8. So we finish the EIR in June, what are possible next steps? Do we build a stadium for the Oakland A’ (sic) and they will come?There are a total three files to check out: the agenda (posted prior to the session), a study update (also posted prior to the session), and the aforementioned Q&A notes. You can also view the session on the city's website. Take a look at list of archived meetings, then find the one titled "SJRA Ballpark Study Session." Considering the 9 a.m. timing of the session, it wasn't surprising to see the tiny smattering of attendees aside from the city council and presenters.
No, a development agreement with the A’s would be necessary. The San Francisco Giants territory would have to be resolved. Any team agreement would have to be approved by the major league team owners and the Commissioner of Baseball.
9. Why do we need to go to the voters? What percentage of the vote do we need to move forward?
The Municipal Code provides that the City may use tax dollars to participate in the building of any sports facility with a seating capacity of greater 5,000 only after obtaining approval of the majority of voters. If, however, the proposed source of the public funds is a special tax, a two thirds vote would be required for the tax.
10. OK, so you need a franchise and a developer. What might they bring to the negotiation table?
There is a broad range of possibilities under a development agreement. A developer could add a range of possibilities including development of adjacent properties (assuming they have site control) including residential, commercial and hotel development. They could also bring financing in the form of equity or debt to the project.
Some interesting nuggets culled from the session:
- Excavating the site to have a below-grade field is considered the main option in order to reduce height.
- The PG&E substation may not have to be moved, but if it isn't the ballpark design would be constrained. One option under consideration pushes the ballpark towards the northeast corner of the site and preserves the substation.
- Council member Ken Yeager asked for an example of a similar ballpark/existing neighborhood development. HOK couldn't cite a recent development that closely resembled the Diridon/Arena/Delmas Park situation. Camden Yards was the only one with a neighborhood close by.
- Council member Chuck Reed asked for a clarification on the legality of the pursuit of a ballpark. City attorney Rick Doyle addressed this previously in a memo, which he paraphrased during the session by saying that the money spent on the preliminary study and EIR process is required to get to the point of being able to present something to the voters. Reed expressed concern about the lack of a financing plan and asked "somebody, and it's not gonna be someone at this dais" to scope out the scheme. He then brought up the Baseball San Jose group and found County Assessor Larry Stone, who is a BBSJ leader, in the audience.
- Council member Forrest Williams asked about territorial rights, since he has received numerous questions from his constituents. Economic Development Director Paul Krutko cited the need for a partnership with a team. Krutko also incorrectly cited the DC-Baltimore situation, which is not the same because the Orioles had TV market rights to DC, not exclusive stadium territorial rights. Mayor Gonzales then pointed out that the Arena was built on spec, which isn't realistic now or in the future regarding a baseball stadium. Williams followed up by saying that he's been echoing many of the same statements, but that the public is looking for something more solid, more substantial. Williams asked about an optimal size, and one of the HOK presenters noted that Coors Field was built too large (50,000) because the public was caught up in getting a team. Once the novelty of having a team and a new ballpark wore off, the Colorado Rockies, mired in a lack of on-field success, has had difficulty selling out the stadium.
- Vice-Mayor Cindy Chavez wanted information on surrounding development and economic impact. Redevelopment head Harry Mavrogenes talked about development in the area between HP Pavilion and the ballpark site. Recently the Planning department submitted design guidelines for this area and other transit-close areas in and near downtown. Diridon/Arena, including Diridon South, is part of this newly expanded downtown area.
- Council member Nanci Pyle brought up the concept of soccer as an alternative, a dual-use stadium, or a dual-stadia concept. HOK replied that dual-use stadium would be an option should the substation be moved to the south end of the fire training site.
- Council member Dave Cortese brought up the idea of pushing the A's to make a decision. He also promoted a separate socioeconomic study, focused on the impact on the immediate area and surrounding neighborhoods, with research done on other cities who have done similar urban stadium projects. Cortese finished up by posing the issue of financing not as a future bridge to cross when a team comes, but as an issue that needs to be proactively addressed to avoid missing opportunities should they arise. He also called for laying out a detailed, real timeline that the public can view and assess. Mavrogenes replied that the timeline could be produced in the next 30-45 days. I'm looking forward to a non-fluff economic report, if they really have the cajones to commission one.
- Representatives from Ballpark Tax Watchdogs, the Shasta/Hanchett Park Neighborhood Association (west of site) and the Burbank/Del Monte Neighborhood Advisory Committee (southwest of site) spoke during the public comment period. Word of advice to Ballpark Tax Watchdogs: if you're going to arm yourself with information, don't just refer to a book that's almost a decade old, especially when the plea's bound to fall on deaf ears (namely the Mayor's). Instead, check out the Field of Schemes website or an article published today in the Boston Globe. They're a little more up-to-date. S/HNPA and BDMNAC expressed their disgust over the lack of disclosure regarding the ballpark process and plans. Their outrage appears to have brought results, since the EIR commenting period was extended to April 20 and four public outreach meetings were scheduled shortly thereafter.
P.S. Read that Boston Globe article (registration required) I cited earlier if you get the chance. It's the most well-balanced treatment of the subject matter I've seen, perhaps, ever.
3 comments:
Regarding the lack of consensus on the part of the council....are you positive that "consensus" is what's lacking? Could it be something else entirely? I viewed the transcripts and was struck by the placid nature of the meeting. It almost seems as if too much is being taken for granted. I get the feeling there other hands at work and everyone is waiting for the final product to be formulated. At most council meetings you get the petty posturing from the "defenders" of the public who use the occassion to denounce corporate "welfare" for wealthy sports moguls/developers at the expense of the taxpayer. I saw no evidence of an opposition group. Why is that? That is almost a given in any such stadia endeavor.
I'll be the first to admit my ignorance of SJ politics, but did one of the pols actually call on Mr. Stone (BBSJ) to examine the financing engine required for a stadium? This is all very intriguing, and a really good time to be an A's fan!!! Changes are afoot.
An opposition group was present, but they don't carry much clout. Ross Signorino means well, but should the ballpark effort really accelerate, Ballpark Tax Watchdogs is going to be no match for the combined power of the Mercury News and its columnists, and two powerful lobbies: Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the South Bay Labor Council. The irony was that at the session, Signorino wore a Baseball San Jose t-shirt. The most vocal opposition will be neighborhood groups, who might actually support a ballpark if concessions can be made.
The proceedings had a subdued tone, but that's because there wasn't much meat. No concrete proposals, no study results to debate. There may be other hands at work, but they aren't in City Hall. And even if that's true, you'd have to buy into the "predestined-for-SJ" conspiracy theory. I wouldn't call it complacent. I'd call it "hurry up and wait."
Is the Mecury news the predominant media source for San Jose? Are they enamored with the idea of their own MLB team? If so, then I may reassess my opinion that Fremont will end up with the team. Because the opposition camp, as you paint the picture, appear to be anemic at best. What is the popular sentiment in the city concerning their own team? I can't imagine the neighborhood groups putting up much of a fight, especially if it can be shown that a ballpark village will send the value of their property skyrocketing. Greed has a way of rubbing off on everyone concerned.
I think I made a comment on one your posts in AN concerning potential court action by SJ. I seriously doubt it ever comes to that....but I also think that if there is indeed a concerted effort by Wolfe to move the team to SJ, he will eventually succeed. Take a look at the post and see if you can find any fault with my reasoning.
It's awfully curious the way the city is proceeding with a ballpark site, especially since publically, mlb has given them no reason to do so. Plus, you mentioned that the BBSJ web site went dark right after Selig spoke. Had he done anything to kill their vision outright, you would think they would have made that public. No matter if you buy into "conspiracy theories" or not, you must admit that there are some damn peculiar things going on.
Post a Comment