Pages

19 February 2009

Fremont EIR work halted

Matt Artz again has the scoop on the Fremont process. Take a look at the comments below the blog blurb, especially the last one by FCN founder Deepak Alur. It appears that post the Warm Springs NOP, work can't move forward because the A's haven't dropped off a check to underwrite the work (which they've done on all other occasions). Money talks, right? The in-progress EIR has been rendered useless, and any new work requires the A's willingness to spend the money and time required to see the new NOP through. I would suggest that if the A's aren't going to foot the bill, that's their message to Fremont to "let me down easy."

Noticed one other thing while rummaging through some stuff in the attic.


The word "Fremont" is nowhere on the ball.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

You know what is amazing to me is that I suspect that if a vote was taken in Fremont that the ballpark would pass---but the NIMBY's scream loud, intimidate and have created the perception that their voice is the majority voice. Just suprised that ballpark supporters are not being heard.

Recognize that I prefer a downtown SJ location but reading the comments in the article turn my stomache---a guy who was willing to invest $1.5B of his own money in a community is being labeled a crook, liar etc---Fremont is a strange place indeed---and one that I am all to happy to pass through without stopping--

Paul said...

I'd like to know what the Warm Springs folks would find to be an acceptable use of the ballpark property. It's not going to stay undeveloped forever. So they could have a ballpark that sits empty 75 percent of the time or some other use generating traffic, etc 365 days a year. Does it make sense to spend all that money on a BART extension to Warm Springs and make sure it has minimum usage?

Anonymous said...

Paul- good question...maybe a NUMMI plant expansion would be a perfect fit---or more of that high end industrial they have there now---

ML--just curious--is "Oakland" anywhere on the ball?

Anonymous said...

Well, I happen to live in that neighborhood. To the first poster: If you happen to stop once on your way through, you can see that the proposed area is served by narrow roads. Major work should be done on all the roads leading to that area to be able to sustain the traffic that a ballpark brings. Also there is nothing in that area in terms of restaurants or businesses that can benefit from the ballpark crowd (and there is not really enough space to develop something like that around the ballpark and its parking space). That means the ballpark crowd will come, spend their money inside the stadium and go home. No boost that way to city's economy. That site will only bring problems of a ballpark without its potential benefits to the city.

The warm springs site is zoned for industrial use and it should be used that way. No company or industrial use can generate the peak traffic that a ballpark can create. Also people who come to work in an area behave much more differently than people who come to a ballpark for fun, don't you agree?

If the ballpark could be built in Pacific commons though, with the ballpark village around it and with all the right city planning and vision, which Fremont usually lacks, this could have worked.

Marine Layer said...

Why would "Oakland" be on the ball? Oakland wasn't in the plan.

Calvin said...

Paul,

As a resident live close to WS (but not WS area), of course I would like the WS site developed, and for sure the traffic will increase with any kind of development. The thing is there is nothing generate 10,000 cars traffic in 2 hours before and after the game, except a stadium.
The traffic on Mission Blvd, 880 and 680 is already very terrible during the rush hour, especially on Friday night. I have no idea why you sounds like WS area is middle of nowhere and no traffic at all right now.

Anon 3:42,
A's $1.5B stadium is not an "investment" to a community. It is only an investment to themselves. If the project is that perfect, then ProLogic, Costco, Lowes, NUMMI, and Fremont residents will not oppose it. If the project is so good, then why they give up the opportunity to speak to the WS resident, but choose to cancel the meetings? They cancel it, because they know that they are unable to defend what they claim.

I still remember the 1st protest in Weibel. People ask the similar questions like the letter from NUMMI to Fremont City. Apparently, A's can not just easily answer "EIR will address it" this time.

Anonymous said...

Calvin---tell me that Santana Row has not been a windfall for the city of San Jose---and that any community/city around here wouldn't kill to have that be there own...oh that's right---the NIMBY's of Fremont---when the residents prefer Costco and Lowe's over a Santana Row type of development that says it all...

Anonymous said...

ML--to my knowledge the team is still the "Oakland" A's---until at some point they change that---find it interesting that Oakland is left off of most of their advertising---including the logo that is on my kids little league field that was sponsored by the A's---only says Athletics---not Oakland Athletics....point being they are in a transition mode to a new name....San Jose A's---

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:37,

You don't have to be hateful in your posts to make your point. I also suggest that you do more research before posting anything here. It seems that you don't know, but the Santana Row aspect of the ballpark is indefinitely postponed due to economic reasons. It was just a sweetener to make the whole ballpark project more attractive to people who worried about traffic, noise and potentially crime that a ballpark can bring. I was one of them who got duped initially with the prospect of a nice pedestrian friendly development.

NoAsWS said...

Most people don't like a bare stadium. So the A's throw in the "Santana Row" idea to make the deal look more attractive. But the flaw is: "there is no stadium near the current Santana Row".

A baseball stadium works best with an existing downtown environment. You don't build a stadium and a few stores, then call it the "new downtown". The Wolffs are real estate developers: location, location, location.

Paul said...

Wasn't Wolfe encouraged to move the stadium location over to Warm Springs by the BART people and environmentalists? But obviously, we don't want to do anything to make the best use of that BART station by putting a ballpark there.

Of course, Wolfe canceled next week's meeting, rather than embarass the MLB president. You'd think the A's were putting a toxic waste dump in Warm Springs, not a state-of-the-art high tech ballpark attracting well-heeled people and families ready to spend money in Fremont. Oh well, let's see what ends up on the ballpark site instead - something generating traffic, etc 365 days a year, not 81 days like the ballpark.

Paul said...

Anybody think that AT&T Park and HP Pavilion have brought crime, traffic and noise rather than windfall benefits to San Francisco and San Jose? Didn't think so. Just look at all the high-class development springing up around AT&T Park. Sure looks to me like people want to be there.

Brian said...

Anon 11:37pm

There is not going to be a "Santana Row". Both Keith Wolff and Fremont Chamber have said that. That deal has fallen through with the economy drop. The best that they can get is "Target".

If you look at the revised proposal for Pacific Commons (in the new NOP), there is NO ballpark village! The stadium will be separate from the residential and retail. You won't be able to walk through a long pedestrian path thru the retails to get to the entrance of the stadium anymore.

Paul,

Acceptable use of the properties would be retail, Olympic-size swimming facility, office/R&D, and high density housing. Two of the four were previously proposed to City Council (as I have read somewhere). Why? Don't know! I don't know why Keith Wolff and Fremont Chamber like to scare the residents by saying "if the stadium is not built, Fremont will get high-density office buildings and high-density housing..." What's so bad about high-density housing and office buildings? At least with those, they would be paying property taxes. At least with those, Fremont wouldn't see a influx of >10,000 cars in a 45-minute window (according to Keith Wolff) for 45% of the days between April-September. At least with those, local businesses will have steady revenue from folks living in the housing and working in the office buildings.

Marine Layer said...

Folks, we're getting into the same circular arguments again.

Calvin said...

Anon 11:37PM,
One argument from the Pro-Stadium people I've always not understand. What is Santana Row like shopping center has to do with the stadium? Why a shopping village has always come with a stadium?

If you really want a Santana Row like shopping center in Fremont, seriously, ask City of Fremont to achieve it, you will certainly see me stand by your side at that moment. I love to have a "Cisco shopping center in Fremont" just like Stanford Shopping Center in Palo Alto.

A premium shopping center and stadium does not have to come in one package. The reason you want a ballpark is because YOU WANT A BALLPARK.

You can keep on calling us NIMBY. That does not mean we are, but only shows that you are a selfish person who did not put yourself in our shoes. BTW, I did not see you call NUMMI NIMBY, but they hold the same reason we against the stadium.

M.L,
Sorry to keep on word-fighting in your blog. I don't like to do this in someone's blog. Your blog is one of my favorite.

MikeTeeVee said...

[make the best use of that BART station by putting a ballpark there.]

Is that really the best use of a BART station? Compare Coliseum boardings to the rest of the system. And that's with an arena, baseball AND football, and an airport.

Paul said...

BART gets pretty packed for Coliseum events. Come to think of it, that Warm Springs BART station is likely to attract a lot of people from Milpitas and San Jose who will want to use that station. That means traffic, automobile noise, litter, 365 days a year.

Anonymous said...

ML,

Thanks for the blog, and keeping all of us informed...

BART station in WS is going to generate a lot of traffic. people know that, until BART gets connected to San Jose, it will be the last station. That alone is going to generate traffic issues.

High Density residential complex near BART has been objected by NUMMI - their concern the residents will try to throw them out after a few years.. and they apparently have a lot of clout in Fremont, see Matt Artz's blog ->http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2009/02/17/diaz-is-more-concerned-about-nummi-than-the-as/

Perception of deception was very high in Fremont.
The city employees, leaders, and Wolffs did not seem to be receptive any concern of the residents.

The proposed stadium is not on other side of the highway, it is down the street.

Grimmer blvd is one of the arteries to cross over the highway. (There is an underpath)

The BART alone is going to cause a problem. Having a stadium that does not help community except raise problems does not seem like a sound investment.

A WarmSpring Westfield mall, would be great.
A grocery store in the neighborhood would be a great also.
A restaurant complex across the street from BART would seem like a great idea.

I still don't see how a stadium NEXT to a (BLOCK Away) from an elementary school. I don't get it...

Anonymous said...

These Warm Springs folks are a hoot. The Village has been a key part of the development since it was first included in the Oakland plan. It wasn't some add-on to make you NIMBYs feel better about it. I know you all just learned that there is this thing called baseball, which has a team called the Athletics, who need a new stadium. But there's a whole history here that didn't begin with the misguided decision to think about a stadium in a hole like Warm Springs. Just thought you'd like to know.

Anonymous said...

It looks like the Fremont "pipe dream" was just that.
Maybe the city of Oakland can help get the A's a new park.
The Dolich/Puccini group that MLB denied would of had a nice park already built downtown somewhere. Horrible owners. Makes Al Davis look like Walter Haas.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, right. Dolich is magical and could have created a perfect spot downtown and built it no problem with no money from the county or city. Sure.

Wolff is many many levels above Al Davis on any scale. Please try to stay focused on reality.

Transic said...

Yikes!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/21/BAK7161NTJ.DTL

FC said...

A successful developer without a backup plan, I don't believe his comment for a minute. Especially in light of Selig's letter.