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.
27 February 2007
26 February 2007
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.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
21 February 2007
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.
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.
14 February 2007
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:
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.
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.
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.
10 February 2007
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:
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
05 February 2007
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:
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:
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.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 JoseA 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.
02 February 2007
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.
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.
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.
31 January 2007
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.
The last column shows available parking spaces. Check the legend for more information.
Comment away.
29 January 2007
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.
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.
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).
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.
27 January 2007
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:
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.
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.
24 January 2007
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,
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:
Wait, there's more.
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:
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.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.''
Wait, there's more.
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).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.
17 January 2007
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:
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.
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
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.
16 January 2007
Playing the waiting game
Well, if you were expecting anything significant from tonight's session, you probably came away disappointed. Lew didn't give details. There were no fire-breathing opponents. And while the chambers was packed, the tone was predictably civil, if not downright subdued. Press coverage: Merc / Argus / Chron
Still, there were some important things to come out of Wolff's brief presentation and Q&A:
There was a small contingent of "Keep the A's in Oakland" folks, but if they had filled out comment cards, they weren't called up.
Still, there were some important things to come out of Wolff's brief presentation and Q&A:
- The team name will be "____ Athletics at Fremont" - not "of Fremont." Does that make a difference? Should someone actually take the name literally, it would appear that the team doesn't "belong" to Fremont, even though it's part of the community. Feeling marginalized yet? Or dizzy? This leads me to believe that a regional name is seriously under consideration.
- 2,900 housing units is the current number, but more interesting is that Wolff indicated that most of the housing would not be mid-rise condos, but rather townhouses. Townhouses could be worth more on average than a typical mid-rise condo unit, but they'll take up far more room in the project area, and as noted before, space is at a premium.
- The A's are underwriting the $500,000 cost of the EIR and related studies, though the city is contracting all of the work. Wolff apparently has anticipated the instant calls of conflict-of-interest problems by vaguely referring to one study as not as favorable as might be believed. On a related note, I recognized one of the consultants from San Jose's ballpark study work. The consultants were not introduced because, as Wolff said in jest, he couldn't remember all of their names.
- City Manager Fred Diaz recommended a letter of interest, similar to one drawn up between the 49ers and the City of Santa Clara.
- There were sentiments by both Wolff and council members to accelerate the process, tempered by comments from the public and environmental groups to keep the parties moving on a thorough EIR study.
- Bo Magnussen of Magnussen Lexus inquired about the impact to the Fremont Auto Mall nearby. He had contacted someone at Coliseum Lexus in Oakland to see how much sporting events impacted their dealership. The traffic generated on event days was in fact detrimental, so Magnussen pleaded with the A's and the city to figure out a way to mitigate that impact on weekends. The obvious way at first would be to have Saturday games at 7 p.m. instead of 1 p.m.
- There will be many community meetings, but none have been scheduled yet.
There was a small contingent of "Keep the A's in Oakland" folks, but if they had filled out comment cards, they weren't called up.
15 January 2007
Fremont City Council meeting on Tuesday
According to the posted agenda, the ballpark presentation is the only item planned for discussion. Note the approximate time shown for the presentation: 5:30-6:45 p.m.
The acquisition of an 18-acre office park across the street from Pacific Commons swells the A's holdings there to 170 acres or more. Perhaps they'll redevelop. Perhaps not. I hope they fold that property into the presentation, so that we get an idea of what the "complete" vision looks like.JANUARY 16, 2007
AGENDA
FREMONT CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AND WORK SESSION
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
3300 CAPITOL AVENUE, FREMONT
5:30 P.M. (Please Note Time Change)1. PRELIMINARY
1.1 Call to Order
1.2 Salute to the Flag
1.3 Roll Call
1.4 Announcements by Mayor / City Manager
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
[Any person desiring to speak on a matter which is not scheduled on this agenda may do so. The California Government Code prohibits the City Council from taking any immediate action on an item which does not appear on the agenda, unless the item meets stringent statutory requirements. The Mayor will limit the length of presentations (see instructions on speaker card) and each speaker may only speak once on each agenda item.]Times Are Approximate
3. PRESENTATION OF BALLPARK VILLAGE CONCEPT 5:30-6:45 p.m.
Public Comment
4. ADJOURNMENT
12 January 2007
Excerpts from Wolff on Ronn Owens show
Before I forget, Chris De Benedetti's Argus article on Lew's meeting with Fremont is worth a read.
I didn't transcribe everything from the hour, but there were some choice exchanges. Here are a few:
The "net profit" comment was a bit of a surprise. Here's a quick explanation. Putting an extra 10,000 seats on the ballpark means adding an extra deck. That would cost around $100 million. Over 25 years at 6%, that's around $7 million a year. Divide that figure by $35 per person ($24 per ticket + $11 in concessions), and you need 200,000 extra people per season just to break even on the additional cost associated with the additional seating. That boils down to roughly 2,500 additional attendees per game. Once you get past the 25,000 mark, attendance tends to be marginal. It makes more sense to have additional temporary or portable seating that can be made available for big games.
I didn't transcribe everything from the hour, but there were some choice exchanges. Here are a few:
Wolff: We're going to do the smallest ballpark in Major League Baseball.A caller asked about the ballpark shuttle:
Owens: Which is how many people?
Wolff: About 32,000 people
Owens: That is small.
Wolff: Very intimate, but when you look at the displacement of all the other teams, something like 25 teams could live with 30-35,000 seats.
Owens: ... if you want to sign the top people, you gotta make the big money. Are you going to be able to make that kind of money with a 32,000-seat stadium?
Wolff: With a new facility, whether it's 32 or 42 (thousand), we will increase our low net profit two or three times.
Wolff: As far as the traffic issue - which everyone seems to have an opinion on before they've heard the plan we have - we are working to have a multi-modal system of both getting closer to BART in the Fremont area but there are other forms of transportation we are working on. It's a whole package that will be presented first to the city before we announce it on the Ronn Owens show.Another caller called into question Wolff's sincerity about his motivation for wanting a ballpark, citing the A's excellent business model as a reason to keep the status quo. Wolff's response:
Wolff: In the year 2000 the Giants opened their new ballpark. In the six years prior to that time our attendance and the Giants' were within 0.5 million of each other. From that time and through 2006 the Giants are attracting 1.5 million more than we are... during that period we've won more games and been in more postseason play, so...When asked about territorial rights:
Owens: Obviously the ballpark.
Wolff: Right. The ballpark is a factor, a big factor, and we need a new ballpark. The answer is, we've been competitive because we have brilliant people that are getting a lot of players but we lose them because the team can't support that activity. Now everyone has a different opinion on that, but that's a fact. I think that the ballpark is 40 years old. We share it with the football team. It's not easy. And if you don't see that, I can't convince you.
Wolff: We didn't have a lot of negotiations because the Giants feel (Santa Clara County) is their territory. It wasn't a matter of money... Statistically and socratically, we could make a good case that SCC should be our territory, but that issue is one I've stopped fighting on because both on the league level, and the Giants have preferred to keep their territory.And here's the debate between Wolff and Bill, a definite opponent of the ballpark:
Bill: Listen, Mr. Wolff. I don't know who you've been talking to with the city of Fremont. My name is Bill, and we've formed a committee to stop the Oakland A's from coming there... The citizens of Fremont don't want the traffic, don't want the crime. I don't know what the city is telling you, but we can't even keep fire stations open in this town. And you're going to have a complex that will bring, on a good weekend, 40-50,000 people in an area that's not equipped to handle it. And I'm not alone in the city. There are a lot of people that do not want the Oakland A's in the city of Fremont.Wolff went on to say that the A's haven't done a survey, but they have gotten numerous positive phone calls regarding the project.
Wolff: ... If we can provide answers that can make you more comfortable, we hope we can win you over. If we can't we won't -
Bill: Well, I'm gonna tell you - there's probably about 70 or 80% of people in this town that do not want you... This city is not equipped to handle you. We have eight police officers on the street in the evening... There's gonna be a whole lot of problems associated with a sports complex and a village over there.
Owens: What about the fact that they would bring in revenue to the city, which would enable them to hire more, wouldn't that be a factor also?
Bill: No, because the city is not equipped. The city doesn't have the resources. We don't have the fire engines. We don't have the police department. We don't have the ability to handle that crime that gonna be here.
Wolff: Each and every one of your comments - we have room to discuss and give you our answers -
Bill: Unless you want to float the money... the city tried to pass a utility tax twice because they don't have the resources to handle the police department, the fire department, the traffic, etc. -
Wolff: Number one - we're not asking for any taxes to be levied on anybody. The generation of what we do at the village, if - and it is a low density urban village - if it's something the community wants - will generate its own revenue to pay for schools, taxes... We're gonna try to go through a process to answer the very valid questions you're asking. We think baseball is a very clean, healthy, family sport. We have very few incidents or problems where we play today, and we'll have less in Fremont.
Bill: First of all the crime rate in Fremont is rising. You need to look at the statistics. Number two, if you put this on a ballot now, the city won't even let this go to a ballot measure because they know it's going to go down to defeat.
Owens: It's interesting, because that's what I was going to ask. I would have to presume that before you even propose a ballpark, you'd have to do some kind of polling to see if the people wanted it there.
Wolff: We're going through a process of determining what we want to put on the land. Right now that land could be developed with about 3.5 million square feet of office space. Just the same problems (Bill) is talking about could be generated even worse by that.
The "net profit" comment was a bit of a surprise. Here's a quick explanation. Putting an extra 10,000 seats on the ballpark means adding an extra deck. That would cost around $100 million. Over 25 years at 6%, that's around $7 million a year. Divide that figure by $35 per person ($24 per ticket + $11 in concessions), and you need 200,000 extra people per season just to break even on the additional cost associated with the additional seating. That boils down to roughly 2,500 additional attendees per game. Once you get past the 25,000 mark, attendance tends to be marginal. It makes more sense to have additional temporary or portable seating that can be made available for big games.
11 January 2007
Lew takes calls
I wasn't able to give Lew's appearance on Ronn Owens' show my full attention, but it sounded like good radio. It even got testy, as Lew got into a heated debate with a Fremont resident about the ballpark village development. Owens played moderator while jabbing Wolff about the "____ A's of/at Fremont" name. I'm blocked from getting the streamed archive at work, but I'll definitely listen to it when I get home and transcribe some of the Q&A.
Until then, comment away!
Until then, comment away!
10 January 2007
Lew Wolff on Ronn Owens show Thursday (11 a.m.)
At 11 a.m. on Thursday morning, Lew Wolff will drop by the KGO radio studio to visit with Ronn Owens. He'll probably give a small update on the ballpark. I don't expect much information in terms of the financing plan, but perhaps he'll reveal his vision for the parking/shuttle system. I wonder if they'll take calls as they did the last time. If you can't get the OTA brodcast, stream it here. Wolff's been in the area for a while, because n Tuesday he attended new San Jose mayor Chuck Reed's inauguration.
Speaking of radio, former A's exec Andy Dolich was a guest during KNBR's late morning show on December 26. Ted Robinson was filling in for Gary Radnich that day, and Ted brought out some great stories from Dolich, who currently works as President of Business Operations for the Memphis Grizzlies. When asked about the A's possible move to Fremont, he sounded disappointed, noting that geographically no city is better situated in the Bay Area than Oakland. He also said that various political forces (I'm liberally paraphrasing here) made it difficult for the team to stay in Oakland.
In Las Vegas, Cisco CEO John Chambers' keynote included a demo of next generation networking technologies, which of course included applications for use at Cisco Field. Back in San Jose, Cisco filed a lawsuit against Apple for violating its trademark on the name iPhone. Cisco introduced some VoIP (voice over IP) phones through its Linksys brand in mid-December. Apple, which introduced its version of the iPhone to much hoopla, could be forced to pay some serious coin - at least in a settlement. Ironically, it may be the Apple iPhone's dazzling UI that truly ushers in Cisco's vision of wireless internet ubiquity. Chambers' demos could get kicked up a notch by using an Apple iPhone (this opinion comes from an ardent Blackberry user). So perhaps what Cisco's really interested in is not payola - they might want a discounted license on Apple's technology. It's somewhat analogous to the A's-Giants territorial rights issue.
Speaking of radio, former A's exec Andy Dolich was a guest during KNBR's late morning show on December 26. Ted Robinson was filling in for Gary Radnich that day, and Ted brought out some great stories from Dolich, who currently works as President of Business Operations for the Memphis Grizzlies. When asked about the A's possible move to Fremont, he sounded disappointed, noting that geographically no city is better situated in the Bay Area than Oakland. He also said that various political forces (I'm liberally paraphrasing here) made it difficult for the team to stay in Oakland.
In Las Vegas, Cisco CEO John Chambers' keynote included a demo of next generation networking technologies, which of course included applications for use at Cisco Field. Back in San Jose, Cisco filed a lawsuit against Apple for violating its trademark on the name iPhone. Cisco introduced some VoIP (voice over IP) phones through its Linksys brand in mid-December. Apple, which introduced its version of the iPhone to much hoopla, could be forced to pay some serious coin - at least in a settlement. Ironically, it may be the Apple iPhone's dazzling UI that truly ushers in Cisco's vision of wireless internet ubiquity. Chambers' demos could get kicked up a notch by using an Apple iPhone (this opinion comes from an ardent Blackberry user). So perhaps what Cisco's really interested in is not payola - they might want a discounted license on Apple's technology. It's somewhat analogous to the A's-Giants territorial rights issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)