Mixed bag

Tonight the parties requested a more informal setting than the typical City Council meeting, even though the session was held in Council Chambers. So instead of the pols sitting on the dais, city officials and developers/architects sat around a bunch of pushed-together tables. This made for a constant flow of ideas and quick exchanges. The format was considered quite positive and will likely be used for other sessions of this type. Keith Wolff led the presentation, aided by Gensler's Marty Borko, who fleshed out the details.

A few new details came out of tonight's work session. Nothing really major, but still worth noting:

• The number of housing units to be built will be close to 3150, a 250-unit jump over previous estimates. Keith Wolff explained that the development team spoke with housing developers and saw potential for such an increase. Perhaps they are anticipating a rebound in the housing market by the time construction begins.
• Land west of Cushing Parkway that was previously designated as interim parking (the "West parcel") may undergo a mix of zoning changes. Instead of purely residential use, up to 300,000 square feet of R&D/office space could be built in at least two-story buildings. 7 acres could be set aside for one more car dealership as part of an extension to the Auto Mall.
  
• With the increase in housing units come plans for greater densities. Originally, much of the acreage would have had 12-25 units per acre. The range has gone up considerably, up to 40 units per acre in some locations. To do this, some buildings would have to be taller than three stories. It's expected that the entire development would show a sort of tapering effect of building heights from the ballpark/village to the outer edges of the lower density residential area. This could pave the way for more affordable homes as well since there would be greater variance in home types and sizes.
  
• The school will in fact be in the residential area. The proposed site is at the southern edge of the property. 4 acres is being considered for the "urban" school setting, an idea that the A's and the city were receptive to. The example cited was Horace Mann Elementary in San Jose. Horace Mann is a 3-acre school that neatly fits into a city block and was only recently reconstructed. A school of this size would not have multiple ballfields or sprawling portable classrooms.

• Neighborhoods would be centered around numerous small parks and open spaces. These small parks would be maintained by the homeowners' association. The neighborhoods are meant to have individual character, a la South Park in SF or Gramercy Park in Manhattan. (Bar set too high? Probably, but that's what they're aiming for.)
• West parcel interim parking would have to be replaced by additional parking in the area before anything could get built on the parcel.
  
• Additional retail spaces are possible within the greater residential area, including a grocery store and smaller shops.
  

I didn't expect much to be revealed about the parking and transportation plans, but there were a few interesting ideas being discussed. None, however, do more than scratch the surface.
The above is my depiction of a parking and traffic management slide shown during the presentation. The idea here is to route cars to the nearest parking lot while minimizing cross-traffic. It would reduce most car movement to right turns. So if you're coming from 880 north of Fremont, you might be redirected to the lot across Auto Mall Parkway. If you're coming from the south, you might be sent to the West parcel. Shuttles would be run from some of the team-operated lots, though it's expected that many will walk.

Parking projections have increased to 11,342 spaces not including the village commercial area garages. The explanation here is that in order to project a worst-case scenario, the village parking has to be considered off limits.

Councilmembers Steve Cho and Bob Wieckowski both suggested pedestrian overpasses to assist the public in crossing both Auto Mall Parkway and I-880. This concept was not met with great optimism, probably due to cost. Regardless, it's worth considering if only to get cost estimates. There's even an opportunity for ad revenue to help pay for the cost.

Towards the end of the session, Mayor Wasserman expressed frustration at the delay surrounding the development application:

"We need to get to the next step in terms of getting the application in and the environmental impact (report) moving."

At the same time he preached patience since the process is expected to run slowly after the application is submitted thanks to the EIR and other studies.

Sierra Club rep Vinnie Bacon had serious reservations about the development. He felt that the details shown so far regarding transit/transportation were "woefully lacking." 3,000 new homes were an area of great concern, and any steps to mitigate impacts on the wetlands area would be akin to placing "a solar panel on a Hummer." He also claimed that the retail component of the village would draw dollars away from existing businesses. He neglected to mention that the retailers at the site would be higher-end and wouldn't necessarily compete with existing retailers in the city. Massimo's owner Bill Rinetti disputed the negative view of economic impact, stating that Fremont needs to keep its entertainment dollar. Rinetti happens to be the brother of A's VP of stadium ops David Rinetti.

Overall, nothing significant. The application is supposed to be out in the next couple of weeks. The next work session will be in another month or so. Until then I'll be twittling my thumbs...

City Council Work Session - Tuesday 9/18

From the Fremont City Clerk:

TO: ALL INTERESTED PARTIES

This is to advise you that a City Council Work Session has been scheduled on the Oakland A's proposed Ballpark Village Project. The City Council Work Session will be from 6:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 18, 2007.

The Work Session will be held in the City Council Chambers located at 3300 Capitol Avenue, Building A, Fremont, California.

If you have any questions regarding this Work Session, please contact Economic Development Director Daren Fields at (510) 284-4020 or dfields@ci.fremont.ca.us

Two-and-a-half hours. That's a mighty lengthy session. I'll be there.

Planned school site changed

Common sense has prevailed according to Matthew Artz's piece on the ballpark village. You may remember that the school being planned for the village was originally going to sit on a 40-acre Fremont-owned parcel, 3/4ths of a mile away from the village (upper left corner of pic below). For the school district that was considered a non-starter and they lobbied to have the school located within the community.

The school won't be placed within the shopping center portion of the village, and it wouldn't work adjacent to the ballpark. Chances are it'll go in the area that's slated for temporary parking, where the last phases of the residential buildout are planned. Obviously some homesites would be displaced, but it probably works for the city since many on the council want to see greater variety and higher densities in some sections of the village.

Out of today's luncheon at the Fremont Marriott (sponsored by the Fremont Chamber of Commerce) came this:

Many of the questions from the audience were about traffic issues, which Lew Wolff said were "not quite as serious as everybody says."

The team anticipates that 5,000 fans - about 18 percent of a sellout crowd - would walk or take public transit to games, Keith Wolff said. The same percentage of fans walk or commute to the McAfee Coliseum in Oakland, he said, even though it is next to a BART station.

Where does that 5,000 figure come from? I'm baffled. We know that right now 15-20% take public transit, and without a BART option that is just as convenient as is currently in place, that percentage will surely drop, perhaps precipitously. A mode switch to a shuttle could drop utilization to half of current levels, and that presupposes a Warm Springs BART station. Diesel trains could pick up some of the slack, but nothing close to what BART does (Caltrain accounts for 2% - correction, 4-8% - of attendees at AT&T Park).

As for walking, estimates could be optimistic. Let's say that half of those 5,000 would walk to the ballpark. So 2,500 would either be residents of the village or anyone who works in the vicinity. So to get to that estimate, slightly less than 1 person per residence or business would walk to the ballpark. Is that realistic? Sure, the village will attract fans who want to live near the ballpark. At the same time it's still market rate housing that will attract buyers for other reasons, whether it's the lifestyle center, Fremont's historically low crime rate, or proximity to Silicon Valley. Housing demand, even in this current market slump, won't allow for buyers to purchase based something as peripheral as proximity to a ballpark.

There'll be a chance to further analyze this when a traffic study is released, but if these are the estimates, they have to be immediately labeled specious.

---

It's been reported that the A's have been selected to open next season in Japan. The likely opponent will be the Boston Red Sox, whose roster contains two Japanese stars. Since the Sox sell out every game at Fenway Park and would leave a good deal of money on the table by forgoing a bunch of home dates in Japan, you can guess as to who will "take one for the team."

What's it worth to you?

The commish traveled to Miami and the Twin Cities this week to visit stadium projects in two very different stages. On Tuesday he talked sites with Miami pols. The Orange Bowl appears to be the main candidate because it's now available with the coming departure of the Hurricanes. A downtown site, if it can be acquired, may be preferable. Sun-Sentinel columnist Dave Hyde suggested that the Marlins use the revenue sharing money they're pocketing to bridge the financing gap, an idea I put forth many moons ago. Yesterday, Selig attended the Twins' groundbreaking ceremony. There's even a nice feel good photo of Selig and Twins owner Carl Pohlad clutching hands. I wonder if they were laughing about that $3 million loan Selig received from Pohlad many many moons ago.

In both of these cases, someone - pols, voters, or both - decided that it would be worthwhile to use public money to finance a large portion of the project. In California, we've recently shown that we have a hardline position when it concerns stadium financing. Because of this we've had a few facilities built largely if not entirely with private funds (AT&T Park, Staples Center, Stanford Stadium) and a few more that are outmoded and need to be either replaced or torn down (Monster Park, McAfee Coliseum, San Diego Sports Arena)

Numerous journalists and economists have praised California's privately-financed projects as responsible and potentially trendsetting. While AT&T Park hasn't resulted in a spate of privately-financed venues, at least some markets have responded by getting better deals for themselves, often with municipalities providing only infrastructure changes (Gillette Stadium) or less public funds (New Busch Stadium). The ballpark and ancillary development at Cisco Field are to be privately financed but additional infrastructure costs are unknown.

We in the Bay Area can pat ourselves on the back for being steadfast, but conversely does our lack of willingness to fund these projects indicate that we are somehow lesser sports fans? In the Houston and Philadelphia markets, broad legislation was passed to build billions of dollars worth of new venues. No amount of hearty Bronx activism could stop the new Yankee Stadium from getting tax-free bonds and from devouring public parkland. Those markets are generally considered more sports-crazy than ours. Some would phrase our stance as "having our priorities straight," which is mostly true. But doesn't that undervalue what it means to have a major sports franchise in your town?

The A's annual revenue is around $150 million. That isn't much compared to other local businesses, even in the city of Fremont alone:

• SYNNEX: $6 billion
  
• Logitech: $2 billion
• Lam Research: $1.6 billion
  
• Wal-Mart (2 Fremont stores only): estimated $110 million
  
• Costco: estimated $115 million per store
  
• Fremont Bank (private): $45 million
• Typical chain supermarket: $14 million
• AuctionDrop: $6 million
  

In addition, NUMMI produces some 400,000 cars per year or about $8 billion worth of vehicles, plus parts and other manufacturing operations. So it's not as if the A's are turning Fremont into an economic powerhouse, Fremont already was in its own modest way.

Then again, not too many focus on a single store's performance when analyzing a company, so why should the A's be treated differently? The Oakland Athletics Baseball Company is merely part of a $5 billion enterprise. The team is guaranteed to get coverage for at least 45 seconds in every local late newscast. Local papers devote impressive amounts of resources to team coverage. Dedicated websites give the team enviable amounts of coverage. Charitable endeavors from the team and individual players tend to be more impressive and high-profile than those from "similarly sized" companies.

The impact the A's make on the community is much larger than what a $150 million (revenue) company would make, but smaller than a multibillion dollar, industry-leading plant. How, then, can we quantify what the A's mean to their home city? Marketing consultants try to paint it in terms of the amount of positive exposure a team gives to its city. Economists use multiplier effects to map out investment and consumption associated with teams. None of these things properly account for the average fan who, during an A's road trip, rushes home to catch a 4:05 PM (7:05 PM ET) game on TV with a cold one in hand. That fan may not live in the team's city, could be hundreds if not thousands of miles away. But that fan, in his love of the team, could be curious about the city the team calls home. He might decide, "I'd like to visit this place" or "Maybe I'll go to school near there." Or he may already live there and decide that all other things being equal, he'd like to raise his family there and take his kids to games. All because of a ball team. All for the love of a game. That bond falls into the "quality of life" category. A price can't be placed on it.

Realignment and scheduling

In the previous installment, I made an argument for why realignment and expansion should be done by the 2015 season. In the end it all comes down to balance. That means balance for both leagues, for all divisions, and also for scheduling reasons as well. It would stand to reason that having even numbers of teams throughout the table makes a certain symmetry possible.

Well, I had no idea how bad the scheduling system was until I started to really take a look at it. Anyone looking at a standings table with a rudimentary knowledge of how MLB games are played could easily ascribe a certain level of messiness to the task of scheduling. But when you dig deep the ugliness really starts to show.

In the CBA there are only a few pages devoted to scheduling. Much of the language is meant to dissuade teams from scheduling splot or day-night doubleheaders, which means the language has been largely successful. Regular doubleheaders are not discouraged, but every team has financial reasons to keep games separate. (Yes, I dearly miss the Sunday A's-Indians double dips too.) There's little of interest until you get to the section regarding interleague play:

Each Club may be scheduled to play up to 18 Interleague games during each championship season.

"Up to 18?" That didn't make much sense to me. So I looked at this season's MLB standings with interleague records. Sure enough, most teams played 18 interleague games including all AL teams. Some NL teams, however, played only 15. In previous seasons, some played as few as 12. What gives?

Look at the tables above. There's little rhyme or reason to it. There is a sort of "make good" that occurs in following years but it's just a band-aid to the overall lameness of the system. The unbalanced leagues created this situation. I'm all for interleague play, but there's something seriously wrong with it if some teams play a full interleague schedule - 18 games - while others don't. Then you start getting into which league is more dominant (AL recently) and how many games against specific competition are being played with uneven splits (home/road/intraleague/interleague). These factors contribute to strength of schedule, so every effort should be made to make scheduling as equitable as possible. Unfortunately, as long as the 16-14 scenario continues to exist, the schedules will continue to be unbalanced.

Compare the A's and Giants' scheduling above with the next graphic. It's much simpler and straightforward, and only possible with an 8-division MLB.

In this iteration, the A's would play each of the other three AL West teams 16 times, 8 at home and 8 on the road. 16 isn't a common number for games played between two teams. Normally you'll see a team play a division foe 18-19 times per season, whereas the old pre-expansion balanced schedule had two division rivals play 12-14 times. 16 strikes a good balance between the two, but scheduling it can be a bit tricky. A series is 2-4 games long, so the likely formats would be 3-2-3/3-2-3 or 4-4/4-4 (home/road). A prototype April 2008 schedule would look like this:

• LAA @ OAK, 4 games (Apr 7-10)
• OAK @ SEA, 3 games (Apr 11-13)
• OAK @ POR, 3 games (Apr 14-16)
• SEA @ OAK, 3 games (Apr 18-20)
• POR @ OAK, 3 games (Apr 21-23)
• OAK @ LAA, 4 games (Apr 24-27)

That takes care of the first stretch of division games. SEA and POR have the 3-game sets, so they would also have 2-game home/road sets with the A's just before and after the All Star Break. The A's wouldn't see the Angels until September, when sequence above would be repeated the final 3 weeks of the season. Why spread things out this way? 7-day weeks make it difficult to fit completely uniform scheduling such as 3-game series unless every week has an off day. That format wouldn't work because MLB requires that a regular season be wrapped up in at most 183 days. Running counter to that is a rule that dictates that teams can play at most 20 days in a row without an off day.

When it comes to playing the other AL divisions, it's pretty simple there too. One division's teams (in this case the AL North) would play the A's 12 times, while the other two divisions' teams would face the A's 6 times apiece. There's an alternative below in which the A's would face two divisions' teams 9 times, but it's really all a matter of choice. The nice thing about formatting the schedule this way is that it's easy to segment the play. In-division play is generally reserved for April and September. The other divisions would generally get 2-week stretches. Interleague play would be kept around same timeframe as it currently is: 3 weeks from late May through the middle of June.

If you're interested in further studying the scheduling model, you can download an Excel sample. It has one odd patch in that there's a Friday-Monday 4-game series in September, but everything else works reasonably well. And that's a draft I put together in only a few hours (my adding it delayed this post), so it could certainly use some refinement.

Does scheduling really make that much of a difference? It's hard to say. The nice thing about this type of schedule is its modularity. The components can be moved around so that they can fit in different ways. Are the Twins and Indians continually having trouble in their outdoor ballparks with a late winter in April? Move the in-division block back a week and put them on the road in the Sun Belt first. Need to guarantee that the BoSox and Yanks meet on Patriots' Day? No problem - stick with the normal configuration. Want to reduce the number of interleague games from 18 to 12? Sure thing, and now that makes 6 extra games available for your division rivals.

There's a better way of doing things on the horizon, and it comes with expansion and realignment. Some critics have pointed to dilution of talent, and I say "quantify it." Just as there are crappy 5th starters now, there were crappy 4th starters 30 years ago. Is the current Washington Nationals' roster appreciably worse than the '71 Washington Senators? Of all the controversies that have marked baseball, which is most responsible for the supposed decline in play: out-of-scale economics, juiced balls, bandboxes, performance enhancing drugs, the rise of basketball and football as major competitors for athletes, etc...? I would argue any of those issues is more responsible that a dilution of talent. Major league baseball belongs in as many places as can reasonably support it. Let's see it happen.

Realignment Redux

Last November I posted my thoughts on the future and legacy of Bud Selig. Selig's staying on as commish through 2009. His tenure will have been marked by controversy and polarization. Like him or not, no one will be able to say that nothing happened under Selig.

Towards the end of that post I segued to the topics of expansion and realignment. Expansion won't happen again under Selig's watch, so those in cities without a major league franchise will have to look to his successor for hope. I pitched a two-part proposal which, judging from the comments, generated a good deal of intelligent discussion. I've since tweaked the concept a bit and will now present it again - and this time there are visual aids.

The map above (click map to enlarge, click here for a PDF) shows all existing team cities plus two new ones, Portland and Monterrey. Portland could be switched out with Las Vegas, and Monterrey could be replaced by San Juan, Mexico City, or any number of southern cities such as Charlotte or New Orleans. I'm not going to debate the economic or market merits of a particular city at this point, because I'm projecting that the earliest point at which expansion could occur would probably be 2015. It's likely that by that point most candidate cities will have grown sufficiently large enough to be considered solid mid-markets. The two target cities are placeholders, with Portland representing the AL West and Monterrey the AL South.

Before I explain the plan, it's important to understand how MLB has evolved over time. Team success, regional strengths, and savvy business decisions have come together to turn the National League into a de facto "Southern League" (no, not that one). Consider these facts:

• 11 NL teams reside south of the Mason-Dixon line (extended from the original to the West Coast), whereas 8 out of 14 AL teams are north of the line.
• Atlanta's isolation, its status as one of only major league cities in the South when the Braves moved there in 1966, and the cultivation of a huge audience through TBS gave the team an unique regional hegemony.
• The St Louis Cardinals also experienced domination through the Midwest and parts of the South thanks to the strength of its former flagship radio station, KMOX. And 10 World Series championships.
  
• The Astros started play 7 years before the Senators 2.0 moved to the DFW Metroplex.
• The last two rounds of expansion netted three NL teams, one in Miami and two in the Southwest.
• The Expos became the Nationals and are tapping into Virginia and the Carolinas.
• The Mets, who replaced the California-bound Giants and Dodgers, were an expansion team whose crosstown rival has had a 60-year head start and libraries of history to boot.

Meanwhile, the American League has the one remaining Canadian team, the only team in the Pacific Northwest, and an overhyped but still compelling rivalry in the Northeast that FOX and ESPN are only happy to exploit at every possible juncture. That makes them the "Northern League," no? Mind you, this is not meant to extract from these observations that the NL is more Southern culture or that the AL is more effete. It's purely geographical, and based on the many different types of changes made to get to this point, purely coincidental as well.

It's this distribution that creates a basis for realignment. If the teams are already grouped a certain way, why not take advantage of those regional strengths? The AL East is already an AL "Northeast" with Tampa Bay paying the price by frequently flying north. The NL West is actually the NL "Southwest" when you consider how the five teams there are situated. So why not acknowledge American/North American growth and realign in a way that effectively recognizes our regions?

As I posited in November, four divisions in each league is the way to go. It solidifies regional strengths while reducing travel costs for teams. It keeps teams a two-hour (or less) flight away from their divisional foes and at worst one time zone away. It also simplifies scheduling, which I'll explain further on Sunday.

A look at the tables above reveals that no National League teams were moved to the other league. This is extremely important since two of the newest NL teams, Arizona and Colorado, have expressed no interest in moving to the AL. During the last realignment, Milwaukee was moved to the NL Central partly at Selig's behest since he's always thought of it as an NL city. The West stays the same except for Colorado, which should benefit from its division road night games starting at 6:05 instead of 8:05. In a rather bizarre twist, three pre-expansion NL West teams - Cincinnati, Atlanta, Houston - would be united in the new NL South.

Over in the junior circuit, changes are more dramatic. Not so much in the East, which becomes the "Northeast." The AL North is really the AL Central minus Kansas City. The new AL South is the most radical change. Kansas City and Texas reunite from their old AL West days, which works well since they're less than 500 miles apart. Tampa Bay gets the opposite effect from Colorado in that all of their division opponents are a time zone earlier, putting road night games at 8:05. However, they would benefit from slightly less travel time/distance and more importantly, a better shot of winning the division. Unless revenue sharing is significantly altered, it's difficult not to see the deep-pocketed Yanks and Red Sox battle it out for the AL East crown, even in 2015. Both the O's and Blue Jays have better financial resources at hand than the Rays, so why not move to a place where you have a better shot? On the left coast the division would consist of two California teams and two Northwest teams. The recent combined success of the Angels and A's have created a sleeper rivalry that at times is just as intense as the better known Giants-Dodgers rivalry. By putting an AL team in Portland, the Northwest can develop its own great I-5 rivalry. While it would be nice to have a senior circuit team in the Northwest, there should be plenty of chances to appreciate NL ball via interleague play. The difficulty there would be determining who could be natural rivals - is Seattle-San Diego not a manufactured matchup?

The playoff system would still field 4 teams from each league, except that the wild card berth would be replaced by a 4th division winner. That's where a potential negative lies. The AL South would consist of 3 recent cellar-dwellers and an expansion team. Teams that come in 2nd in the other division races could look at the AL South and consider it weak and unworthy of a guaranteed playoff berth. But honestly, that criticism could be leveled at virtually every season, just look at the '06 NL Central. Texas could have a run to dominance because they financially outstrip KC and Tampa Bay and would presumably do the same to Monterrey. Eliminating the wild card removes the restriction that two teams can't play each other in the divisional round. A simple comparison of overall records would determine seeding.

In the previous realignment discussion, several alternatives were mentioned.

• A 3rd New York team. Some suggested Brooklyn or northern New Jersey. I could entertain this possibility if the commissioner's office were less owner-oriented. I just don't see the Yanks and Mets giving up their territorial and broadcast rights very easily. TV rights/networks make up at least 25% of each franchise's value, and their collective control over the market translates into another large share. For a 3rd team to work in practice, the next commish would have to be courageous enough to take on the two NY teams - and by extension, all of the other big market teams. A 3rd team would also require a willing ownership group, something that shouldn't be too difficult to find in the area. Cablevision/MSG would be a likely bidder. By 2015, the franchise fee for such a team could fetch $1 billion, netting each team $31 million. In addition to that, how much of a payoff would it take for either existing team to allow a new kid on their block?
  
• Other locales. Vegas is always a popular mention, but as we've seen from current events the perception problem that gambling represents is a difficult odor to remove. Southern cities such as San Antonio, Charlotte, Memphis, Nashville, and New Orleans may be overextended to varying degrees with their existing teams. The short and long-term viability of Portland and Monterrey have to be questioned as well before a team could be awarded to either city. It really comes down to choosing one team in the West and one in the South.
  
• A return to the 154-game schedule. Yes, the season is too long, especially when you include the postseason. A reduction of 8 games would shorten the season 8-10 days, which would perfectly fit the divisional round. Unfortunately, the revenues are too great for the owners to go along with it. A quick computation of gate revenue (128 games x $22 per ticket x 32,000 seats) shows that the teams would lose $90 million alone at the turnstiles. That's more gate than the average team pulls in for an entire season.
  
• 2 divisions of 8 teams per league. There are two reasons given for this type of alignment. The chief rationale is that the pennant races would have meaning again as only two teams in each league would qualify for the postseason. We've passed a point of no return on that front. The money's too great with expanded playoffs and many fans like the wild card for the hope it represents. The other rationale is that teams could be realigned into divisions based solely on geography, eliminating the AL/NL relationship altogether, as suggested in the Radical Realignment concept. I'm no purist, but MLB is not like the other three major sports. The DH is the obvious difference. How does that get addressed? It wasn't too long ago that the two leagues had different umpiring crews. The aforementioned D-Backs and Rockies don't want to move to the AL. Why would a solely geographical distribution fly with the owners? It's been said that Peter Magowan would sue MLB if they tried to realign in this manner.
  

Coming Sunday: Scheduling.

Fremont Chamber to host ballpark forum

After the big city council session last month, I had mentioned in a comment that we were entering a silent period. Now that we're a week away from September, everything's starting to crank up again. The first event of note is a luncheon being held by the Fremont Chamber of Commerce on September 10 at the Fremont Marriott. The luncheon will serve as a public forum for discussion of Cisco Field and related development. According to the event description, the long-awaited development application will have been filed by that date. You can, of course, register online.

Public Policy Forum: Cisco Field
Sponsored by The Fremont Chamber of Commerce
Monday, September 10, 2007 (reg.11:30) noon-2pm

The Fremont Chamber of Commerce will be hosting a public policy forum on Monday, September 10th beginning at Noon at the Fremont Marriott. The guest speakers will be Lew Wolff, co-owner and managing partner of the Oakland Athletics and Keith Wolff, vice president of venue development for the Oakland Athletics. They will be presenting the plans for Cisco Field, talking about the application process/progress (they will have filed an application with the City by this date) and answering questions from the audience.

Tickets:
$30 person for Chamber members
$40 for non members
Lunch is included.
$400 - table sponsorship
$600 - event sponsorship

Registration begins at 11:30 am
Forum begins at noon

This promises to be the first of many public forums and community outreach events throughout the next several months.

Keeping up with the Joneses - Summer '07

It's been six months since the last progress report. This is a snapshot of where four teams are as of today.

Nothing's changed here on the progress bars since February. The development app hasn't been submitted yet, and recent presentations have been good on the conceptual level but have been short on details. The unique funding method is dependent on rezoning industrial land to commercial/residential, so you'll see the top two bars move together or not at all.

Last week, Marlins President David Samson and Bud Selig both let loose the veiled threat of relocation, saying that there hasn't been much progress on either the site-finding or financing fronts. Magically, today the University of Miami announced that its football team is relocating to Dolphin Stadium starting in the 2008 season. The "U" will vacate the 70-year-old Orange Bowl for at least $1.5 million more in annual revenue and a better parking situation, though they will lose the tradition and intimacy that came with the "OB." According to this link the City of Miami-owned 31-acre site is worth $19-22 million for both the land and stadium. The team prefers the 9-acre Government Center site downtown, but acquisition is considered far more difficult. Now that the 'Canes are locked into a 25-year deal at Joe Robbie/Blockbuster/Pro Player/Dolphin(s) Stadium, there's extra pressure on both the city and the Marlins to complete the deal. The Marlins' existing lease at DS expires after the 2010 season, and it's unlikely that the two resident football teams will tolerate a baseball infield beyond that. For the Marlins, there are still problems bridging the remaining $30 million that needs to be financed. Additional parking in the form of garages will probably need to be built to placate nearby residents' concerns.

Yesterday an arbitration panel ruled in a split decision that the downtown ballpark site, which was taken via eminent domain, is worth $24.8 million, or over $10 million more than the deposit plunked down by Hennepin County to take the land. The original owners of the site had pegged the land to be worth $65 million. The decision is non-binding and both sides can appeal after a 48-hour cooling off period. Complicating matters is the dissenting member of the three-person panel, who filed a separate report that appraised the land to be worth $33.8 million. While the land is already being cleared for construction, the groundbreaking ceremony hasn't actually happened yet. Originally targeted for August 2, the ceremony was postponed in the wake of the I-35W bridge collapse. If one starts the clock on September 1, the Twins will have 32 months to get everything ready for Opening Day 2010 - a huge improvement over the stadium's prospects last February.

The Nat's ballpark appears to be progressing nicely, even as it zooms way past budget and DC pols are looking under every couch cushion to fund it. There remain issues involving parking and transportation planning, but as far as the ballpark goes, it's on track.

I can't forget to mention the New York stadia. There are six new venues either in planning or construction stages in the New York metropolitan area. The combined value of the two baseball stadia, one football stadium, one soccer stadium, and two new arenas? Nearly $5 billion. The venues:

• Prudential Center (2007) - NJ Devils, $400 million
• New Yankee Stadium (2009) - $1.3 billion (including park relocation and transit costs)
• Citi Field (2009) - $610 million
• Giants/Jets Stadium (2010?) - $1.3 billion
• Barclays Center (2009?) - Brooklyn Nets, $1 billion (exclusive of ancillary development)
• Red Bull Park (2008) - Red Bull New York, $100 million

Now that's out of everyone else's league.

Welcome to Comcast Country

The title of this post comes from a sign in Philadelphia's Wachovia Center, home of both the 76ers and Flyers. Might as well hang it from every venue in the Bay Area, since it's just as valid a description here as it is back east.

Comcast quietly took majority control of FSN Bay Area at the end of June, and knowing their history they're going to put their stamp on the channel sooner rather than later. FSNBA hasn't shown signs of change yet, but expect rebranding to occur this fall as the baseball season ends and the new Sharks' and Warriors' preseasons begin.

What else should we as the viewing public expect? First off, the SportsNite program shown on Comcast SportsNet West (Central Valley) should become a staple here. CSN also tends to have pre and postgame shows more frequently than FSNBA, so that should be expected too. FOX will still own 40% of the channel, but it remains to be seen whether they will contribute FOX-sourced content or become a silent partner. I for one would not be saddened to be rid of the litany of failed generic highlight shows proffered by FOX Sports Net.

On most Comcast digital systems one can find Channel 400, or Comcast SportsNet West. There's already a discontinuity between the Central Valley version and the Bay Area version due to the channel's focus on the Kings and other Sacramento-area teams. It would make sense for 400 in the Bay Area to become the overflow channel that is currently FSN+ (410). Channel 400 could be renamed CSN2. That would free up capacity for some other niche channel in Comcast's "Digital Sports Tier." The likeliest possibility would be Johnny-come-lately MLB network, which is slated to launch prior to the 2009 baseball season. Comcast owns an equity share of MLB Network, which gives both parties incentive to feature the channel prominently.

In the Central Valley the situation is a little more complex since both FSN and CSN occupy expanded basic cable channels. Blackouts would still be in effect for certain properties such as Warriors telecasts. Comcast may find it hard to combine programming, so my guess is that they'll keep them separate as CSNBA and CSNW. There is no Channel 400 in the Central Valley so they would have to create one if they wanted to have a CSN2 offering.

An opening also exists for an A's-branded network should they be interested. While Comcast bared its teeth when MLB along with the Nats and O's started MASN, the cable provider has shown a willingness to entertain additional regional sports networks. The catch? They want a cut, of course. A prime example of this is the Mets' SportsNet New York, of which Comcast and Time Warner have equity shares. Should the A's decide they want in on this party, an equity share appears to be the admission fee for placement within a cable system. There is a potential for the A's as Comcast may help defray some startup and operational costs. For the A's, caveat emptor applies as despite the success of many RSNs success is not guaranteed. This deal would be open to the Giants as well - they may be even more interested since their ratings are consistently higher than the A's.

There are other forces at work for Comcast. Recently they won a lawsuit filed against them by the NFL. Comcast wanted to move the ever-growing NFL Network to their Digital Sports Tier and charge a little extra to boot in order to make up the cost. The NFL wanted the channel to stay in the regular digital lineup with no separate premium, so they sued (and lost). Now that NFL Network is on the separate tier, viewers are forced to consider more thoroughly the $5 per month package. What's in the Digital Sports Tier? Depends on where you are. It is supposed to include most of the following:

• NFL Network
• NBA TV (in some markets)
• College Sports TV
• FOX Soccer Channel
• Speed Channel
• TVG Horseracing Network
• FOX College Sports (multiple regional channels)

All of these channels take up residence in the 400-420 zone. The peripheral ESPN channels such as ESPN Classic and ESPNEWS are not in the list above even though they are usually in this range because of the exclusivity of ESPN's multichannel package deal with the cable providers. I don't think it would be easy to move a CSN2-type channel to the extra-cost tier. It would make sense for them to push other new RSN's such as an A's or Giants channel to that tier - and it would give Comcast justification to charge extra for that tier.

As for satellite? DirecTV pioneered the concept of a special sports tier years ago. So it's pretty much business as usual. Dish has their own as well.

Tumbleweeds at JLS

East Bay Express writers Robert Gammon and John Birdsall have put together a nice exposé on the not-so-goings-on at Jack London Square. Gammon, as you may recall, co-wrote a well-constructed recent history of the A's in Oakland and their southerly overtures.

Developers Jim Falaschi and Hal Ellis Jr. bought the property for a song in 2001, thanks to connections with bossman Don Perata. They pitched a retail and residential concept around the Slow Food movement, with a fancy farmers market and organic food restaurants that would purportedly put the development at the SF Ferry Terminal to shame. Six years later, previous tenant restaurants have been driven out amid rising rents and concerns about gentrification. The Harvest Hall remains unbuilt. Worst of all, the developers are moving to create office space within JLS, a use completely at odds with the original project intent.

Jack London Square was not originally considered a candidate site for a future Oakland ballpark, instead the nearby Howard Terminal was. Not that JLS alone is big enough (other surrounding parcels would've been required), but it would've been interesting to see what would've happened if JLS was a candidate site. It's hard to find too much fault with the JLS developers given the volatility of the real estate market, especially in Oakland. Still, there's a sense of major miscalculation at very least, if not complete misdirection on their part.

How to have your pinstriped cake and eat it too

A Fortune article shows that the $1.2 billion new Yankee Stadium could bring in a whopping $253 million per year in revenue to the pinstripers.

Think about that. $253 million. They're not even selling stadium naming rights or seat licenses. That's enough to fit the Yankees' current payroll including Roger Clemens plus the inevitable $25 million in luxury tax they'll pay at the end of the year, and still leave enough for a couple of Scott Boras clients and a little profit. All that makes the Yanks' ginormous radio and TV money pure gravy. Scary, isn't it?

Worst of all, the $51 million mortgage will be at least partly deductible, probably 40%. Since they get to hold that revenue back, the other 29 teams get to indirectly pay for the new Yankee Stadium. Of course, the same goes for the Mets and their new digs. And everyone else that has new stadia or renovations on their dockets, including the A's.

Back to the Bombers. Like all teams, they'll pay one-third of their stadium revenues into the big revenue sharing pool. That doesn't mean they'll pay 1/3 of $253 million, they'll probably have some slick holding company/vertical arrangement that allows them to hide some of it. After they've hidden some of that away, they can take the stadium expenses deduction. Only after those two methods of gaming the system do they pay into the pool, plus they get dinged by the luxury tax. But if the stadium expenses deduction effectively or largely cancels out the luxury tax, it's really no skin off Steinbrenner's ass, is it?

Think of it like filling out a long form 1040. You've got your mortgage interest deduction (akin to stadium expenses), charitable contributions, and perhaps other deductions. Then you pay in and because you're in the higher tax bracket, you're supposed to pay more. The poor teams get their own version of tax credits (like our EIC) and head right for the check cashing place. It's not altogether that different from MLB, except in terms of scale.

Cisco Field is a third way, using non-baseball revenues such as housing development rights sales and commercial leases as an outside revenue stream to pay for the ballpark. I can't think of a proper analogy at the moment, can you?

Column conundrum

Remember this?

It's from the original animation pack the A's released in November. I guessed (correctly) that the comparison showed Cisco Field (yellow/red) against AT&T Park (gray). To me, this has always been the most impressive part of the presentation. Unfortunately, it's not easy to visualize the advantage, and for two decades now fans in other cities have been accepting extremely set back second and third levels despite being told the experience was better just because, well, they were no longer sitting in a multi-purpose stadium. Or some rickety joint with 16-inch seats.

The 3-D nature of the graphic above sort of detracts from the message, as all of the visual elements make the comparison fade into the background. There is a better one shown recently, and it makes the contrast stark, as it should be. This came from the city council preso a couple of weeks ago:

That's better. Ah, but now there's a wrinkle, and it's smack dab in the middle of the pic above. A big, purposeful, and truly retro - column. Unlike any other recently built ballpark's main grandstand, this one dives right into the lower deck.

Before you react, I'm already ahead of you. The dreaded words obstructed view immediately come to mind. There's nothing about an obstructed view seat that says modern. A seat behind a column promises to be pretty crappy. There may be some back-and-forth about what fans consider an obstructed view and what the team considers an obstructed view. It may not even have a discount, although it most certainly should be cheaper. So I'm not going to make excuses for the A's out of respect for the poor souls who make be shocked when, upon getting to the seating bowl for the first time, are treated to a nice view of green painted steel. Yes, it is that bad.

Then again, it isn't really that bad. Why not? Consider this:

• Look at the cross-section, dammit! Upper deck folks will be twice as close as anything built since WWII. Translated into an A's fan's current experience, it's the difference between sitting in 317 and sitting in 326. What, you say those sections don't exist? Ummm...
• The not-so-ultimate sacrifice. Those 10,000 upper deck fans don't sit as close if not for the sacrifice of a few lower deck patrons. I'll make a rough estimate that less than 1% of seats qualify as obstructed view - defined as those with the hitter and catcher blocked. That's about 300 seats, or about 10 seats per lower deck section, which may be overestimating things a bit. The best way to deal with this would be to never sell these as advance seats - no season tickets, no phone/web/package sales. Instead, sell them as "day of game" only seats at an appreciable discount, say 20-25%. Chances are those fans won't spend too much time in those seats anyway, as they'll migrate over to one of the many standing room areas, or if the place is far less than packed, they'll "keep someone else's seat warm."
• Intimacy invites noise. Having fans closer to the action should make the place more naturally noisy. That effect will be counteracted by the increased number of cell phone squawking, gameplay ignoring attendees. Still, the potential's there.
• It's cheaper to build and run. Pulling the main grandstand about 25 feet conserves nearly 1/2 acre in terms of the ballpark's footprint. That should also translate into reduced overall use of concrete and steel, plus more efficient systems from field lighting to air conditioning. Best of all, the saved space could be used for other uses, such as landscaping or ancillary buildings such as a museum or some of the village structures.
• Ready for expansion. Should the ballpark prove so popular that an extra 3,000 seats (4-5 rows) are needed, it shouldn't be too difficult to add to the back of the upper deck. All the designers have to do is build sufficient load bearing capacity into the skeleton and devise a method for adding rows. They could even use an aluminum upper deck (Stanford Stadium) that could be quickly torn down and replaced by a larger structure.
  

This doesn't mean that columns are guaranteed. In fact, I haven't seen a drawing that actually shows columns. However, that column isn't in the cross-section for show, so there must be something to it.

That brings us to this week's poll question. It's a pretty simple one, and there are only three choices. The question is: What do you think about columns at Cisco Field?

• Works for me
  
• Whatever
• They suck
  

I was going to use "Panther" as the first option, but I realized over the weekend that the team that's supposed to use "Panther" should be using "Rat" instead.

---

Last week's poll question shows an overwhelming number of fans want more than 32,000 seats. I didn't vote myself, but I'd like to see at least 35,000.

Swisher Suites

Note: I had planned to post this last weekend in honor of the awakening of Nick Swisher's then-slumbering bat.

While the A's were in Anaheim last week, Lew Wolff spent an inning in the TV booth with broadcasters Glen Kuiper and Ray Fosse. The exercise was a effectively a shameless, 15-minute plug for Cisco Field, with a few words for critics who've been grousing about the plan. During the discussion, Wolff alluded to Nick Swisher's interest in one of the condos that will overlook the park. While I'm sure Swish can afford a sure-to-be $1 million-plus party pad, he might want to consider looking elsewhere in the ballpark for options.

One of those options probably won't be a bunker suite, a swanky, hidden burrow underneath the seating bowl and supposedly first conceived for the Bushes at what was then The Ballpark in Arlington. I wouldn't be surprised if current veep Dick Cheney had a command center running out of Rangers Ballpark with the way that stadium ran right over public process, but I digress. Cisco Field will most certainly have at least one bunker suite and perhaps more, space permitting.

Players often get suites on a per-game or annual basis for friends and family. For the inaugural season of Qwest Field, three Seattle Seahawks each grabbed a field-level "Red Zone" suite. At Cisco Field, a new seating option will be introduced that could prove extremely flexible: the minisuite. Wolff originally described the concept as a 4 or 6-person box with separate restrooms and other facilities. However, it's a little more than that, as you can see from the pic below.

Yes, there are four seats facing the field with a two stools on a rail and a wetbar behind them. The french doors are a nice touch, giving the boxes a very cute look. But it's what's behind the doors that makes it interesting.

As you can see, the four boxes share a common lounge area. There's a buffet, additional seating areas, flat screen TV's, even a fireplace (!). I'm sure there'll be neat Cisco-conceived technological touches. Not sure where the restrooms are.

The A's are going to offer 40 of these boxes at Cisco Field just above the field club level, 15 rows from the backstop. Supposedly they'll be sold to medium and small businesses that wouldn't normally consider getting a large 12-person suite. Minisuites should serve as a niche between club seats and large suites.

Something tells me these will really take off, and not just for the initial audience. A group of players (and their wives) may want to pool resources to get a block of four minisuites. The same could apply for various professional groups such as law firms. In this era of consumers seeking out VIP treatment and ultralounges, this concept fits extremely well. I wonder if it will end up eating into sales of other premium seating options. During the 90's, baseball purists bemoaned the emergence of suites, envisioning future stadia with virtually all seats replaced by air-conditioned, sealed boxes. The minisuite concept and its successors will give the purists more grist for the mill, that's for certain.

StubHub: Official scalper of MLB

MLB Advanced Media won't do everything after all. Or at least it seems that way after MLBAM and ticket reseller StubHub partnered up on a 5-year revenue sharing agreement. StubHub, a subsidiary of eBay, is already the big player in this market with a handful of upstarts and megaseller Ticketmaster nipping at its heels. The deal isn't exclusive as some teams already have existing technology at their disposal, but that should change gradually as those agreements expire.

The secondary ticket market isn't one frequented by A's fans due to the normally plentiful supply of regularly priced and discount seats, even for walkups. As the team moves into new digs, this should change somewhat - though the A's aren't predicting constant sellouts. I personally have only bought tickets using the Giants' Double Play system once, and I liked the experience.

If you had free time to head to Detroit next Friday, you could catch the A's-Tigers tilt in a lower level suite for $2700. Or a single mezzanine seat for $26. I've seen drawings of the minisuite feature that will be introduced at Cisco Field, and I have zero doubt it'll be seriously popular, especially from a resale standpoint (if the A's allow it). But that's for tomorrow...

Newswrap: Trading Deadline edition

If you've come looking for up-to-the-minute transaction news, you've come to the wrong place. In the world of stadia, there are a few items of note.

• Detroit's city council is moving forward with plans to demolish Tiger Stadium, though it is unclear if any developer is willing and able to take on the task of redeveloping the northwest corner of Michigan and Trumbull. Legendary Tigers broadcaster Ernie Harwell has stepped in with plans to maintain and preserve important sections of the ballpark (with a third party). The concept includes a scaled down, 10,000-seat stadium and mixed use surrounding it. The field would be preserved for youth baseball use. Enough financial contributions have poured in to maintain the ballpark in its current state for the next year.
• Washington Metro is considering a reduced "ballpark fare" to entice fans going to the new DC ballpark (opening in 2008) to utilize mass transit. According to the article, the fan mix is projected to consist of 49% that arrive via transit, 40% via car, and 8.5% via bicycle or on foot. The 49% figure is far higher than Oakland's 15-20% and even more than New York's 13-30%. The difference here is that the DC ballpark will have extremely limited parking at the outset whereas Oakland and New York already have 7-10,000 spaces in their respective vicinities.
• The Twins are expected to break ground on their $390 million (and rising) downtown stadium on Thursday. There's still the outstanding matter of how much the land acquisition will cost, somewhere between $13.65 million (the county's pledge) and $65.38 million (the previous landowners' estimate). Opening Day is scheduled for April 2010.

I also wanted to address something in Barry Witt's article from last week:

While there's much to be determined about what would go into the village, a set of deed restrictions filed last month by Wolff, Cisco Systems and ProLogis - the real estate company that owns Pacific Commons and plans to sell the ballpark village site to Wolff - reveal uses that will be excluded.

Those uses include Goodwill stores, laundromats, card clubs, veterinary hospitals, funeral homes, porn shops, gas stations, massage and tattoo parlors, churches and beauty schools.

The explanation can be boiled down to two words: property values. Many of those types of establishments inhabit less monied neighborhoods. It's all in the interest of keeping potential housing prices high and profitable. Gas stations and churches don't quite fit the profile, and for those I sense the issue is space. There is an existing Shell station less than a mile away and two more just over the freeway along Auto Mall, so it's not as if the area needs additional petrol purveyors. As for churches, there's already a growing trend of new churches converting previously industrial land for their use, so perhaps they are the real trendsetters here.

2nd poll results

12 days ago I asked the question, "How would the Piccinini group have been different?" Responses were fewer than the previous poll question, but the results for this one are nevertheless interesting.

• Downtown Oakland ballpark - 18 (28%)
• New Coliseum lot ballpark - 10 (15%)
• Stayed in Coliseum indefinitely - 9 (14%)
• Moved elsewhere in Bay Area - 11 (17%)
• Moved out of Bay Area - 15 (23%)

No definitive answer here, and there's no accounting for motivation. Unlike the last poll, I can group the answers. So I did just that, with the first three options thrown into a "Stayed in Oakland" group, the final two a "Left Oakland" group. In doing so, the tally looks like this:

• Stayed in Oakland - 37 (59%)
• Left Oakland - 26 (41%)

Some might say that staying in the Coliseum indefinitely wasn't a realistic option, but I wanted to put it out there anyway to gauge interest. "Stayed in Oakland" would've won regardless of the third option's inclusion.

The voting trend during the week proved pivotal. Results were fairly even for the first 4-5 days, but gradually tilted towards "Stayed in Oakland" during midweek.

This week's poll question is pretty simple: "How big should Cisco Field be?"

A's promise school

Linh Tat's article in the Argus addresses the school situation:

Besides opening an elementary school, A's officials said they are willing to consider offering a specialized technology or health program for students, tutoring, math and reading programs, internships and scholarships. A program recognizing Fremont's teacher of the year also was suggested.

"These are just our ideas that we would love to explore with you. . . . We really think there's a great opportunity to get creative," said A's official Keith Wolff, son of team co-owner Lew Wolff.

and...

"Our commitment is to whatever the student population is (that's) created by the village," Keith Wolff said. "We're going to need to work with the district to serve them. That will be an obligation."

The A's project $10.7 million in developer fees will go to the district, but both sides acknowledge the fees won't be enough to build the school on their own. There are four questions that come out of this challenge:

• Where in the village will the school be located?
• How big will it be?
• How much will it cost beyond the amount covered by developer fees?
• When would it open?

With the A's and Cisco partnering with FUSD, it could become quite a desirable grade school.

To vote or not to vote?

Fremont Councilman Steve Cho is keeping up his call for a ballot measure to decide the ballpark village. The other council members and the mayor apparently disagree. In Chris DeBenedetti's article there are comments from both pro- and anti-development ex-pols.

So what's the issue here? Cho believes there are "concerns from Fremont citizens that cannot be completely ignored," yet he also believes if it came to a vote it would prevail in a majority. So it's not as if there is overwhelming sentiment against the project, far from it in fact. In a way he has marginalized the process that the city and the A's have crafted, which appears to be the real issue that some opponents are uncomfortable with.

Why would any citizen's concerns be completely ignored? The council as a group has shown its displeasure over certain aspects of the plan, such as residential makeup and the school site. There were pointed land use questions that came from Anu Natarajan and Bob Wieckowski. Lew Wolff actually met with Gus Morrison, though Morrison's concerns weren't allayed. If there is some feeling that the plan is not getting the scrutiny it deserves, it wasn't on display from the comments the council and the city's community development director made. We're talking about Fremont, not Oakland, San Jose, or San Francisco, where big machine politics are the order of the day. Fremont can't count on Don Perata or Carole Migden to grandstand or ram legislation through the state senate.

Then there is the question of what the public would be voting on. Is it simply a land use decision? A vote to accept the team? Redevelopment agency bonds for infrastructure? School bonds? Would it end up being 1, 2, or 5 separate issues? And what would happen if one or more failed while others succeeded?

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention what happens when these issues get to a vote. There's something called the 10:1 rule, in which proponents of a stadium plan typically outspend opponents 10:1 in campaigning. In Texas it's even higher. Why? Because usually there is a big tax-free bond measure at stake to finance the stadium. That's not going to be the issue here since it will be a privately financed stadium. Proponents trot out legendary retired players and coaches to shill for the project. Opponents complain that they don't have the funds to compete. Whether or not the issue passes, hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars are spent and the truth frequently gets lost in the hubbub. That doesn't invalidate the idea of having a vote, but it does highlight circumstances. At least in California, we tend to be a little more level-headed about these issues than other states.

Lew Wolff isn't interested in a vote because he thinks the project is far too complex to be left in the hands of a single up-down measure. So do the mayor and the council outside of Cho. Opponents often ask what the proponents are afraid of, that it wouldn't pass if it got to a vote. But we're not talking about your typical stadium subsidy issue here, are we? I've already had to go onto different message boards and respond to e-mail from people who are armed with a lot of misinformation. I'd like to know that all voters are fully up to speed on all issues, that they have read the probable 1,000-page EIR and its comments, that they've reviewed the alternatives. Unfortunately, that isn't realistic. So what would voters base their opinion on? Emotion? Prejudice one way or the other? Whether they're a baseball fan or not? That's definitely not how it should be decided. It's hard to weigh cost-benefit from a single ballot measure unless the concept is egregiously bad (or amazingly good).

I applaud Councilman Cho for wanting to act as the conscience of the council. But honestly, he's jumping the gun on the ballot measure idea. It would be preferable to have the plan's details get worked out, and if there is a bond measure some other major issue that would directly affect taxpayers then it absolutely should be voted on. Until then, let's keep focused on the task at hand, which is fleshing out the details.

The stuff not in the paper

Chris DeBenedetti's Argus article is first out of the gate, followed by Barry Witt's Merc piece. Of course, there are only so many inches in the papers, so I'm here to fill in the blanks (TV links: KTVU-2, KGO-7). (Update 5:34 p.m.: The archived webcast is now online.)

The A's and the city packed a lot of content into an hour, yet they're merely skimming the surface. What wasn't covered in any real depth? Here's a list:

• Transportation, other than acknowledgment of the previously planned train station and shuttles.
• School site options (admittedly the least analyzed issue)
• Affordable housing (except that the city-developer guidelines dictate that affordable housing should have no distinction by location - i.e. segregation)
• Infrastructure and public services planning
• Retailer possibilities for the ballpark village
• The 40-acre parcel which may hold additional parking, the train station, a school, or other infrastructure

What did they touch on? Quite a bit, actually:

• Parking: 10-11,000 spaces around the ballpark. More on that later.
• Residential planning: This looks to be a contentious issue, as it's likely we'll have the bottom-line oriented developer pitted against the city's progressive, New Urbanist leanings. Councilwoman Anu Natarajan took the biggest swipe at the plan, suggesting that the planning team should've gotten the city involved earlier. She said that the superblock-type residential development in the 115-acre townhouse area had very little variety in terms of densities. She even disclosed that a few years ago she worked for SF-based planning and design behemoth EDAW, who is working for the A's on this project.
• Phasing: Unlike the 5-6 year projections in the economic impact report, it looks like housing will be more gradually built. At a pace of 300 units per year, it's expected to take 7-10 years to complete the entire residential portion.
• Mixed use outside the village: Both Natarajan and Vice-Mayor Bob Wieckowski had previously suggested that the A's have a little more flexibility in the plan to keep some amount of commercial space, specifically office space. There appears to be a unified stance to keep the townhouse section from looking like a typical suburban subdivision.
• Outreach: Valley bigshot Jim Cunneen is heading this effort, which I've been told is going to get moving quickly.
• The ballpark: I hope to get cross-section graphic that Keith Wolff used during the presentation, because it actually appears more aggressive than the original simulation. Should they follow through the ballpark would most certainly take on Fenway-like intimacy.
• Minisuites: They would be located 15 rows from the field, with four 6-person suites sharing a common, large lounge area. Cute design that's sure to cause some suite envy elsewhere in pro sports.
• Environmental: Community Development Director Jill Keimach brought up the guidelines in use by the city and the developer. Out of that came the point that much of the wetlands just beyond the project area are still in transition and need protection. Buffers and other measures must be taken to ensure the development is compatible with the recently restored wetlands.
• All those consultants: So it's a team consisting of 360 Architects, Gensler (Andy Cohen was co-presenting with Keith Wolff), EDAW, and Cisco. There might have been others but I missed their names. This isn't some mom-and-pop operation.

And so the dialogue begins in earnest. The council made it clear on more than one occasion that they're not going to rubber stamp this project. Councilman Steve Cho even went so far as to suggest a ballot measure which would "put it to rest," though it could be argued that a vote would just as easily rescue him and his colleagues from having to take a major stand on the project. None of the other pols spoke in favor of a vote, BTW. Cho felt that such a measure would pass. I doubt that sentiment gave Lew Wolff a warm fuzzy. He and Mayor Wasserman were separately interviewed following the session and downplayed the need for a vote. Wasserman said that it was difficult enough to educate five council members, let alone 200,000 citizens. Before you say that Wasserman is dismissing the will of the people, note that the environmental impact report will probably be 1,000 pages long and won't read anything like the latest Harry Potter book. If every Fremont voter wants to read the entire EIR (as I will) and all supporting documentation, it'll be available when the comment period opens. Somehow I doubt that more than a few hundred people will read the whole thing.

Onto parking. The 10-11,000 figure falls in line with tally I posted last Saturday. Natarajan said that she has "no concerns about parking at all." The interim parking plan (west of Cushing Pkwy on future residential land) definitely has legs. Discussion went from "how to get enough parking" to "What can we do to make it useful, beautiful and environmentally friendly?"

This was the first of many public sessions. Format may change a bit to allow for more dialogue exchange, or that may simply take care of itself as the discussions become more narrowly focused. The schedule moving forward:

• Preliminary view - 7/24
• Council input on plan - September
• Business terms - Fall '07
• Financial analysis - On-going
• Input from agencies - On-going (Caltrans in a couple of weeks)
• Community outreach - On-going

Notice that the submission of the dev plan isn't listed there. It's really a chicken-and-egg problem. The A's want to submit a plan that has the best chance of passing with as few modifications as possible. Yet they can't until they have more in-depth discussions with the city. That isn't to say that the proposal will be locked when it's submitted, but when it comes time to present the proposal and all alternatives under consideration, those options need to be clear.

The Wolffs appear to be aware of these issues and others that haven't been mentioned much (such as the rights of nearby Pacific Commons retailers to have their parking lots left intact) and the city's insistence on thoroughness means that yes, the right questions are being asked. And then some.

Wolff preso at 7/24 City Council session

Lew and Keith Wolff will provide an update on the Cisco Field project during a work session prior to the regular city council meeting next Tuesday night. The one hour work session is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. and the A's are the only item on that session's agenda. There will be a public comment period. The regular city council session is scheduled for 7, as usual.

Will they file the long-awaited application? Answer some of the questions brought up by Gus Morrison? If you can't be there, you always have the live webcast.

---

Update: The 7 p.m. session will not be a normal council session. It will be a Redevelopment Agency meeting. The 5:30 p.m. session will combine the regular council meeting and the ballpark work session. Attendees are encouraged to arrived at least 15 minutes prior to the start of the session.

Land use plan emerges

First, take a look at the Argus and Merc articles. The first article has links to three new PDF's that contain descriptions of the buildings in the core village and two views of overall layout:

• Context A plan
• Context B plan
  
• Lease plan with descriptions

Context A and B differ in one major way: timing. Context A shows the development after all of the residential units have been built. Context B shows the development some years prior to completion. Instead of housing west of Cushing Parkway, 5,970 surface parking spaces are shown. For the first few years, that parking combined with the planned parking east of Christy Street and additional spaces in both the village and the Albrae lot (across Auto Mall) should provide plenty of parking. By the end of 2016, all of the extra parking will be replaced by townhomes (and probably the school), but that gives the A's several years to truly gauge parking demand. If demand is high enough, additional garage parking can be built to make up for the loss. Interestingly enough, the Giants are facing their own parking loss, as the Port of S.F. has to decide what to do with a 14-acre parking lot across McCovey Cove from AT&T Park.

The best part is that according to the lease plan there will be 3,110 spaces set aside for retail use. Obviously, much of that parking will be claimed by retailers and the hotel, among other commericial uses. But there's no reason why a good portion won't be available for game attendees as well. And the funny thing is that I added up all of the non-residential parking shown there, and I got 4,510 spaces. So it would appear that at least for a few years, there's the possibility of over 10,000 spaces in the immediate vicinity. It'll be nicely broken up due to the design plan. Whatever the final number is, I don't get the sense that the A's are terribly worried about it.

There are also a pair of mystery elements: ramps that appear to run underneath the village. The ramps may be service entrances to the ballpark's outfield. They may also lead to additional parking for players, team employees, and VIP's.

Moving over to retail, the big surprise was a theater smack dab in the middle of the village. Articles refer to it as a movie theater, but that isn't a given. Small multiplexes such as the CineArts (Century) brand in Santana Row, Marin, and Pleasant Hill usually show smaller budget and independent films, and it could make sense in this location because the only nearby indie moviehouses are across the Dumbarton Bridge in Palo Alto.

However, a more interesting move would be some kind of performing arts center. Currently the only one in the city is the Gary Soren Smith Center on the Ohlone College campus, and it's just a little over a decade old. There would be a huge question of financing such a complex, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be on the table for discussion. Perhaps there's a way to split the 54,000 s.f. allotted for the theater so it could accommodate both a live theater facility and a smaller film multiplex. The movie theater would be the bean-counter's choice since a private concern would capitalize and operate it. A performing arts center would be a far more culturally significant venue.

Ah, but there's more. Certain buildings in the village have been identified as anchors. Those orange blocks are in the north corner (upper right) and southwest area (left). The north anchors are around 30,000 s.f., which should accommodate a multitude of large retailers such as Crate and Barrel and Best Buy. The intriguing space is the 140,000 s.f., two-level southwest space. Based on size and location, I'd lay my money on Nordstrom being the tenant, since a typical Nordstrom is around that size.

The school's location still needs to be worked out, and the transit hub needs to be addressed. There's plenty of time to make those elements work.

First poll results

Voting for the first poll is now closed. Here are the results:

• A. Outright betrayal - 12 (10%)
• B. Necessary but unsavory - 23 (20%)
• C. Little to no difference to me - 3 (2%)
• D. Fine as long as they stay in the Bay - 44 (38%)
• E. Extremely positive - 33 (28%)

I didn't notice until after I posted the poll that options B and D were actually similar but shaded and framed in different ways. For that reason only A and E are considered definitive positions, while B-D are rather gray. As a result, I will not "pool" the responses and declare a winner. The very unscientific result speaks for itself.

The next poll topic comes courtesy of a Georob comment from this morning regarding the ill-fated Piccinini group. Save Mart owner Piccinini put together a prospective ownership group that would've included Men's Wearhouse founder George Zimmer, former A's marketing veep Andy Dolich, and Reggie Jackson (preceded by Joe Morgan). In 1999 the group was on the verge of buying the A's from the Schott-Hofmann group but a vote of all MLB team owners resulted in a 28-2 decision to table the sale pending the Blue Ribbon committee's further study. The bid subsequently died on the vine, and the rest is history.

The question: How would have the Piccinini group been different?

• A. Downtown Oakland ballpark
• B. New Coliseum lot ballpark
• C. Stayed in Coliseum indefinitely
• D. Moved elsewhere in Bay Area
• E. Moved out of Bay Area

If you like, you can post a comment here to go with your vote. Cheers.