15 January 2007

Fremont City Council meeting on Tuesday

According to the posted agenda, the ballpark presentation is the only item planned for discussion. Note the approximate time shown for the presentation: 5:30-6:45 p.m.

JANUARY 16, 2007


5:30 P.M. (Please Note Time Change)

1.1 Call to Order
1.2 Salute to the Flag
1.3 Roll Call
1.4 Announcements by Mayor / City Manager
[Any person desiring to speak on a matter which is not scheduled on this agenda may do so. The California Government Code prohibits the City Council from taking any immediate action on an item which does not appear on the agenda, unless the item meets stringent statutory requirements. The Mayor will limit the length of presentations (see instructions on speaker card) and each speaker may only speak once on each agenda item.]

Times Are Approximate


Public Comment


The acquisition of an 18-acre office park across the street from Pacific Commons swells the A's holdings there to 170 acres or more. Perhaps they'll redevelop. Perhaps not. I hope they fold that property into the presentation, so that we get an idea of what the "complete" vision looks like.


James said...

Interesting develipment with the purchase of the Fountains Business Park. It's not contiguous to Pacific Commons. It is across Auto Mall Parkway and I believe there is a Public Storage facility separating it from the Parkway. And, of course, the current PC retail separates the ballpark village.

I'm wondering if Wolff is trying to buy the Public Storage facility. That would give him probably about 32 acres or so. If this area is what he has in mind for parking, that area wouldn't be a bad option, given that it's immediately off 880 so folks wouldn't have far of a drive on city streets to reach the parking.

Jeff P. said...

I would love to see an updated arial map with Wolfe's new land aquasitions. How bout it ML? How many new parks are currently being considered or are under construction in MLB? I can only think of the Mets, Twins, and Yankee's. I doubt if their situations are similar to the A's.

I know you explained why a new off ramp/on ramp cannot be accommodated with a parking structure, but I was curious if traffic could be routed in such a manner on game day as to provide direct freeway access via the CHP weigh station sites? This would certainly make it easier to leave the park after the game. This is always a bigger headache than actually going to the game.

James said...


The weigh stations are south of Auto Mall Parkway and the new purchase site is north. But it's feasible that, if this is the location of ballpark parking, southbound patrons could be routed directly off the I-880 to the parking structure. However, northbound traffic would still need to cross turn left onto Auto Mall parkway, and then right either onto Albrae or into the parking structure. However, southbound traffic leaving the parking structure could be routed directly onto the freeway, while northbound traffic would need to turn left onto Automall Parkway and then onto the northbound ramp.

Either of these options, however, would alleviate huge numbers of vehcles on Auto Mall Parkway.

I still think the best option is to build the parking structure adjacent to the new BART station and have a people mover transport all patrons, whether driving or taking BART, directly to Pacific Commons

Marine Layer said...

Traffic coming northbound will probably be routed from the Fremont Blvd. (South) exit and onto Cushing Pkwy. Using 880/Auto Mall would be problematic as it would become a bad chokepoint for traffic coming in three directions.

I don't remember the storage facility. Office buildings are on the NE corner of Auto Mall and Christy St. Another interesting property is the enormous distribution center just to the west, formerly occupied by Creative Labs. The lot has a large amount of frontage on Auto Mall.

Instead of drawing the aerials by hand as I've been doing, I'm going to put together some shapefiles that can be used as overlays for use with Google maps and Google Earth. Until then, look at this.

John said...

A reminder for those that are interested: the link below is for the live webcast of the city council meeting. In addition, the meetings are archived if you miss it live.


James said...

You're right about the non-existing storage facility, ML. I stand corrected. I was thinking of one at another location and when I looked at the thin shapes of the buildings in the aerial shot yesterday, I assumed that was what it was.

The problem with buying multi-tenant office parks, as I see it, is that there could potentially be long-term leases that are difficult to get out of. I suppose Wolff could throw money at the longer-term tenants in order to persuade them to move.

It's possible, however, that he's buying these upon speculation of long-term growth and something to work on after the ballpark and village are complete.

Transic said...

How many new parks are currently being considered or are under construction in MLB? I can only think of the Mets, Twins, and Yankee's. I doubt if their situations are similar to the A's.

Only three are under construction: Mets, Nationals, Yankees

Others who may start construction this year, assuming that everything comes into place: Twins

The Nationals' new park promises to be stunning if you go by the renders they have on their official site. You can check them out when you have the chance.

Anonymous said...

Nothing new was introduced at the meeting by Lew Wolf. It seemed like this was just supposed to be an introduction to the community. Wolff and the council members circumvented most of the questions.

I thought that the comment made by the person from the lexus dealership from automall was interesting. The city will have to protect existing businesses. Although, I do not think that new ramps off the freeway are going to be possible.

James said...

I just watched the webcast. It seems those 70-80% of Fremont residents who Bill, the caller into the Ronn Owens show, says are opposed to the A's coming to the city, weren't represented. Of 14 public speakers, I would classify 9 as very supportive or generally supportive (a few with some reservations or issues) 3 speakers I would classify as neutral. And 2 were generally not supportive based on environmental issues. [Hey, I'm as much of a nature lover as the next guy, but let's face it, something's gonna be built there eventually, if not the ballpark... and already hundreds of acres have been classified as permanent wetlands.] I don't foresee a significant outpouring of opposition from Fremont residents.