Glenn Dickey's Examiner Column

So what we have here is your garden variety shoot first, ask questions later piece from a well-respected, longtime sports columnist. It does little to inform fans about the process, and frankly does a disservice to its readers. But what do I know? I'm a mere blogger.

Dickey takes a little swipe at Fremont for being "not really a city but a collection of small towns," and attributes that characteristic to the lack of progress in extending BART south. Followers of the WSX and BART-to-SV extensions know that Fremont's size has little to do with it. Both projects were packaged contingent upon funding happening in Santa Clara County. No one city has sufficient enough clout to extend BART, not San Francisco, Oakland, Antioch, Livermore, Fremont, or San Jose.

Then Dickey starts with the "bait-and-switch" possibility:

A’s managing partner Lew Wolff had made proximity to a BART line a condition for a new site in Oakland. When he announced his preferred Oakland site, across 66th Avenue from the Coliseum, he insisted that a new BART station must be built there.

Now, the official word from the A’s is that a BART station nearby is not a requirement for the new site.

What’s going on here?

It's simple. The BART station condition was based on the idea that the ballpark would be in Oakland. Last time I checked, Fremont was not within Oakland city limits. As the stadium site moves south, it draws different demographics. Since much of the new demographic is going to be South Bay residents who don't have the privilege of a having a nearby BART station, BART obviously won't be a requirement for them. It's the South Bay contingent that's expected to make up for much of the lost BART-based fans.

Let's take a look at Dickey's primary argument:

Never forget that Wolff has made his money in real estate. His projects have included much of what has been built in downtown San Jose.

The projected baseball park in Fremont would be part of a much larger real estate project, including retail and housing. To build that, Wolff needs to get zoning changes. The lure of a new park will certainly be enough to get those changes.

I believe that, having got the zoning changes and started his real estate project, Wolff will then announce that it really isn’t feasible to build a new park there.

And then, the bidding will begin from cities eager to get the A’s.

I'll keep bringing this up until I'm blue in the face: Fremont's control of the zoning is their leverage. Why on earth would they approve the land development deal without the ballpark? They're not interested in changing the city's charter and adding residents without new revenue streams to go with it. Fremont's angle is keeping the entertainment dollar in the city. Accepting separate plans for the housing and ballpark village kills their leverage. The entire project has to be submitted with all parts included, otherwise environmental and economic impact studies can't be done properly. In the end Fremont has to certify the studies associated with the project to let it proceed. If it doesn't, Wolff is stuck with a bunch of land in South Fremont that isn't appreciating much.

If Wolff wanted to play the normal stadium extortion game, he'd have done what the Marlins have foolishly done in Miami, destroying all goodwill with the community even after two World Series titles in a decade. Or easier yet, he'd have simply announced the A's were going to move to Vegas while mayor Oscar Goodman still was interested and not jaded from being used by other teams' owners and Bud Selig. Portland had a better chance to be in play when Wolff first took over the team. San Antonio has felt the sting as much as Las Vegas. It's only getting more expensive to build a ballpark anywhere with each passing year. And Wolff's not getting any younger.

What about the Cisco angle? Why would Cisco sign its name so early to a plan that could become a PR nightmare if Wolff decides to pull a bait-and-switch job? Cisco could have easily waited until the A's moved, began construction, and started taking bids for naming rights. That would've been pain-free. Instead, Cisco is a partner in this venture, and not just because the ballpark would be a tech showcase. Cisco wants to be cool like Valley cohorts Google and Apple, and it won't get there backing something that isn't substantive.

Still not convinced? Wolff submitted the Quakes/SJSU stadium proposal last week, and guess what - it looks similar in some ways to the Cisco Field concept. The financing plan involves rezoning of industrial land and turning profits from home development into funding for the stadium. Now if Wolff had the Giants' territorial rights over turned it's likely he'd have used the same rezoning plan as part of a downtown San Jose ballpark project. Since territorial rights aren't getting changed anytime soon, it makes more sense to use try to pitch it for the Quakes' stadium effort.

Sadly, there'll be conspiracy theorists who'll continue to shake their fists until the first fan walks through a Cisco Field turnstile. I can't blame Wolff for not worrying about convincing them. There's little he can do about it other than build the ballpark. Even then, many of them won't come.

SJ Giants Exit, Enter SJ A's?

Last November we discussed how the A's move to Fremont might affect the San Jose Giants. The move would invoke baseball's Rule 52, which requires consent by or compensation for a team whose territory has been encroached. Now it appears that a decision is about to be made. With no likelihood for the $8 million being sought by the Giants' owners to renovate San Jose Municipal Stadium, the state of the ballpark forces their hand. Both the SJ and SF Giants have wanted Muni to be upgraded for some time, though neither wants to foot much of the bill for it.

The SJ Giants are approaching their 20th year in existence, the longest continuous tenure of any team in San Jose. Over those two decades they've cultivated a small, devoted fanbase while showcasing *ahem* a few future SF Giants. Should the team move there will be a void that a major league team can't quite fill. Minor league baseball has an intimacy and pace that can't be captured at a major league park.

Don't cry too much for the SJ Giants' owners. Even one of the majority owners, Dick Beahrs, admits that "If the team moved elsewhere, I think you can make an argument that economically it makes sense, but we wouldn't be getting together on Thursdays in July to watch a game together." The owners will certainly be well-compensated. There's still a movement afoot for a team in the North Bay, which certainly sounds like a natural fit once the Bay Area baseball realignment has begun. The fans, however, won't receive much solace.

As it stands, the A's are still early in a relationship with new high-A affliate Stockton. The Ports play in a shiny new riverfront ballpark of their own, and it's difficult to envision that arrangement changing. The A's did operate two high-A franchises in early Beane era, so who's to say that can't happen again? Consider this:

The A's could bring SJ Muni into the SJSU-Earthquakes project, which makes sense because it's the same part of town. The A's, Quakes, and San Jose partner on Muni renovation, which would benefit the A's and San Jose (good PR), and SJSU (updated facility). While the Giants' tradition would leave, a new one could start for the A's. Stockton's market isn't threatened by a team in central San Jose. Bay Area fans would have an even greater opportunity to see A's draftees matriculate through the farm system - which tends to pay more dividends than the Giants'.

If the concept sounds bizarre, keep this in mind: One of the first sports teams Lew Wolff invested in was the late 70's San Jose Missions. Wolff has experience with the minors. The Mets and Yankees both have short-season teams in the five boroughs (Coney Island and Staten Island, respectively).

Of course, there are business reasons for not having a minor league club in San Jose. San Jose is already full of non-major league sports franchises that compete against each other (Sabercats, Stealth), and having a baseball team would dilute the market. A baseball team would also compete with the parent A's to an extent, and certainly with the Quakes for the budget sports dollar. Also, how would pro-MLB San Jose partisans feel about such a move? Would they consider it patronizing? I'd like to see the A's preserve minor league baseball for the multitude of reasons described above, but it requires some scratch and someone else to operate the team, and the economics may not allow such a situation to occur.

Is there room for another sports talk station?

Note: I'm picking this up from a previous post's comments thread.

We can all agree that the KNBR is skewed towards the SF teams and covers the W's mostly because they're under contract. The Oakland teams get token coverage, while the Sharks get mentioned because the Razor loves them. You can't fault KNBR for catering to their vested interests. Sports talk is not exactly high up on the journalistic integrity scale, so to hold them to task for this skew is laughable. To have another sports talk station makes sense for fans of those affected teams.

However, that's not the issue here.

The real question is: "Is there room in the Bay Area for another sports talk station?" The two KNBR's constitute 1 1/2 stations due to simulcasts (Razor & Mr. T), sloughing off W's or 49ers games when they conflict with the Giants or the Razor & Mr. T, Giants midnight baseball replays, and much of the throwaway syndicated programming out there (late night ESPN radio, most FOX Sports radio). Programming a sports talk station is inherently expensive and risky. Before you answer the question above, consider the following:

• How do you balance expensive, locally produced programming against cheaper (and less popular syndicated shows)?
• What marketing strategy do you use? Is the station an anti-KNBR? An East Bay station? A "fair and balanced" station? A more edgy station?
• Do you succumb to "partnering" with ESPN (Eternally Self-Promoting Network)?
  
• How much specialized programming do you include? Examples: boxing, outdoors/fishing, extreme sports, fantasy sports, auto racing, horse racing
  
• What kinds of partnerships do you strike with local universities to carry their events?
• What kind of sports news operation do you run? Do you cover every local pro sports event or cover events selectively?
• Is it worth it to pay for higher priced, big name radio talent?
• Should the station have sports programming exclusively, or a mix of sports and other news/talk?
  
• How much do you want shows to be content driven (interviews) as opposed to caller driven?
• How much time do you spend on pre- and post-game shows?
• How much do gimmicks factor in? Examples: scantilly-clad women, contests and giveaways
  

Next, let's consider the market. The last published Arbitron ratings I've seen have KNBR at 2.3 for November '06-January '07 in the San Francisco market (14th) and 1.8 in the San Jose market (20th). KTCT (a.k.a. KNBR-1050) hit 0.6 (35th) in SF and 0.4 (40th) in SJ, which explains why they don't spend much on local programming.

Let's talk a look at the shares for sports talk stations in more sports-crazy markets (Arbitron ratings courtesy of Radio Daily News):

I threw in LA facetiously, of course. Other than LA, a market's total sports radio share appears to typically hover between 3 and 5 (3-5% of the market). The combined share of the two KNBR's is nearly 3, and in a place as diverse and segmented as the Bay Area, can you reasonably ask for more? Would the addition of another station take away a 1 share from someone else, whether it was KNBR or other types of programming? While the sports offerings may not be diverse, it could be argued that the market penetration for sportstalk is close to maxed out.

Then again, maybe it isn't. A look at the dropoff from the SF market to the SJ market indicates that the further outside of SF, the less popular KNBR is in general. The SF market includes Oakland, so the pooling of both east and west sides of the bay presents an inaccurate picture in ratings. The East Bay must be weaker than SF and the Peninsula. Perhaps an opportunity is there for an East Bay/South Bay oriented station, one that caters to non-SF teams. There's an obvious marketing angle in presenting the station as the opposite of the so-called effete, wine-sipping types to the west.

Wolff and A's broadcasting veep Ken Pries are paying attention to the market. Pries has indicated that if a station were available locally, the A's would be interested. There's an element of timing to such an acquisition, because in the recent past most local radio station sales have been as part of huge corporate portfolios, such as the Susquehanna sale. It's possible that the rumored sale of various Clear Channel stations may make one or more individual stations available locally, but it could lead to more of the same corporate horse trading.

Thankfully, other teams' owners have already set the trend by buying their own radio properties. The following are two excellent case studies:

• A year ago, Angels owner Arte Moreno paid $42 million for KMXE, a 50,000-watt AM outfit in LA. Formerly a Spanish-language news/talk/sports outlet, KMXE was transformed into the Angels' spanish flagship. Over the last year, more English-language programming has been introduced, and Moreno changed the station's call letters to KLAA. It is thought that once ESPN-710's deal with the Angels elapses after this coming season, the English broadcast will move to KLAA. But what will happen to the Spanish broadcasts? Moreno has done a skillful job of marketing to that market, and he may be doing the team a disservice by not utilizing the station for Spanish. One way or another, the station promises to significantly boost Angels revenues.
• A few months prior to Moreno's purchase, a company called Red Zebra Broadcasting bought three low-power stations in the Washington, DC area. Red Zebra is run by Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder. The three stations form a virtual "flagship" by simulcasting the same programming (ESPN radio and Redskins games). Depending on where you are in the market, you may be best served by listening to either WWXT 92.7-FM in Prince Frederick, MD, WWXX 94.3-FM in Warrenton, VA, or WXTR 730-AM in Alexandria, Virginia. Plans to buy two additional stations in Maryland were scuttled in January. If this sounds familar, that's it mimics what the A's were doing last year with two low-powered stations - though the A's didn't own the stations. Should two or more low-power stations owned by the same conglomerate become available, it's certainly within reason for Wolff to look into purchasing them, price being a major factor. Once purchased, an application can be filed to boost a station's signal to 20,000 or even 50,000 watts if it's AM, even more if FM.
  

Just as with the stadium situation, patience is required when looking at the radio market. The FCC isn't granting new licenses to anyone, so this radio wait is like looking for a rent-controlled apartment in Manhattan. It requires timing, skill, and a bit of luck. The industry may shake out even more over the next two years, so with that aforementioned luck the A's may get themselves a station yet.

Cali's a tough place, Noll: Fremont over Santa Clara

The Merc's Mike Swift has two good pieces today. The first covers the generally anti-public funding attitude for stadia in California. The other article has noted sports economist Roger Noll's skepticism over the 49ers' Santa Clara stadium plans, while also saying that the Fremont site is "much more viable."

The only thing missing from Swift's article is SB 4, the 2005 bill that flew under the radar during the legislative session, only to be stillborn as it went through committee. We should be proud of the fact that we aren't likely to get extorted as our counterparts are in Pennsylvania, Florida, and even New York. It doesn't matter that California alone would be one the world's top ten economies. Let's remember who would be competing for public funding if it were allowed at the state level (which it hasn't for decades):

1. A's ballpark in Oakland/Alameda County
2. San Francisco 49ers stadium
3. San Diego Chargers stadium
4. Sacramento Kings arena
5. New LA football stadium to attract an NFL team
6. San Jose Earthquakes stadium

As for Noll, he's right. While the $200 million being pursued is only 1/4 of the 49ers' projected budget, it's still a sizable chunk for any municipality, let alone Santa Clara. If a vote is required - which looks likely - I don't know how well that'll go over. A while back I spoke with one of the Santa Clara project's proponents, and one of the advantages about Santa Clara being pitched - the city's ownership of an electric utility allows it to control and lower prices - could be placed at risk if the money backing that price control is leveraged. Meanwhile, Lew Wolff continues to make appearances in Fremont, yesterday reading to kids at Niles Elementary.

---

One other nice blurb from China Basin: PG&E will install new solar panels in three different areas at AT&T Park, enough to generate 123 kW, or "enough juice to power the ballpark's scoreboard for an entire season." Applause to both the Giants and PG&E for doing what they can to take a small load off the power grid.

Update (3/21): PG&E somehow "forgot" to tell its ratepayers that they would end up footing the bill for the project. Oops. So much for the good PR.

Timeline

Lew Wolff sat down with long-time A's beat man Mychael Urban to talk shop. There are a few quips here and there about the state of the baseball side of the team, soccer, and the talked-to-death tarp matter. There's also a little insight into planning for the ballpark, though you shouldn't expect me to get too much out of these tea leaves:

MLB.com: Obviously, the stadium issue is front and center with most A's fans. Where does everything stand with the proposed park in Fremont?
Wolff: It's the most complicated transaction that I've ever seen. It's a win-win-win for everybody involved, but one of the problems we have in baseball is that everyone thinks the baseball teams should underwrite everything. I'm not talking about the public. I'm talking about various constituencies we deal with. So I'm confident that we have a great program, but there's a lot of constituencies we have to satisfy, and we're trying to do that. So it's hard to set a date for when it's going to happen. If everything went great, it could be 36 months before we open it. But that's if everybody was cooperating exactly the way I want them to, which I'm not expecting. On a fast-track basis, we could open in 36 months, but it's probably going to be closer to 60 months. Right now we have a certain number of issues that we need to agree to, and we're getting close. We're trying to stay in Alameda County, because that's our district, and we don't have any leverage. We can't say, "If you don't do this, we're moving to Omaha." Every other team I know of [that's tried to get a new stadium] has had an alternate site. We're trying to do this without that. We just want to get it done here.

That's about as pragmatic an approach as one could expect. Wolff's feelings about the "leverage" situation are reflective of the realities of the East Bay market, and by extension, the South Bay as well. Honestly, what other owner have you heard or read recently that has said that he doesn't have any leverage? Leverage is the name of the usual stadium-building game, folks, and it's clear that a different game is being played here.

The window of 36 to 60 months is nothing new. Let's establish these timeline scenarios, remembering that in general it takes 12-18 months to complete and approve an environmental impact report and 24-30 months to build a stadium. Even though the ballpark village and surrounding residential development are integral to the plan, for now we'll focus solely on the ballpark itself. We'll use a hypothetical date of April 1, 2007 for the development application submission.

First, Lew's worst case:

• There's a clear line between the two major phases, but in a worst case scenario the line can turn into a messy gap. Delays could come in terms of getting financing (San Diego), legal problems such as court injunctions (Cal's Memorial Stadium retrofit), or last-minute concessions that have to be made by the developer or city (Forest City Uptown in Oakland).
  
• Even in this case, the A's have some wiggle room since their last option year at the Coliseum is 2013. They would still be eager to get everything in place ASAP because by that point they'll have invested their $500 million on the ballpark with nothing to show for it.
  

Next, Lew's best case:

• In previous posts I had more-or-less ruled out 2010 because the schedule would be too compressed. It's not impossible as you can see from the timeline above, but far too many things would have to fall perfectly into place to make it happen. For instance:
  
• Unless the EIR and planning pieces went through without significant review, one year is too short. An EIR for the Cisco campus project is already on the books, but it was heavily dependent on the land's planned use. The ballpark village is a night-and-day contrast from an office park. Plus there's no telling what concessions will have to be made regarding the 2900 townhomes, some of which could run really close to the wetlands preserve.
• 24 months to build the ballpark may well be doable, since Cisco Field will be a smaller and less complex building it can't be ruled out.
  

Finally, the likely scenario:

• This scenario includes a full 18-month study period and 30-month construction window. There are 3 months or so of padding in the middle to accommodate any changes that may occur in the schedule. What's important is that there'd be no need to rush - and rushing costs a lot of money.
  

No surprise: SVLG supports Pacific Commons

Silicon Valley Leadership Group, the Valley's biggest lobby, has officially endorsed the A's move to Fremont. There's no drama here, since Lew Wolff has spoken recently at Silicon Valley functions and was a guest on SVLG head Carl Guardino's radio show two weeks ago. The actual endorsement was mainly a formality, since the tide changed from a pro-San Jose effort (remember Baseball San Jose?) nearly a year ago.

The endorsement won't accelerate the project in any way, but it lends a significant amount of political weight and credibility. If, as rumored, many SVLG members are already on board -with checks for suites, premium seats, and sponsorships ready to go - then the public can start to think of the plan as more concrete. It's hard to dismiss cash. Of course, the A's still need to actually submit the development plan and get it approved before people start patting each other on the back.

Guardino said that the project "positively addresses our Valley's housing challenges." For years the SVLG has lobbying for increased housing in the Valley, a need that the project's 2,900 townhomes would start to address. SVLG has also been a major supporter of BART-to-Silicon Valley and Smart Growth initiatives such as transit-oriented development (TOD). They certainly have nothing to lose in backing the project. If SVLG had input anywhere, it may have been the change from condos (in the Coliseum North plan - the high-rises) to low-slung townhomes, which are a far more familiar housing mode in the Valley and may be considered by some to be more family-friendly (and negatively, more car-friendly).

The big clincher would be if the housing at Pacific Commons could somehow positively affect the approval for the BART-to-Silicon Valley project. As it stands, the project's 1.25-mile aerial distance from the planned Warm Springs station places it outside the radius required for nearby or adjacent TOD housing. If the ballpark village were located next to NUMMI instead, the BART extension would probably qualify for additional federal funds or at least have a better chance of getting approved.

Oh give me land, lots of land...

It seems like everyone building a new stadium is struggling with land problems. In Minneapolis and DC, eminent domain actions were able to get the ball rolling but the different municipalities and private landowners still have not settled on final prices for the parcels. In DC's case, the final land cost threatens to break the project's $611 million cap. Hennepin County is not nearly as far along, making the impasse force the county to either look elsewhere for a site, or to construct a deal involving new entitlements for the landowners.

Down in South Florida, sights have shifted towards the Orange Bowl, where a plan is coming together to tear down the venerable, 70 year-old football stadium and replace it with a new home for the Marlins. The University of Miami football team would move to Dolphin Stadium, where the Marlins currently play. There were previous discussions about a downtown site, but it appears that the 9-acre Orange Bowl site may be more feasible.

Back on the left coast, the City of San Francisco is pushing to speed up the Navy's transfer of Hunters Point to the city. The former shipyard, landfill, and nuclear research facility was split into 6 pieces to help accelerate the process, but now the City wants to take over the whole 500-acre pie. All told, cleanup could cost nearly $1 billion.

---

That brings us to Fremont. The generic AP article that went out last week has a somewhat sensationalistic tone. It warns of the "cloud of deadly arsine floating as far as seven-tenths of a mile away from the plant." Visions of Love Canal, the Cuyahoga River, and mushroom clouds abound, right?
Of course, that ignores the fact that Scott Specialty Gases is on a one-acre plot, and as mentioned before, is more of a distribution facility than a smoke-belching, sprawling chemical plant.

That's not to say that the SSG situation won't have to be addressed. As developers, the A's and their future partners certainly don't want to have such a potential hazard near thousands of homes and ballpark visitors. And SSG probably doesn't want to be a dangerous neighbor.
So there is a solution, and it probably doesn't involve mitigation because mitigation tends to be costly (for all parties). The parties could draw out the negotiations for a while longer while construction starts, but if it looks like SSG has a decent chance of staying put, the A's will have to include mitigation in the EIR, and that's not going to look as attractive as having a full master plan free of issues.

Let's put things in perspective. The SSG situation is small potatoes compared to the problems being encountered in the aforementioned cities/projects. If I were Lew, I wouldn't consider trading places with my counterparts in SF, Miami, or the Twin Cities.

Brief news items

The Bay Area will receive 70% of the Prop 1B money earmarked for Northern California. In total, the MTC will receive nearly $1.3 billion in funds, more than Los Angeles County's almost $1.2 billion. Two projects that didn't make the cut two weeks ago now just got over $160 million in new financing, and they're quite relevant to the Cisco Field even though they aren't within 5 miles of the ballpark. They are:

• Carpool/HOV lane on Southbound I-880 from Hegenberger Rd. in Oakland to Marina Blvd. (San Leandro). This section frequently gets jammed up on weeknights as it loses a lane while going south. Adding a HOV lane should help siphon carpoolers earlier in the commute, giving ballpark goers from Oakland HOV access all the way down the Nimitz.
• Carpool/HOV lanes I-880 between US-101 and CA-237. Only a few years ago, this section was strictly two lanes in each direction. While the addition of a lane in each direction helped reverse commuters (like yours truly), those stuck in the regular commute continued to face much congestion. A HOV lane would help fans coming from San Jose while also acting as a regular fourth lane during non-carpool hours (think weekend games).
  

According to the California Transportation Commission's documentation, neither project would have a bid awarded until late 2011. Add 2-4 years to to build these enhancements and they'd probably miss the opening of the ballpark. When thinking of them in the long term, it can't be viewed as anything but a positive. Neither project will be fully funded by state money alone, but needing to get only a few million as opposed to a few hundred million is a major victory.

---

San Jose's Ballpark EIR was certified Wednesday night, setting the stage for SJ to be Wolff's shoulder to cry on if the Pacific Commons site falls apart. Yes it's moot and futile, but you never know what could happen. *cue the conspiracy theorists*

---

A Quakes-SJSU-San Jose partnership could result in an announcement within the next two months about a new Spartan Stadium. In the KLIV interview Wolff said he felt good about the response from the university and city. Financing would occur through a plan similar to the ballpark village, except that it would be smaller and not necessarily integrated with the venue.

That's "New A's Ballpark", Lew

I was surprised to find out that in Lew Wolff's KLIV appearance with Dave Holland on Carl Guardino's CEO show, this very site was mentioned. Specifically, Lew talked about how I and many others are eager for the details, perhaps before they're ready to present. Given the recent articles about the Scott Specialty Gases situation, perhaps more patience should be exercised. It doesn't help that I have high-res renderings of Cisco Field rotating every 30 minutes on my computer's desktop background/wallpaper.

---

No transcription, but I picked up a few good points from the Q&A:

• Wolff cited an economic study for a stadium in Arlington (TX), and said that the impact of Cisco Field would be greater. Not sure if the comparison is with the Ballpark in Arlington (now Ameriquest Field) or the new Dallas Cowboys Stadium. If it's the ballpark, the comparison is easy because the ballpark woefully failed to deliver on development promises made when it was initially pitched. The new football stadium has a more recent glowing economic study, but around here we tend to view such reports with a suspicious eye.
• The soon-to-be-released A's economic study will claim that through direct and indirect means, the project will bring 7,000 new jobs to Fremont.
  
• For the first time, Wolff mentioned a bus system serving as the shuttle to BART. No specifics.
  
• Wolff inferred that the buildings outside the ballpark that have a view of the field would be leased or owned by third parties, but the A's would have control over the rooftops.
• Ads would be largely digital and targeted. For instance, alcohol ads would stop showing when beer sales stopped in the 7th inning.
• Cisco VP/Treasurer Dave Holland talked about how baseball is moving from a broadcasting model to a more user-driven experience.
  

---

On a side note, Carl Guardino was named to the California Transportation Commission, the state body charged with doling out $4.5 billion in Prop 1B funds. Guardino is a major proponent of BART-to-Silicon Valley. It's a very big deal.

A Toxic Cloud Over A's Town

KCBS and the Merc have stories on Scott Specialty Gases, a business on 5121 Brandin Court in Fremont. SSG's Electronic Materials Group is located there, and it supplies various semiconductor firms with gases used in manufacturing. According to Fremont officials, Wolff and Co. would have to pay to relocate SSG away from the ballpark village.

The shock value comes from mitigation measures already in place at Pacific Commons, in which various nearby stores (Kohl's, Office Depot) would have to shut down their ventilation systems in the event of a toxic cloud or leak. Since the ballpark would be open air, no such mitigation would be possible - leading to the need to relocate the business.

Even if the danger is slim, the concern is well-placed. The articles only cover the possibility of arsine (yes, it's related to arsenic) or chlorine gas endangering crowds at Cisco Field. But with the introduction of a new residential neighborhood, it's residents that would have to be just as worried, if not moreso. So yes, SSG most certainly has to be moved to make the project work.

Is it a showstopper? I think not. While SSG has been at the current location since 1985, it's not a business that forces it to be fixed. It's a distribution facility, not a plant, so we're not talking about uprooting manufacturing facilities or potential groundwater leaks. It's a fairly nondescript industrial building with no tanks (correction: there are a few tanks outside) or smokestacks outside. In other words, it's not a Tosco or Chevron. That's no to say there aren't special facilities built in to properly store the chemicals - it's just that it's merely a cost to be factored into the relocation. And that has to be the real sticking point. There's plenty of land and other buildings elsewhere in Fremont's Industrial zone that can be utilized for SSG's relocation.

It's all a matter of price. The property is assessed at $1,954,210 including improvements for slightly more than 1 acre. I've seen a CBRE listing for a 4.65-acre property with a 76,500-s.f. building for $5.7 million, so the SSG property has to be worth less even with relocation costs included. SSG is a national firm, not some mom-and-pop, so don't expect them to get fleeced. Wolff's known for his negotiating skills. We'll see how long it takes, but it will happen. Remember that there are a handful of businesses in the area that will need to be relocated for this project. Personally, I'd much rather deal with a handful than dozens, as would have been the case with Coliseum North. Not to be ignored is the fact that Fremont has stood firm on its stance that these types of costs have to be borne by the developer.

Hetch Hetchy Hitch

The Niners keep running into obstacles with the Santa Clara site. First it was the power substation, which can be avoided without much difficulty in the design phase. Now comes the old Hetch Hetchy aqueduct, upon which nothing can be built. According to Matier & Ross, the aqueduct, officially called the Bay Division Pipelines 3 & 4, could be a bone of contention from both land use and political standpoints. But how big a deal is it?

First, let's take a look at the land use aspect. The pipelines run south through Fremont and Milpitas before turning west through North San Jose, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale. Where they run through residential neighborhoods, you'll find narrow landscaped greenbelts. In industrial and office parks, the aqueduct usually runs underneath surface parking lots.

The red area represents the lot the 49ers are targeting. The blue line is the aqueduct. I placed the Coliseum there because it represents a possible footprint (sizewise) for the stadium. As you can see in the photo, the Coliseum fits quite snugly between the substation and the pipelines' right-of-way. There's another graphic put together by the Support Our Niners advocacy website but it's a bad perspective for understanding how the right-of-way relates to the rest of the land.

The stadium is doable without moving or reconfiguring the substation, as was discussed for the Diridon South ballpark site. The pipeline right-of-way can stay intact, and when the time comes for the pipeline itself to be replaced, a partnership of the SFPUC, the City of Santa Clara, and the 49ers can jointly build a walkable plaza that would beautify the buffer between Great America and the stadium.

As for the political side of things, you can't count out the possibility of the City of San Francisco making things difficult through the PUC. It wouldn't be the first time I used the word cockblock with this situation.

Wolff on KLIV, Comcast to buy FSNBA

Lew Wolff will be on San Jose AM station KLIV Tuesday night @ 7 p.m. (repeat at 10 p.m.). From the KLIV website:

Please tune in this Tuesday night (February 27) for an engaging and interactive conversation with Lew Wolff and Dave Holland.

Oakland A's owner Lew Wolfe (sic) and Cisco Systems Executive Dave Holland will join The CEO Show, on 1590 KLIV.

Lew and Dave will discuss the plans to bring the Oakland A's to the City of Fremont, and the high-tech, state-of-the-art ballpark they envision for their fans.

The weekly talk show (starting at 7pm with a 10 pm repeat) features prominent CEOs and Senior Officers who impact our Valley, State, Nation and World, for an unrehearsed discussion on the key issues facing our Valley's economy and quality of life. It is a show about Silicon Valley for Silicon Valley.

The show includes a call-in portion for interested listeners who would like to participate in the conversation. The call-in number is 408/575-1600.

I hope you can join us this Tuesday, February 27 at 7pm, or the repeat broadcast at 10pm for an engaging conversation with Lew Wolff and Dave Holland.

KLIV is a low-power station that can't be picked up anywhere outside the valley, and as far as I know they don't webcast.

---

The San Jose Business Journal reports (subscription required to read full article) that Comcast is closing in on buying Rainbow Media's 60% share of FSN Bay Area. The long-discussed deal would give Comcast control over both Northern California regional sports networks, its own Comcast Sportsnet and FSNBA (40% owned by Fox). What are the ramifications of this arrangement?

It would be double-edged sword. FSNBA and Comcast have long had a good working relationship as content provider and cable operator, respectively. The entry of CSN to the Bay Area a while back made CSN a potential competitor, but FSN smartly locked up all of the Bay Area teams to long-term deals that shut out CSN. Without good local content, CSN had little reason to heavily market in the Bay, choosing instead to wait until FSN's agreements expired. Since CSN would own part or all of either channel, it could choose to be more aggressive since it would win either way. Here are some possibilities:

• CSN could remake itself as an Expanded Basic channel, not a Digital Only channel (400). Such a move would make CSN available to almost as many subscribers as FSN, though arrangements would have to be worked with independent cable providers. It would be the costliest move for Comcast since they might have to deal with the displacement of an existing Expanded Basic channel.
• CSN could stay Digital Only, which would limit exposure but reign in costs. I could see this happening CSN were to be established as a lower profile network compared to FSN, with lower cost/ratings programming. It's possible that the scenario could be flipped with CSN getting the prime spot while FSN is pushed aside.
• CSN and FSN could have a programming sharing agreement with lots of cross promotion. The two networks could be peers, or one could be the "backup" for the other. That would probably mean the end for FSN+.
• CSN could withdraw from the Bay Area completely, leaving FSN/FSN+ as the sole regional sports provider.

Whatever happens, it will make for a definite landscape change among the Bay Area teams. Wolff has expressed interest in creating a regional sports network, which I dismissed previously due to Comcast's 800-lb. gorilla status. The time might be ripe for a new alternative RSN, but there are startup costs and programming questions to be answered. A new RSN would only work if there's enough programming (not just baseball) to warrant it. That means pairing with a winter sport and having other deals in place. I could definitely see an A's-Sharks-Quakes relationship happening on either CSN or Wolff's channel.

One other thing: there will certainly be questions about HD content. Right now delivering HD has a premium associated with it, about $30,000 per game in production costs. That should go down over time, but right now it's pretty hefty.

Progress or so they say

Article's like today's AP piece are a good way to keep Cisco Field in the public conscience. As of 9 p.m. tonight, it showed up on 69 newspaper websites (according to Google). There's talk of progress, but no indicators. There's nice warm-fuzzy stuff about taking batting practice and shagging fly balls. Readers can sense the passion and commitment by Lew and Keith Wolff. Great. We get it.

Such articles can only go so far and will be quickly forgotten once the public has real details to scrutinize. For a guy who has claimed that he wouldn't negotiate through the media, Lew's done a good job communicating to the public through the media (the Ronn Owens visits, San Jose speeches, etc.). We're getting close to dealmaking time. And frankly, I can only stomach so many of these types of articles.

NBA softens stance on Vegas

David Stern may be getting ready to open the Pandora's Box that is Las Vegas.

SI.com reports that the NBA commissioner and Sin City mayor Oscar Goodman may be close to bridging a philosophical gap that kept a NBA franchise out of the city. Stern, who previously has refused to buckle on his stance to never place a team in Vegas unless the city's casinos take NBA games off the books, appears open to a compromise.

Such a compromise could involve two things:

• Betting for the Vegas team's games would be prohibited (a.k.a. "UNLV rule'). This is a major concession by Stern, one that could be an admission of how outdated the pro sports leagues' thinking is about gambling and especially Vegas. There's no way that any league will win this battle with the gaming industry, not even the NFL. The UNLV rule dictated that all state university football and basketball games (Nevada and UNLV) be taken off area sports books.
• The majority of owners would have to approve of having a team in Vegas. While the NBA doesn't have antitrust protection over its franchises like MLB, moves generally aren't done without the consent of the owners' fraternity and the commish. Recognizing the dollar signs and the lackluster performance of the newer Southern franchises (New Orleans, Memphis), having a NBA franchise in Vegas would certainly boost league revenues over most other mid-markets, including Sacramento. The difference this time is that Stern revealed that he wouldn't "stand in the owners' way" if a Vegas team was what they really wanted.

Speaking of Sactown, the Maloofs have preemptively announced that they're committed to staying in Sacramento, even though they're pulling out all the stops as hosts for All Star Weekend and have no Sactown arena deal in sight.

Stern qualified his statement by saying that the two sides aren't close to coming to an agreement, a perfectly diplomatic thing to say if you don't want to piss off existing constituent cities. As the prospect of a NBA team looms closer, the question becomes: Will it be an expansion team or a relocation? Expansion would net a nice franchise fee ($500 million), but it would also further dilute an already questionable talent pool. Relocation might make the most sense considering the dearth of cities willing to pay for new arenas (see Seattle, Sacramento), but obviously the franchise fee wouldn't be there.

Las Vegas Kings? Sounds fitting for the hyperbole-driven city.

Keeping up with the Joneses - Winter '07

Last October I posted an article that kept track of other teams and their ballpark suits. Some news about other ballparks came out this week, so it's a good time to revisit those other cities.

First, let's look at the A's.

Site acquisition is the major progress point here, as the Cisco deal and surrounding purchases have all but sewn up the land piece provided the project and rezoning are approved by Fremont (and perhaps Alameda County). I've also moved the A's up on the funding meter, as I figure that Wolff wouldn't commence with the land acquisitions unless he had some generally positive feelers on financing from one or more institutions and potential investors. The political process meter hasn't budged since the A's haven't formally submitted a proposal for consideration. Construction, of course, has not started yet.

---

The Twins' project has stalled over a land cost dispute. You'd think this would be the first thing they got out of the way. Alas, the two sides are caught in a risky game of chicken, one that threatens to severely delay if not derail the project altogether.

The political process and funding meters haven't changed, as legislation passed before October. However, the funding part isn't complete because the land cost remains an X-factor. There's a myriad of opinions on what to do about this. One columnist suggests that Twins owner and billionaire Carl Pohlad should bridge the gap, while another thinks that it's time to ditch downtown for suburban Anoka County, where a football stadium proposal recently failed and money (and land) may be available. While a judge has cleared the way for eminent domain proceedings, there's still no set value for the land and county/ballpark officials aren't budging from their $13.5 million offer for the 8-acre parcel and the county has said on more than one occasion that a cap on the $522 million project prevents them from offering more. The scary part: Unveiling of the design is scheduled for this Thursday.

---

The Marlins' fortunes started to look up when Republican Charlie Crist won the November election for governor. Crist has expressed interest in providing some level of state funding for the ballpark, moreso than his predecessor, Jeb Bush.

Unfortunately for the Marlins, that's the only good news so far. Napoleon-like Marlins president David Samson thinks a deal could be made by October, but there are a ton of issues left to work out. A site has not been finalized yet, though the front runner appears to be a downtown location near the old Miami Arena. The funding mix will be heavily dependent on that state source, and there's some potential backlash if Crist works with the Marlins but doesn't open up the state's wallet to other pro sports. There's also the question of whether the ballpark will have a retractable roof, the inclusion of which would certainly blow the lid off the ballpark's budget.

---

After much political heartache and bad planning, the Navy Yard ballpark is well on its way to opening next year. The project website even set up a webcam to show off the progress. The bowl foundation is in place and structural work continues.

Plenty of issues remain, like the amount of parking that will be available in the area. Still, the Nats are definitely going to be the only team of these four that will open in new digs before the end of the decade. Too bad it took a fantastically horrendous deal to do it.

---

One more note: Next Tuesday is the first of four open houses set up by VTA to get public input on the BART-to-San Jose extension. The schedule is as follows:

• Tuesday, Feb. 13 @ San Jose City Hall, Committee Rooms W118 & 119
• Thursday, Feb. 15 @ Santa Clara Mission Branch Library, Auditorium
  
• Monday, Feb. 26 @ Milpitas Community Center, Auditorium
• Wednesday, Feb. 28 @ San Jose High Academy
  

For all four sessions, the Open House portion will run from 6:30 PM to 7:00 PM, with the Presentation and Formal Public Comment period to start shortly thereafter.

A's Waterworld

Matier and Ross pointed out in today's column that Pacific Commons is in some danger due to global warming. Should sea levels rise 1 meter over the next 100 years, it would appear that the low-lying project area would become waterfront property or at worst underwater. So which is it?

A previous Chron article included a handy-dandy map showing which parts of the Bay shoreline would be inundated. While the map shows that the project area is not within the 1 meter zone, it's somewhat outdated because it doesn't include the work done to create the Pacific Commons wetlands preserve. In order to maintain tidal flow throughout the area, a causeway was built for Cummings Parkway, which runs through the western part of the project area. The causeway is some 3-4 meters above the preserve.

The preserve area (light gray) is physically lower than the project site by 1-2 meters (check this space later for GPS measurements). What you'd have is the project site above the preserve, evolving from a usually dry tidal marsh to an estuary-type area. So the ballpark and the nearby housing should be relatively safe, right?

I'm not going to make any predictions. It would be nice if the subject matter were covered in the EIR. One thing's for certain: Someone's going to need flood insurance.

---

I'm including murf's comments in this post. murf knows this particular field quite well, so his opinion is worth a lot more than mine, or a couple of columnists:

It won't be covered in the EIR except to say that future considerations should be made, dependent on observed sea level fluctuations. That's all that can or should be said about it right now.

An aside on potential sea level rise: 1 meter is a pretty generous (sensationalized) estimate. More recent estimates put the potential rise at 7 to 23 inches by 2100.

An important factor re: how sea level impacts are predicted. Anytime you see a number, be it 7 inches or 2 meters, it's a prediction for the average global change in sea level. Change, we know, is most severe at the equator with diminishing severity as you go north and south away from the equator. This is because there is a major factor beyond ice cap melt that is considered in the models: thermal expansion. Water at the equator, currently and predicted in the models, fluctuates with greater variance than in the northern and southern hemispheres. Unless ocean currents are reversed (very unlikely) the California coast will still receive current from cold regions near Alaska, which predictably could mitigate some of the thermal expansion expected in warmer waters. The one thing we know for certain is that we don't know everything about how the oceans are going to react. We've got a good idea, though. As for Pacific Commons, it lies within the Study Area of the South Bay Shoreline Study of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a host of local sponsors. This project is in year 2 of a 7 year study to determine appropriate steps to protect the area for the next 100 years against tidal super-elevation and potential sea level changes. (New Orleans opened a lot of eyes.) Assuming the Federal Government can pass appropriations bills in the next 100 years, PC should be safe.

It's good to know that the Feds are learning from Katrina and could apply lessons to our situation.

The big chokepoint

The Merc's Mr. Roadshow, Gary Richards, has an update on the big chokepoint in South Fremont/Warm Springs, the 880/Mission interchange:

Q Gary, you've written so much about the construction on Highway 87, which I drive through every day and that is greatly appreciated. But I also drive up to Interstate 880 through the Mission Boulevard squeeze and need to know: When is this work going to end? Opening the merge lanes has helped, but I need to see more signs of progress.
Tom Enriquez, San Jose

A Oh, do I have good news for you. Progress is right around the bend on this $178 million project. The ramps from westbound Mission to south and north I-880 could open by spring or summer, a major milestone. And there is more you need to know:
• The Kato Road ramps will be closed and the new overpass open in another month, perhaps.
• The ramp from south I-880 to east Mission: spring 2008.
• The ramp from north I-880 to east Mission: fall 2008.
• Completion of the Warren Avenue interchange: Late 2008.
• Opening of carpool lanes on I-880: fall 2008.

The opening of the merge lanes from Mission to 237 has already made life a lot easier for those on 880 South during the PM commute. The incremental improvements, culminating with the carpool lane additions, should make 880 South quite smooth. As for 880 North, the widening and siphoning should alleviate some of the problems for the through traffic but there's no completely solution as the volume is too heavy to fulfill everyone's needs.

NFL's G3 funds gone

The 49ers and Raiders won't have the option of getting the NFL's help in financing their stadia. The league's G3 loan program, which provided up to $150 million for a new stadium, has been completely exhausted according to new commish Roger Goodell.

G3 helped make the NFL standout from the other sports leagues as it was the only loan program of its kind anywhere. It also smartly borrowed against the NFL's huge TV contracts, which are the envy of pro sports. Even that was going to run dry at some point, and it looks like teams that faced delay in getting their projects going would inevitably lose out, as the local teams have.

All the more reason for the two franchises to team up on a new stadium. It's not going to be easy to finance the thing, so everything from naming rights to value engineering is going to be even more important than before. As they get further into their plans we'll see how bad their situations are. Right now they're talking to their respective individual municipalities, but someone will see soon that such projects are cost-prohibitive.

Quakes deal near, BART to SJ gets money

According to a SI.com report, SJSU and Lew Wolff are "as few as two weeks" from striking up an exclusivity agreement on a new stadium for the Spartans and Earthquakes 3.o. The key negotiating point is the size of the stadium: Spartan football backers want the venue to hold 30,000, while 23,000 is more comfortable for a MLS team. That may sound like a large gap, but it needn't be. The use of a stage at one end with portable seats (a la Gillette Stadium) could allow 2,500+ seats to be moved in and out. An open design could allow for lots of portable seating to be used in each end zone. I'd like to see the first 10-12 rows have a variable riser height, a feature seen only in recently built indoor arenas such as Staples Center and Portland's Rose Garden. That would ensure that for football games fans would be raised above the sideline, whereas for soccer games fans would be closer to the field. It's not a feature I've ever seen at an outdoor stadium.

---

The state released $364 million in funding for the BART-to-San Jose project. The money will allow VTA to be reimbursed for some previously done design work, while also funding further design work to the 65% stage. This should allow VTA to finalize placement of future BART stations and route alignment. The new SEIR, released earlier this week, drops two stations along Santa Clara Street in San Jose in favor of a single downtown station. Many of the changes prescribed in the SEIR are in a similar cost-cutting vein while actually bumping up the previously specious ridership estimates for the extension.

This money received from the state doesn't make the extension more or less likely. There's still a significant financial hurdle to overcome that can only be addressed by federal matching funds (previously rejected) or a tax hike (also previously rejected). Should funding come, service on the extension would begin in... 2016. The separate Warm Springs extension would commence service in 2013.

Transportation Reference Table

As part of a framework for the coming discussions on transportation, I've put together a table that shows all 30 existing ballparks along with Cisco Field. It shows distances from downtowns and transit hubs plus available transit modes to the venue. Light Rail is overhead electrified streetcar-style rail like SF MUNI Metro and VTA's LRT. Rapid Rail is like BART, NY Subway, and DC's Metro. Commuter rail is like Caltrain or LA's Metrolink. Buses are either local or express service. Not included are ferries or very short distance, low-use options like Arlington's hotel shuttle or downtown Detroit's people mover.

The last column shows available parking spaces. Check the legend for more information.


Comment away.

Niners and Raiders sittin' in a tree

Could it be a marriage made in heaven? Or at least Santa Clara?

Matier and Ross revealed in this morning's column that 49er officials met with their Raider counterparts "in a casual setting in the latter half of the football season about the possibility of teaming up." Later in the afternoon, the 49ers issued a release denying such talks occurred. The idea of the two NFL franchises sharing a stadium has been floated here and elsewhere. Is it feasible?

The concept (if not the location) may be the most feasible for this area. The NYC market can only get one stadium built for its two megabucks teams. Despite decades of fierce loyalty, the Redskins' FedEx Field was privately built, while built-up longing and disappointment helped broker a sweetheart deal for the Ravens. We know that public money is scarce at best for the 49ers and Raiders, as is land. So the better question may be:

Why are they pursuing separate venues?

Just as with the A's situation, I'm not terribly particular about the eventual location of a stadium. The 49ers have been pumping up the Great America site, which sounds good on paper. It has transit links, plenty of parking nearby, and some land nearby which could be leveraged for development-based financing. Yet the 49ers' apparent overtures towards the Raiders indicates that the financing part is far from complete. I've expressed my doubts about how the team is going to pay for this.

From a practical standpoint, sharing a venue makes a lot of sense.

• The two teams will play 20-24 games total per year including playoffs.
  
• The exposure that having two teams will bring to the venue makes naming rights much more attractive for potential bidders - perhaps twice as lucrative.
• Having a single venue means that the two teams won't be competing for a Super Bowl bid. They can throw their resources into co-hosting the bid, collectively getting better chances in the process even for repeat hostings.
• The host city will be that much more interested in "helping" because of the promise of twice as many NFL dates.
• Success with the venue would cascade down to the possibility of a high profile bowl game (yes I'm pointing at you, Emerald Bowl).
  

Of course, pragmatism often doesn't rule such proceedings. Greed does. Still, this is a positive step that shows that 49ers management may have a better read on the market than most of the public gives them credit for. As for the Raiders, they understand that compared to a decade ago, they are in a position of weakness on and off the field. They're now beggars, not choosers, so a lack of options could very well drive them towards this kind of deal. Will the fans of the respective teams stand for it? Sounds like a tougher bargain to me.

BTW - I know I'm going to get asked this - I'd prefer Treasure Island even though it's a logistical nightmare (BART station at Yerba Buena Island included). Then one of the cities - take your pick.

What is infrastructure, anyway?

In the past month we've heard a lot about costs associated with the ballpark village. The $500 million figure for the ballpark itself is quite fuzzy, and depending on the final scope of "A's Town" the final value of the project could be well over $2 billion. It could be very easy to lose sight of the hidden costs of the development. There's much speculation about who is going to foot these hidden costs, but I sense that much of this speculation comes from good old-fashioned FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). That's not unfair since we've seen municipalities get burned time and time again over the last 20-30 years on sports facility development. In this case there's less chance of that because a project of this size has to have all details fleshed out before it gets approved. Why? Because if you take away the ballpark, it's simply a housing and retail development, and as such it should get treated like any other housing and retail development.

Don't let the ballpark fool you
The ballpark is the anchor of the development, and it's expected to retain virtually all of its revenue including concessions and parking. Unlike most retail anchors such as department stores, it's not expected to directly benefit the city through significant sales or property tax revenues. That may vary based on who owns the ballpark and land, but for now let's work with the notion that when it comes to sales and property taxes the ballpark represents zero direct net benefit to the City and County. (Ancillary development may brings huge tax revenue for both the City and County but it's too early to project how much.)

Okay, but what about costs associated with the ballpark? Wolff said last week that the A's will pick up the tab for police presence. Is that simply police within the ballpark village area or the ballpark itself? What about traffic management? Or how about public safety at whatever transportation facilities are built there? Fire and emergency services? All of that stuff adds up. It's possible that the A's could capture those costs in their ticket and concessions prices. They could partner with the city on a ticket tax to fund such services, which would be a roundabout way of doing it.

Or they could look at another source of tax revenue within the city itself. Section 5-1206 of the Fremont municipal code covers revenues from recreation and entertainment:

(a) Every person conducting, carrying on or managing any business consisting of entertainment, recreation or amusement shall pay an annual business tax of $1.50 for each $1,000.00 of gross receipts. This classification includes but is not limited to: Archery ranges/instruction, bowling alleys, firearm shooting ranges, golf courses/instruction, ranges, indoor and outdoor motion picture theaters, pool and billiard halls, rental animals for recreation riding, skating rinks, sporting events, swimming pools, theaters at which live entertainment is presented, vehicle courses/racing, game or computing arcades.

That means the tax rate for the A's would be 0.15% in Fremont. That's favorable compared to Oakland's 0.45%, though I don't know whether or not the A's actually pay this tax in their current situation. 0.15% may not sound like much, but when talking about a baseball team, it's actually good revenue. Consider this breakdown:

If Fremont and the A's were to split the cost of gameday police and emergency services, that $171,120 would go along way towards paying for it. Keep in mind that this is tax revenue that would otherwise not go to Fremont. If there's a possible source for these expenses or even a rebate for the A's, this is it.

Permanent infrastructure
There are other types of infrastructure associated with residential or mixed developments. Roads, schools, and parks have great upfront costs, but are ongoing expenses usually covered by existing budgets. In Fremont, the city has had to cut some services and eliminate positions to keep the budget balanced. "A's Town" would bring some nearly 8-10,000 new residents into the city via townhomes and other types of attached housing. Typical residential and commercial developments these days require developers to foot the bill for water, sewer, and other utilities, as well as building of streets within the development. That cost should not be an issue. It's the other stuff that needs to be defined.

Arterial roads and freeways
Two major roads feed into the Pacific Commons area, Auto Mall Parkway from the east, and Cushing Parkway/Boyce Road from the north/south. A major piece of infrastructure was completed a couple of years ago when Cushing Pkwy was extended north from Fremont Blvd, officially connecting the two parts of Fremont's Industrial Redevelopment district. Prior to this, drivers had to take 880 or cross the freeway to get to Auto Mall Pkwy. Cushing is perfect for ballpark traffic as it runs 4-6 lanes and empties directly into 880 South. Auto Mall Pkwy is modern and wide in the Pacific Commons area, but it narrows as you move further east towards 680. It's this portion of Auto Mall that is a concern because it performs double-duty as a commuter corridor. Widening to a full six lanes from 880 to 680 is imperative, and that includes an overpass section that avoids rail lines, including the planned BART extension. Should that widening happen, Auto Mall may be used as a carpool route, which would be helpful for fans coming from 680.

Modern interchanges connecting to 880 in the area are already complete. Pacific Commons is in the middle of a massive redevelopment zone called "Industrial." After the creation of the 3,000-acre zone west of 880, roughly $24 million per year in property taxes was diverted away from their usual destinations, in part, to fund four 880 interchanges: Auto Mall, Fremont, Mission/Warren, and Dixon Landing. All but Mission/Warren are finished, and the Mission/Warren interchange is due sometime in 2008. Debt service on the bonds used to finance the interchanges will run through 2013. Even if the A's were to reverse position and ask for a bond issue - which they haven't - the city would likely be averse to acquiring more short-term debt.

In a previous comment thread, someone asked if perhaps the CHP weigh stations could somehow be used to route traffic coming from 880. That isn't likely with the east side station since it's frequently used and houses other facilities. The station on the west side of 880 (South) is intriguing since it isn't used much at all and is strategically placed adjacent to Pacific Commons. If the developer, city, and state could come to an agreement, it's possible that the station's entrance and exit could be utilized. That would mitigate much traffic that would normally use the Auto Mall exit. The challenges here are A) whether it's actually possible to use a weigh station in this manner, and B) if Wolff can acquire the private parcel needed to complete the road that would run between the weigh station and Christy Street. I doubt a purchase of just the required easement would be feasible, since it would significantly reduce the existing facility's parking. Then again, who knows? The road would only be 600 feet long and covers 1/2 acre.

Parks
The municipal code dictates that for every 1,000 residents, five acres of parkland should be set aside. Using the projected additional population of 8-10,000, that means 40-50 new acres of parks. The developer could pay a "park land dedication fee" in lieu of some amount of land, but good parks tend to raise the value of surrounding neighborhoods, so we should expect some modicum of parkland. It's possible that the developer would dedicate adjacent parcels to the city and Fremont Unified School District to create a shared school/park facility.

Coincidentally, the city owns 40 acres at the west end of Auto Mall, part of it to be used for the ACE/Amtrak station. It's land Wolff covets for parking - and if parking is in its future, a public park isn't. Perhaps a trade is in order...

Schools
The nearest public elementary school is across 880 from Pacific Commons, which makes sense since there is no residential development currently at Pacific Commons. Introducing 8-10,000 new residents means that at the very least a new elementary school is in order. Junior and Senior High Schools are at least 1.5 miles away. Again, the developer will be asked to dedicate land for the construction of a school, some 5-15 acres.

Fire/Hospital
A fairly new fire station is located at Auto Mall and Grimmer Blvd, just across the freeway from Pacific Commons. The hospitals in the area are located closer to city hall and the BART station. No change likely here.

Transportation
This issue is the big elephant in the room. It's worthy of a series of posts to cover potential solutions, so I won't cover that right now. Soon, very soon.

---

When look at infrastructure, it's important to separate the wheat from the chaff. Sure, there are many details, but many of them are either already addressed (roads) or will be addressed within the auspices of the project's master plan (utilities). While it's easy to be overwhelmed by all of the information that must be studied, once residents get a real visual of the concept it will be easier to appraise. Until then, I'll keep doing whatever I can to help shed light on the process.

Down on BART, Up on Silicon Valley

Don't say you didn't see this coming.

At a luncheon in San Jose sponsored by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Lew Wolff downplayed the importance of BART when he said,

"If BART was as effective as we thought they would be, the parking lots wouldn't be as crowded.''

At face value it's pretty poor logic. There are numerous reasons people might drive as opposed to taking mass transit: tailgating, cost when a party of five or more is attending, or convenience coupled with location (usually a dislike of mode switches or transfers). The oft-cited 15-20% of attendees using BART is a good percentage compared to NYC, where 13-30% of fans take trains to either Shea or Yankee Stadium.

Wolff could be referring to how BART doesn't service all of the Bay Area. Livermore residents have long complained about being promised BART in previous expansion efforts. Or maybe it's a veiled shot at the various Bay Area bureaucrats who chose not to include Santa Clara County in the original system layout. Whatever the case, he's chosen to marginalize the effect BART has on attendance. After all, 80-85% currently arrive by car. Ample parking is a factor for getting fans to stay at the revenue-generating ballpark village, while finite mass transit schedules tend to make such a notion less palatable.

In the end this is largely a business decision. The developers can't afford to base their decision much on a much-delayed transit project whose future is in doubt. If you think it's cold and insensitive, you're right. I don't doubt that Wolff would welcome the BART option with open arms if it were beyond the planning stage, but as part of the compromise plan that Pacific Commons is, he (and the rest of us) will have to make do.

---

Not to be missed from the same article is this excerpt:

Wolff pitched the A's as a future economic pillar of Silicon Valley.

The team, he said, would "add value to the economic base and further identify Silicon Valley as a specific place to be instead of having people believe it's in downtown San Francisco.''

You can see where this is leading. An anecdote: one of my new Aussie friends is in town this week. After showing him the sights in SF last weekend, we'll run around the valley tomorrow. I drove to a point in South Fremont to give him the lay of the land. I found myself having difficulty explaining the geography of the Silicon Valley, whose edges are blurry and whose shape is amorphous. San Jose proclaims itself as the capital. Both Sunnyvale and Santa Clara lay claim to the "heart." It may be that this fragmentation forever prevents the definition of a center, whose criteria may be arbitrary. But Wolff is also right about Silicon Valley's lack of definition. "Silicon Valley Athletics at Fremont" would go a long way towards creating that sense of place. Many companies in the valley consider themselves more "citizens-of the-world" and are not locally focused.

Wait, there's more.

Wolff downplayed the importance of mining Silicon Valley companies to buy up season tickets at the planned 32,000-seat stadium. He said the team wouldn't be dependent on luxury boxes and would still rely on drawing kids and families.

"We weren't soliciting box seats or anything like that today,'' Wolff said after the meeting.

The team had a special pitch for business leaders who happen to be A's fans.

Of course they weren't soliciting box seats. They don't need to. SVLG is a readily available marketing and sales machine for the A's. I've heard that luxury suites are already largely spoken for. The 4- or 6-person suite concept seems perfect for that "special pitch" to smaller firms. That could in turn open prime seats up for families and hard-core fans (if they can afford the seats).

Giants say "Top that!"

Not to be outdone in the technology department, the Giants have fired a preemptive shot across the Cisco/A's bow Tuesday, when they announced the construction of a new high definition video/scoreboard. The Mitsubishi-made, 28-ton behemoth will replace the old monochrome scoreboard and Panasonic video board combo in centerfield. They're also adding 220 feet of color LED matrix boards to replace the old monochrome "in-game" boards down each base line, along the club level.

Some specs on the new scoreboard:

• 103 feet wide x 31.5 feet high (3245 square feet)
  
• 32:9 aspect ratio (double-wide HD)
• 1480 x 832 resolution above the line score (128 pixels high)
• 20 mm physical pixel pitch
  

It's not as large as the board installed at Turner Field in 2005 (5760 square feet), but it's still impressive. It's wide enough to put two HD feeds side-by-side. Or show Ben-Hur without letterboxing stripes at the top and bottom of the screen (2.76:1 aspect ratio). The display promises to be amazingly sharp. I suppose that will help the Giants' increasingly geriatric lineup check out their highlights. Or at the very least they could show a neat widescreen video of how Barry Zito's curveball travels.

How can the Cisco/A's match this? 1080p, baby.

---

It looks like the "A's real estate investment trust" is closing in on the important 25-acre parcel (blue rectangle in middle of pic below)

Total holdings could grow to 200 acres or more when all is said and done - about the size of CSU-East Bay.

---

During a Wednesday conference call, Wolff hinted that the financing mechanism could involve rebates of taxes associated with the ballpark village. Is that simply a repackaging of a tax increment financing (TIF) or PILOT (payments in lieu of taxes) plan? We'll soon find out.