- so unless they are allowed to play at ATT for an extended period of time (10 years) then MLB will be forced to make a decision- either SJ or out of the Bay Area-
@ GoA’s
I also agree with Jeffrey I don’t think H.T. is a “stall tactic”, that being said the herdals are tremendous and it probably won’t get off the ground, although Signature properties and other investors, would have plenty of motivation to help it along, considering the projects (JLS revitalization/ Brooklyn Basin), that would be neighboring a potential new ballpark.
I was also thinking about what you said concerning Oakland
(“working” mlb’s process until phase III of CC could potentially become viable.)
Are we sure that Oakland could not change that timeline? What I am getting at is that time line may be as much a function of Wolff not willing to talk to Oakland (about a new ballpark), or commit to the CC project, as much as it could be the logistical difficulty of building the Raiders a new stadium, or Oakland simply using it as a stall tactic, not that its beyond Oakland to use it as a stall tactic, just saying there could be more factors in play then just that.
Whoever is involved with developing the HT site for a stadium or other non-shipping activity uses must be smoking dope – buying land at a toxic waste site? – sounds like a bad joke.
@LSN- I go back to what Kaplan said about A’s being part of phase III- basically said the timeline would allow Oakland to get its act together and get serious about keeping the A’s- her words not mine. Key for CC is it works for 1 team but not 2-your talking about 1.5B of stadium costs that need to be offset by development rights- no different than colony wanting 40% of Raiders- they want to maximize their return- I would expect a similar push by signature properties re HT- if they were to take on cleaning up the HT site they would either want the city of Oakland to pay for it or for the A’s to give some portion of the team to them- neither is going to happen
Pingback: At Howard Terminal, now the fun begins | Keep the Raiders in OaklandKeep the Raiders in Oakland
@ GoA’s Good point I had forgotten the Kaplan quote.
@GoA’s Well if HT is Oakland’s last best chance, on one hand that’s a scary thought, on the other hand it hopefully puts San Jose one step closer
As a lifelong OAKLAND Raiders fan, the thought of having the Raiders anywhere but in the 510 makes me sick. We’ve seen what happens when the Raiders leave Oakland, it ain’t pretty. The Raiders are more than just football team, they are a way of life. The Coliseum parking lot is sacred and the black hole is hallowed ground. These things are in Oakland, in a place that makes the Oakland Raiders different and better than any other team. We don’t need a fancy stadium by the water, we need to JUST WIN, BABY.
http://www.keepraidersinoakland.com
@Keep Raiders in Oakland – Next time I would appreciate it if you didn’t use the entire article. Clip off a sentence or paragraph, that’s fine, not the whole thing.
The thing about Baer offering ATT is he knows HT is a long shot that will take years to evolve and most likely will never happen. If Oakland focuses on raiders and makes the A’s homeless he knows he is one step closer to winning the battle of getting the A’s out of the Bay Area. Two things that can keep the A’s in Bay Area- Oakland allows LW to develop the CC site and the Raiders head elsewhere or the SJ lawsuit is successful- short of either of those coming to fruition the gints are going to win what they started out to do-
@ Go A’s,
You forgot revisiting southern Alameda County/Fremont. Giants won’t win!
@ GoA’s I fear you are correct. my friend.
@ Tony D. Yes if all else fails, I sure hope that can come to a reality.
Interesting to see that Oakland A’s fans will need to battle against Oakland Raider fans- credit to the group wanting to keep the Raiders in Oakland for acknowledging Oakland’s significant financial problems and noting that they can only afford one team- not both
@Tony- Fremont is dead dude, if it could be done that is where Wolff would be focusing all his efforts.
It is dead because of the big box retailers fearing lost business on game days and NIMBY’s who paid a lot of money for their homes and are all Asian/East Indian/Middle Eastern and could give a rat’s ass about baseball and have a ton of money for litigation.
I know this because I have several friends who grew up in the area near the Warm Springs site and they all couldn’t believe the community uproar about the stadium. That area has so little spirit to see this kind of response was eye opening. Hence why Wolff stopped and turned his efforts to San Jose.
@LSN- I truly believe if the Raiders come to an agreement with Oakland and the A’s are left homeless they will be stuck with the Giants at ATT Park for years to come.
There simply isn’t another city out there where some sort of bartering wouldn’t be needed.
San Antonio is stuck in the between Houston and Dallas and both those teams share TV over that area. TV is so valuable that the new commissioner would have to negotiate with those two teams to make it happen a la Washington/Baltimore and we all know how pissed Washington is with that arrangement with TV money booming.
Portland is in Seattle Mariners TV and they would have to be dealt with as well. The Mariners have a ton of fans in Portland and they would be pissed to lose that TV market.
Those are the only two cities that make sense on any level. Sharing the Bay Area in the current format is still a better option because the A’s are televised to all the same people as the Giants which is 10M+ people over Nor Cal.
Hence why I believe the A’s will never leave the market.
@ Sid,
Beating the dead horse (again); Fremont “died” because San Jose was brought to life. Very, very simple. Fremont not being discussed by Wolff because (I believe) he knows he will still get San Jose eventually. Again, very simple.
BTW, with changes to CEQA near transit lines and mitigations in place for a hypothetical Fremont yard, what would these folks with deep pockets file lawsuits over? You can’t just file lawsuits just to file lawsuits; you need a solid, fact filled case! Just curious…
@ Sid
I know Fremont is not likely, but at this point neither is San Jose or Oakland (San Jose being the most likely), hopefully something gets worked out.
Talk about a crazy situation, Oakland, San Jose, Fremont not likely for a variety of reasons but as you pointed out, and as I and others have said, Portland and San Antonio may not be available, not that either would be ready any time soon but the bigger issue bing the objection of the Seattle, and two Texas clubs.
It looks like the A’s will be somewhere in the Bay Area, if no other reason than default it’s just a shame that the one place (San Jose), that would not only be the most beneficial to the A’s, but would probably work the easiest, is being block by the San Francisco Giants.
Montreal is a possibility, and I would think the most likely city to get a team that currently doesn’t have one (besides Sn Jose).
@Tony- Why on god green’s earth would Wolff wait 5-10 years for San Jose since 2009 if Fremont was possible and not have to deal with the Giants and Selig??
It simply is not possible to buld in Fremont and everyone knows it! Including the BRC.
These people I am referring to near Warm Springs will sue for any reason good or not. They have such deep pockets they make Stand for San Jose look weak on every level and it is not even close. The combined wealth of that area is on a ridiculous level.
@LSN- Your logic is sound and San Jose is actually the easiest from the naked eye to build and be successful. The Giants and especially Selig are cowards and are afraid for their own reasons.
The A’s will be around here forever, the question is really for the near future are the Raiders and their stadium and the San Jose lawsuit. We will have our answers this year on both.
@ Jeopardydd
I hear what you’re saying about Montreal, they are probably a more ready to go place, then Portland or San Antonio, but you have a couple of potential problems there. One they are more a natural fit for the Rays, because they would have to play in the eastern time zone, is MLB really going to have the A’s play at the other end of the continent, when they went throw so much trouble getting five teams in to the AL west? Two and probably less of a problem, but the Blue Jays have been quietly sowing up all of Canada, and yes even they may have a problem with another team moving up there, not saying it would be as big a deal, as Portland with Seattle or San Antonio with the two Texas teams, but it’s part of the puzzle.
@Sid,
Why wait 5-10 years? The future my friend, the future (i.e. his son’s and grandson’s future, as they are the future of A’s ownership). As for the rest of your comment, you are more than entitled to your opinion; have a great day.
I agree with Sid. A “You’re going to take this ballpark and like it” approach with Warm Springs, Fremont is inviting lawsuit after lawsuit from people with the means and the will to fight the ballpark for as long as it takes and who are not going to negotiate.
@ Tony D.
Man you know I have been with you on the Fremont thing, if San Jose or Oakland (to a lesser extent), can’t or does not work out but Sid brings up some good points, about those Warm Springs area groups some of them will fight a ballpark like it’s an actual war.
I don’t know man I just hope are team eventually gets something.
This ballpark issue better be resolved this year re: if A’s can move to San Jose or not…MLB has to decide what to do..or else let the A’s continue revenue sharing and just build his own Damn ballpark next to the Coliseum. ..hence Coliseum City field. ..lew could start construction tomorrow. ..
Harry: If Wolff can’t get the sponsorship to underwrite a ballpark in the Coliseum parking lot (naming rights, suite and sponsorship sales, premium seating sales, etc) do you think he should just pay for the ballpark out of his own pocket without regard to return on investment? You should look at what happened to the New Jersey Devils after recently committing a large chunk of money to their new facility: the team’s finances were so bad that the league had to come in and make the team’s payroll. And then the team was sold. MLB would be inviting a similar situation privately financing a ballpark in Oakland when the revenues wouldn’t be there to pay the mortgage.
@harry–I know you prefer the Raiders over the A’s—ask Mark Davis if he is ok if LW started building a ballpark at CC tomorrow–the answer is no–CC may work for either the Raiders or the A’s…but not both—if you want to drive a stake in the Raiders departure from Oakland than this will do it–
Yeah u right fellas
Since Oakland is not providing public funding for this Coliseum City project. ..the only thing they can offer is the Coliseum land to the team/private investors…
The problem with Coliseum City is..mayor Quan needs to find a private investor that shares their vision.. (affordable housing, shopping,office space, bowling alley and new stadiums etc etc..however the Raiders, A’s, Warriors and Colony Capital all have seperate visions of how they would development the Coliseum land
So out of four choices, Oakland leaders need to pick which one they want to handover the Coliseum land to develop. Maybe 2 if done right…but there is no way all 4 could share thr Coliseum land…Mark Davis has more “moving leleverage” but if he wants to stay in Oakland the best he could do is keep the Coliseum and a portion of land for himself u ntill he gathers enough private help to get a new stadium done…however if im Lew Wolff nothing is wrong with building a ballpark somewhere around the (along the side of hegenberger)Coliseum land and still get revenue sharing. ..the SF Giants are happy, A’s get a new ballpark and us fans are happy and lew gets a ballpark + revenue sharing. ..
Harry: As you know, revenue-sharing goes away for the A’s when they get anew ballpark. Does MLB want to go through all this trouble to supposedly make the A’s self-sufficient and profitable when all it’s going to accomplish is to leave them forever dependent on league welfare in Oakland?
@pjk
Yeah I know…hey pjk. .do u feel that this Oakland Sports resolution will be resolved this year?
Harry: No, I don’t. It’ll be more of Selig hiding under his desk afraid to address the situation and Oakland stalling because it does not have the money necessary to build new facilities. Notice how nothing has happened with the Raiders since Mark Davis signed a lease extension for same old Coliseum.
Tony D. I remember hearing about contamination and capping at the AT&T Park site back in the 90’s. Here’s an SFGate article that mentions it…
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Giants-site-won-t-get-toxic-cleanup-3109341.php
interesting article Matt–so what’s the difference between the ATT site in SF v HT in terms of toxic clean-up? Looks like the gints figured a cost effective way to manage that was supported–why cant Oakland do the same thing?
@GoA’s – As muppet151 said, the contamination at Howard Terminal is much more extensive and potentially costly. HT already has a cap on it to prevent leakage/seepage, unlike China Basin which went for decades without needing a cap. Breaching HT’s cap will have consequences, the cost and extent of which we can’t be completely certain of yet.
The Giants paid for most of the removal. The two sites have similarities, but they are not the same. Howard Terminals affected area is greater and more contaminated than China Basin.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Giants-ballpark-dirt-headed-for-Utah-3090630.php
In fact that $1 million dollar plus removal of toxic soil the Giants paid for was just left over runoff from the 1906 earthquake and fire:
“The soils in the Market Street area around the new ballpark are contaminated with lead left over from old industrial sites and houses painted with lead-based paint that were destroyed in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.”
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/688380/Utah-gets-Californias-lead-soils.html?pg=all
Howard Terminal was gas mine. The contaminates are worse and more plentiful. There is a zero percent chance an HT ballpark will happen with the A’s being 100% responsible for the environmental cleanup.
thx Muppet and ML–very helpful–
Okay, but how is HT different than most of Emeryville?