All you need to know about Warm Springs

Amidst talks between BART and the A's is a new article by Merc scribe Denis C. Theriault (CBS 5 also picks up the trail). The focus is on a 36-acre parcel near the planned Warm Springs BART station. Being familiar with the area, I wondered which parcel they were talking about. After going through my archives, I found a few things you might want to check out.

First, my old Fremont site album from three years ago. The album has both Warm Springs and Pacific Commons in there for reference. Trust me, the area hasn't changed much. From the album is this overhead shot:

Next up is a document from Fremont called the Warm Springs Existing Conditions Report, explaining existing and potential land use for the area surrounding the Warm Springs BART station. From that is an important map showing who's who among area landholders (this was from 2004 and may be somewhat outdated, but I doubt it):

A tiny piece of 880 is at the bottom left corner of the map above.

The last bit comes from the good folks at OAFC, who kept parts of the old Oakland HOK study, from which came the original Fremont site study - yes it was Warm Springs.

Now about those 36 acres under consideration. Based on the information in the Existing Conditions Report, two parcels are that size: the BART station facility and the "Westwood" site, which is east of the station next to 680. The A's couldn't be asking for BART to give up some of its land for the cause, could they? Nah, it's gotta be the Westwood parcel. Then again, two years ago I projected that losing the A's fanbase would drop total BART ridership 1% per year, or $3 million. They may have some incentive to work out a deal.

December tidbits

The Giants are going to experiment with a new pricing scheme for select seats at AT&T Park called dynamic pricing. Prices will vary in the left field corner, upper deck sections could vary as much as $2 from published pricing based on demand. While this is not expected to make a significant difference in attendance or revenue, it's a good way to gauge how responsive area fans are to such an initiative.

Regionally, the best analogue comes from State Highway 91 in Orange County, which has so-called "Lexus lanes," otherwise known as high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. The toll on the premium lanes varies depending on time of day, and is a model from which more dynamic pricing will be based. Don't like the concept? You might want to get used to it, as it's part of transit planning throughout the urbanized parts of the state in the future.

---

Despite an additional $25 billion taxpayer bailout, Citigroup will retain its naming rights deal at the Mets' new stadium in Queens. This has caused some angry NYC pols to call for a renaming of the ballpark to "Citi/Taxpayer Field."

---

Santa Clara County Measure B (BART to Silicon Valley) has passed with the vote certified by the county registrar. A San Francisco judge also struck down an electoral challenge to the results. A partial, manual recount is possible, but it'll cost $400k to whomever is interested.

---

Bill Simmons, a.k.a. "The Sports Guy" on ESPN.com, wrote a neat article two weeks ago on how the way new football stadiums have been built has largely eliminated home field advantage in the NFL. The lessons? Make the structure as compact as possible, lose the open ends that make for scenic vistas, minimize the impact of luxury suites, and stop forcing Joe Fan to sit in the nosebleeds. 360 architecture, the firm working on Cisco Field and the new Meadowlands Stadium for the Jets/Giants, appears to have taken some of that knowledge to heart.

---

Last but not least, regarding the rumor of discussions about territorial rights during the winter meetings next week: I received a couple of notes on this prior to the anonymous comment. That said, I'll wait until next week to post on it, lest I go back on my promise not to comment on San Jose rumors.

Update: Matier & Ross report that this week the A's and BART officials will the alternate Fremont site near the planned Warm Springs BART station and NUMMI. Keep in mind that several parties with no relation to BART control the land in the area.

Fall 2008 Progress Report

It's time again for our seasonal progress report. Does it feel like the A's are treading water, while everyone else is passing them by? In a sense, other teams are. The greatest solace A's fans can take from the Cisco Field effort comes from the way they're pursuing the ballpark. The three parks opening next year all involve massive amounts of public financing, taxes, or even questionable land acquisitions. Sometimes the more honest slog is the harder one.

The funding component has been downgraded due to the delay in housing-related revenues. Should we see more information on the additional commercialization of Cisco Field, the meter can move a little more to the right. The political process remains the same, even though a major milestone was passed in the form of an election. I had not originally factored the election into the equation, only the process of drafting and certifying the EIR plus the business relationship between the A's and Fremont. Site acquisition and construction remain in stasis due to inactivity.

It looks like the Marlins have gotten the green light to proceed as Norman Braman's lawsuit has been officially struck down, all seven counts of it. Once they get the financing, the race will be on as they'll have about 24 months to complete a retractable roof ballpark. I mentioned earlier that the shortest construction time for such a stadium was 28 months. That stadium was Safeco Field, which you may remember opened in mid-July, 1999. Update: The Marlins announced that they will push back the opening date to 2012. They will either have to figure out a way to extend the lease at Dolphin Stadium one more year, or find another interim venue.

While I don't like how the Twins and Hennepin County managed to get a county sales tax hike passed without it ever getting to the electorate (a feat that would be impossible in California), I love the location and how they crammed a 40,000-seat stadium into only 8 acres. I'm planning a Midwestern version of the ballpark tour I did earlier this year, and if it happens Target Field will be on the list.

Citi Field has proven to be the less controversial of the two NYC ballparks, though not quite controversy free. There is some concern that the "Citi" part may not hold up, as Citigroup has taken quite a beating recently. Surely naming rights would be appealing to JP Morgan Chase or Bank of America, right? Maybe not.

I have a sinking feeling that given the escalating costs to build the stadium and the need for additional financing, the parkland replacement promised for the neighborhood will take far longer to build due to a lack of funds. At least they'll have the new train platform so that my friends from north in the Hudson River Valley can take the train in.

That's the last planned update for this month, folks. See y'all in December for the community workshop.

Measure B with solid lead

Another 8,520 votes have been counted, and the results are:

Yes - 414,308 (66.78%)
No - 206,098 (33.22%)

The margin is now 2,112. Or rather, if 705 additional "No" votes had been registered from the current total, the measure would not pass.

9,800 votes remained to be counted as of Wednesday evening, so this new total may be "final" with a number of ballots thrown out. Opponents have indicated they may demand a recount, one that they would have to pay for.

880 Fremont widening completed

The big interchange project isn't completely finished, but the bulk of it is. The northbound carpool lane opened today, following onto the opening of the southbound lane earlier in the week. That brings the freeway to at least 8 through lanes, 4 in each direction, plus at least 1 auxiliary lane between exits. Between 237 and there are as many as 12 lanes. Most importantly, the carpool lanes now extend from San Leandro all the way to Milpitas.

I had the chance to drive south from Newark to San Jose at 6 p.m., and it was smooth sailing near the ballpark site. We'll see how the northbound commute looks today now that the its widening has been completed. It'll still be fairly congested to be certain, but there should be some alleviation. I'll be checking 511 to note any changes.

Update: 511's Flash-based map shows an incremental improvement in speeds through the area. At 5:30 p.m., the 880 @ Mission was moving northbound at 32 mph, compared to 19 mph yesterday. At 6:30, they were going 47 mph. Going southbound, cars were traveling at the limit or better today.

Revised Plan and Notice of Preparation submitted

Early today, the A's submitted their long awaited Notice of Preparation, along with a revised site plan. This time, the site plan is much shorter, as it acts mostly as an addendum to address concerns about traffic and parking:

• Parking for fans at The Fountains Business Park (north of Auto Mall Parkway) has been eliminated. Instead, the A's aim to replace 2,600 spaces there with a similar number east of 880. Fans would access the ballpark and village via a pedestrian bridge over the freeway. The purpose is to mitigate congestion at Auto Mall. The parcels haven't been acquired by Wolff/Fisher, instead they intend to work with area businesses and landowners to provide the spaces. The Fountains would still be used for employee parking. The plan provides scenarios in which the "East of 880" parking is used either immediately or in the long term as major development is completed.
  
• The three primary stadium lots would provide 10,990 spaces. This includes the "Interim Lot" immediately to the south of the ballpark. Given the likely delays in housing development, this lot may be less interim than previously planned. In addition, the "Municipal Lot" along Auto Mall near the railroad tracks is planned to have 2,500 spaces.
• Traffic routing has been designed to direct cars from specific exits to specific lots. Some of the streets would be designed or widened to include center reversible lanes, which would change direction before and after games. Electronic signage from the freeway and arteries and optimized signal timing would help control traffic management, similar to the system used for HP Pavilion.
  
• The A's would staff a parking monitoring system (tire chalking) which would identify violators, including frequent ones. A sort of soft validation system would be instituted, in which repeat violators would be warned after the second offense, and towed or booted after the third (I am refraining from the obvious sports metaphor).
  

The deceptively eye-popping takeaway from the plan is that a project alternative will be included that decouples the ballpark from the rest of the development, placing Cisco Field near the planned Warm Springs BART station. This should not be interpreted as a preference, as the whole, contiguous plan is obviously more synergistic. Still, having the alternative should make for some interesting discussion on this site and others - I didn't see it coming. The A's have not bought any of the land surrounding the BART station. It is not clear that any area landowners have any interest in selling to the A's. NUMMI, in particular, may look at the ballpark's location and use as a threat to their operations, for reasons discussed previously.

The City of Fremont has scheduled a community workshop for Monday, December 8, from 6:30 to 8 p.m. The session will be held at the usual location, City Hall's Council Chambers.

Interested parties can start submitting comments on the Notice of Preparation immediately, they have until December 18 at 4 p.m. to submit comments. Keep in mind that this is not the EIR. Instead the comments will help guide the Draft EIR, which may not be released until early spring.

Checking the couch cushions for financing

The Merc has a piece covering the three local stadium projects: Lew Wolff's A's and Quakes stadia, and the 49ers' stadium in Santa Clara. We've discussed at some length the impact of the economic collapse and its impact on Cisco Field. While proceeds from housing sales will have to be pushed back while the market becomes friendly again, Wolff doesn't appear to be appreciably scaling back the vision, as he is with the Quakes' next home. From the article:

In a bid to wait out the real estate markets, he'll tap other sources of cash, including private investors, parking fees and naming rights. On Monday, he hired the William Morris Agency to help identify a naming rights sponsor.

Naming rights to the stadium have already been sold, so that's not under consideration. However, just about every other piece of the stadium can be sponsored, from suite concourses to kids' play areas to the press box and broadcast booths. Every vertical surface that could be picked up on camera could have electronic or rotating signage. It wouldn't surprise me if the concourses had numerous interactive displays for sponsors, or a show car parked beyond the outfield fence somewhere. If you're worried that the ballpark itself was going to go mallpark, you have reason. It's important to keep in mind that things have already been trending in this direction for some time. The sad truth is that these days it will take these kinds of efforts to pay for construction and keep the team from carrying a massive mortgage.

Measure B makes comeback - now passing

It's taking thousands of provisional ballots to do it, but Santa Clara County's Measure B has now passed the two-thirds threshold that is required for it to pass. The current tally with 9,800 ballots remaining to be counted:

Yes - 407,932 (66.67%)
No - 203,954 (33.33%)

The margin here is 24 votes, which translates into a true difference of only 9 votes. Or rather, if 9 more voters had voted No instead of Yes, the measure would be losing. I'm starting to wonder what the fate is of my brother's absentee ballot, which may have been rejected because he accidentally circled one of the arrows instead of drawing the line connecting an arrow. Talk about too close to call.

Wolff talks to Argus reporter Artz

I somehow missed some juicy info on Argus reporter Matthew Artz' Tri-City Beat blog. The news was too good not to make it onto the print edition, so now there's an article as well. As expected, Wolff de-emphasized the housing component of the ballpark's financing, going so far as to finance the construction of the ballpark first. The housing would happen later, though Wolff didn't elaborate.

This is where it can get sketchy. Normally, banks will set a stadium construction loan's interest rate based on revenue streams that will be used to pay it off. The more secure the sources, the better the terms. That's a big reason why, when putting together the revenue streams, teams will often move away from in-stadium revenue. Attendance and concession money is far less stable than a sales tax hike (at least normally it is, not so much this year). Wolff indicates that he has backup sources, but won't show his cards. Whatever the mix, the revenue mix will have to be clearly defined before a single dollar of a construction loan is given. It'll be interesting to see who provides the financing now that every investment bank has either folded, been acquired, or converted into a traditional bank. (For more on the death of the I-banks, check out the new piece in Condé Nast Portfolio by Moneyball writer Michael Lewis).

The Notice of Preparation for the final project plan is expected in a month. When asked why it was delayed, Wolff cited the election. Shrewd handling of a political football? Sneaky dealings? Given the small percentage of the electorate that actually reads such documents, I believe the impact would've been small in either a positive or negative manner.

Artz calls attention to how the ProLogis stock price has dropped from nearly $72 to $5 in only six months. While startling, the decline should be kept in perspective. ProLogis is still going to pay out a dividend to its shareholders, which is more than can be said for a lot of companies. Their main industries are real estate and warehousing. With products generally not moving due to the credit crunch and its cascading effects, ProLogis was going to take a major hit. Growth will be slow as they aren't developing anything on their own in the near term. As the gears of the economy start moving again, ProLogis will as well.

I've touched briefly on the idea of the A's moving a major parking lot to an area across 880 from the baseball village. I puzzled at why that would be the case at first. My guess at this point is that they're feeling pressure to move as much traffic away from Auto Mall Parkway as possible, and by moving parking away from Auto Mall, traffic would be siphoned to boot. Problem with this is that by moving parking across the freeway to the east, they get closer to NUMMI. Forget yesterday's report that the plant will cut production in response to the economic downturn, NUMMI will rebound at some point thanks to it being mostly a Toyota plant. NUMMI considers itself a 24/7 operation, so anything that could potentially impact production or product/parts movement is cause for alarm. Considering how infrequent the use of this parking lot would be (90 times per year, half the time between 6 and 11 p.m., one-third on weekends), any concerns would seem to be overblown. Despite this, it's well within NUMMI's right to share their concerns and for the A's and the city to devise a way to mitigate any impacts.

On a related note, the pedestrian overpass concept will likely cost at least $10 million depending on its width and load. Cupertino is completing what looks like a miniature version of Boston's Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge over 280.

Something tells me the A's might build something more utilitarian, but this one also has one very important design characteristic: it doesn't need a column in the freeway median. They could also choose to make such a bridge wide enough to carry parking trams.

Weekend cornucopia: Mid-November

Measure B is mounting a comeback, now at 66.61% in favor with 17,000 provisional ballots remaining to be counted.

It looks like Costco may be filling the space at the Oakland Army Base meant for the planned Auto Mall. Nancy Nadel prefers having a large truck stop somewhere on the site to keep diesel trucks from parking in the neighborhood on the other side of 880. Apparently the city and the port haven't yet figured out where that truck stop should go.

There's a great Dodger Stadium retrospective at the late Walter O'Malley's website about ideas that didn't quite make it off the drawing board.

Five months ahead of Opening Day, the Mets have sold out every single one of their 49 luxury suites at Citi Field. The Yankees have sold 44 of 51 suites at New Yankee Stadium, a number that hasn't budged since August (likely coinciding with the economic crisis).

AP's Wolff interview + Shorter BART extension

Lew Wolff did his usual hot stove ballpark update, this time with the Associated Press. We've gotten used to these updates as part of an effort to keep the project in the public's consciousness. While the Fremont mayoral race did this on a local scale, an AP article is much more broad-reaching. No really new news here, as Wolff and new Giants managing partner Bill Neukom reaffirmed their commitments to Fremont and South Bay territorial rights, respectively. Wolff also shot down speculation about Sacramento, saying, "We've investigated pretty thoroughly." Long time readers already know my stance on Sacramento, so it doesn't bear repeating. No mention of any emerging TV or radio deals. Hmmph...

---

It's over a week after the election, and absentee ballots are still being counted in order to find out the fate of Santa Clara County's Measure B (BART to Silicon Valley). As of Wednesday, here are the totals:

Yes - 398222, 66.52%
No - 200430, 33.48%

There can't be more than 20,000 or so votes left to be counted, so it appears that Measure B is heading for defeat. However that doesn't mean BART won't be extended. A new piece by the Merc's Mr. Roadshow indicates that VTA will move to shorten the planned extension. To do this, they would stop short of downtown, avoiding the costly tunnel that would run from just west of 101 to the train station before heading up to San Jose Airport. What isn't certain is how truncated the extension will be. BART could stop only in Milpitas at the Great Mall, or it could head into San Jose and terminate at Berryessa (the old flea market). One last option is to end the line at the planned Alum Rock station, which is just short of downtown (1.5 miles east). Without the money to cover operations that would come from Measure B's sales tax hike, VTA will have to look at existing sources (2000's Measure A tax increase). They'll have to balance this with money for other projects, which may or may not be there because of lower consumption (sales tax revenue) or infrastructure money that the incoming Obama administration may or may not push in the extension's direction.

My hope is that the extension is built all the way to Alum Rock. Only a small amount of tunneling would be required, and it would allow VTA to properly pursue a BRT/LRT line linking downtown and the east side. The Alum Rock station would act as a major transit hub, and with the decidedly middle/working class neighborhoods in the area, could be a vital anchor for future transit planning. While BART would stop short of linking up with Caltrain and a new high speed rail line at Diridon Station, a simple transfer could be arranged between the two lines. While it's possible for the full extension to be built in phases, it will only take longer to complete and become far more expensive in the process.

The good news is that Warm Springs won't be affected by VTA's decision. It will still be built, with bids starting in February. The Warm Springs station is expected to open in 2014, two years after Cisco Field is expected to be completed. The San Jose extension could occur in another 3 years, though it remains to be seen if shortening the extension will also shorten the development time.

The future of financing + Holliday trade

Before I get into the credit scene, a word about the Holliday trade. Regardless of what the final outgoing pieces of the trade are, and regardless of how long Holliday stays (unless he's immediately traded), this move can be attributed to one factor: relevance. The A's, despite having been in the ALCS only two years ago, are in danger of becoming irrelevant on both the local and national sports scenes. Having traded away much of its young star core, something needed to be done to excite the fanbase and keep some level of buzz with the team until its next phase, which presumably would be Cisco Field. I don't doubt that the move is being made to make the team competitive - heck, when was the last time the A's had a really good, in-his-prime, righty slugger?

It's also nice to know that the team, according to Ken Rosenthal, might raise payroll considerably. The 2007 payroll was around $78 million, and this year's edition could reach $80 million. That's an indicator that even in the tough economic times, they could field a decent team, with $80 million as the ceiling if - and this is a big if - attendance is good. Of course, the glue that will hold a high-payroll A's team together is its performance. If they're 7+ games behind the Angels in mid-June, the fire sale will likely begin. Until then, we can remain optimistic. Unfortunately, it's been proven time and time again that a good record doesn't automatically correlate with great attendance for the A's. It might take bringing in a great player at the beginning of the season to jumpstart attendance, instead of the usual lag during the first couple of months before bigger crowds in the summer.

---

In Miami, where pols rammed through a stadium deal and waited out legal wrangling, the Marlins and Miami-Dade County have decided to delay seeking financing for the retractable roof ballpark until next spring. County officials have admitted that the delay is due to the credit crunch and market's inherent instability. In addition, several votes are slated to occur before the end of the year to approve an adjacent parking garage, among other ancillary issues.

Delaying the financing piece puts the Marlins in a bit of a crunch time-wise. Their final season at Dolphin Stadium is 2010, so they have to move into new digs by April 2011. If they get financing in the spring, they'll have less than 24 months to get the ballpark completed - and that includes the retractable roof. To date, no retractable roof ballpark has taken less than 28 months to complete. The Marlins are helped by the fact that the Orange Bowl, which previously sat on the site, has already been demolished, so the site is clear and ready to build. Yet they haven't even released renderings of the stadium, choosing instead to tease the public about the field's new dimensions. If they can get it done in time, more power to them.

Even big market teams are facing the credit crunch. The Yankees just received clearance from the IRS to seek up to $336 million in tax-free bonds. Bruce Ratner's Nets will benefit from the same loophole if they ever get the Barclays Center/Atlantic Yards project off the ground. In the past, tax-free bonds were simply a good way to save money for teams. But for the Yanks , who are in the middle of construction and actually need the funds to complete, government sources are effectively the only source as banks have been stuffing their mattresses.

Jerry Jones' new Taj Mahal of a football stadium may be the bellwether for the industry, according to Sports Business Journal. The Cowboys are looking to get $350 million in new bonds to complete their successor to Texas Stadium, and they want it by December 1. The NFL decided to bankroll themselves to the tune of a $1.4 billion loan, though this may be more related to possible labor strife in 2011. Perhaps only the NFL, with its unified revenue structure, has the ability to insulate themselves in this fashion.

Considering all of the turmoil we've heard about lately, it's not altogether a bad thing that the A's have pushed back their opening date to 2012. They won't have to get financing until spring 2010. That 18 months might be just what the market needs to correct back to real stability.

Measure B intrigue

I've been checking on Santa Clara County's Measure B (BART-to-Silicon Valley) since Election Night, and it has been inching closer to the magic two-thirds mark with each update. The Merc's Mr. Roadshow (Gary Richards) reported yesterday that some 164,000 absentee and provisional ballots remain to be counted, a vast number that could certainly prove to be a game changer.

As of today at 4:19 p.m., these are the results:

Santa Clara County Measure B (Two-thirds majority required to pass, 1142 of 1142 precincts reporting)
Yes - 345132, 66.41%
No - 174528, 33.59%

That's a bit higher than last night's tally:

Yes - 305729, 66.27%
No - 155582, 33.73%

That leaves roughly another 100,000 votes to be counted. So far, the additional voters have been coming in at a 67.53% Yes/32.47% No clip. I'll put my Nate Silver hat on and project the remaining 100,000 votes, based on the new distribution:

Yes - 412662, 66.59%
No - 206998, 33.41%

Oh, missed it by that much. Assuming that there are 100,000 votes outstanding, Measure B will require a 68% Yes/32% No clip for it to pass. That would put the results as:

Yes - 413132, 66.67%
No - 206528, 33.33%

The difference between passing and EPIC FAIL would be 470 votes. Who said a single vote didn't count for much?

Fremont: Wasserman, Wieckowski re-elected

12:06 a.m.: Three issues potentially have some effect on the A's future in the Bay Area. They are the Fremont mayoral and city council races, as well as Santa Clara County's Measure B, which would finance operating costs for the county's BART extension.

1:24 a.m.: Mayor Wasserman is keeping his job, along with Councilman Wieckowski. There is no runoff in Fremont elections, so the candidate(s) with respective plurality win their seats. That makes the second council member Suzanne Chan, who will replace the outgoing Steve Cho (who placed second in the mayoral race).

• Fremont Mayor (96 of 96 precincts reporting)
  Robert "Bob" Wasserman - 20406 votes, 42.67%
  Steve Cho - 15429, 32.26%
  Gus Morrison - 9875, 20.65%
  Paul Reeder - 1953, 4.08%
  Write-in - 165, 0.34%
• Fremont City Council (2 seats, 96 of 96 precincts reporting)
  Bob Wieckowski - 22223, 27.47%
  Suzanne Chan - 16709, 20.81%
  Vinnie Bacon - 12735, 15.86%
  Trisha Tahmasbi - 11773, 14.66%
  Larry Montgomery - 3922, 4.88%
  Hou Leong - 3873, 4.82%
  Linda Susoev - 2934, 3.65%
  Charles Bartlett - 2256, 2.81%
  Alan Stirling - 1815, 2.26%
  Fazlur Khan - 1813, 2.26%
  Write-in - 248, 0.31%
• Santa Clara County Measure B (Two-thirds majority required to pass, 1142 of 1142 precincts reporting)
  Yes - 305729, 66.27%
  No - 155582, 33.73%

The Measure B tally went deep into the wee hours and based on the numbers has fallen short by about 5000 votes so far. Absentee and provisional ballots are still being counted. If the count holds up, BART proponents would once again have to go back to the drawing board to figure out the length of the extension and its construction schedule. The tax was necessary in order for the extension to be eligible to receive federal matching funds. It's possible that the extension would have to be pulled back, perhaps stopping at Berryessa instead of downtown San Jose.

Incredibly, the results paint a rather favorable picture for the A's and their hopes to get the baseball village built. Several potential obstacles in Fremont have been removed. Incumbent mayor Wasserman, who has been the staunchest public proponent of the project, will stick around to see it through the EIR process at the very least. Wieckowski, also a supporter, will be there as well. They'll be joined by Chan, who is also a project supporter. Neither of the project's biggest critics, former mayor Gus Morrison and Sierra Club chapter leader Vinnie Bacon, placed higher than third in their races.

Is it smooth sailing from here on out? Not quite. Wasserman may have violated election laws in recuiting students from local high schools to campaign on his behalf. The fallout from that is unknown. The EIR still has to pass muster. The council has lobbied hard for concessions and so far the city and the A's have been able to find common ground. There remain issues to work out with private parties such as nearby businesses and landowners, but those are very doable. The upshot from tonight is that there won't be obstructionists making the decisions. That's not to say that the council are yes-men - far from it, in fact. Instead, the governing body should be of an open-minded view to make a deal that works for Fremont's residents, not one that derails it in service of a narrow agenda.

A's leaving KICU?

Towards the end of Susan Slusser's Chronicle article about the A's hiring Mike Gallego as third base coach is a blurb about the A's opting out of their current deal with KICU. This appears to be another step towards the rumored deal with Comcast SportsNet California (formerly CSN West). KICU had been broadcasting A's game for over a decade, and while the team is leaving the door open to returning to KICU, the writing's on the wall.

In 2008, 45 games were on the KICU part of the schedule, supplemented by 66 on CSNBA. All signs point to an exclusive deal with CSNCA, which will hopefully lead to at least 140 games, perhaps 150. No, that's not the complete schedule, but it creates allowances for national broadcasts (Fox, ESPN, TBS, and the fledgling MLB Network). Depending on how the CSNCA deal is done, the A's may have more control over advertising revenue.

The unspoken rationale for such a move is the digital TV transition, which is scheduled to occur next February 17. As it stands, only 6% of the Bay Area audience watches analog TV only via an antenna. The rest watch primarily through cable, satellite, or broadband connections. That 6% is almost guaranteed to drop once the digital switch occurs. The FCC's traveling band of commissioners visited Oakland last month to educate and survey area residents. The live demo didn't exactly go smoothly.

Many over-the-air viewers will get fewer channels due to their locations, which brings up two issues. The Bay Area is pretty well spread out thanks to some big body of water in the middle, and here OTA transmissions start to peter out after a few dozen miles. That means if you're in San Jose and want to watch a digital World Series broadcast from KTVU, you'll have trouble unless you use a well-powered outdoor antenna that is properly aimed at San Francisco. Ironically, some residents in the various valley neighborhoods of SF have complained of not being able to get OTA digital reception even though they geographically in the transmitter's backyard.

KICU, which has long been a San Jose-based station, moved their transmitter a few years back from Loma Prieta to Monument Peak near the Milpitas-Fremont border. It's not a terrible location, but there have been complaints from North Bay A's fans about the signal. Moreover, the A's and KICU chose not to do HD broadcasts due to cost. That won't be such an issue on a regional sports network. With uncertainty about OTA digital coverage on the horizon, it's not hard to see why the A's might look at something more predictable.

The flipside of a change to CSNCA is CSNCA's own carriage. CSNBA has a long legacy of being carried on local cable systems, going back to its days as Fox Sports Net Bay Area and previously SportsChannel Bay Area. That, and the broadcasts of both baseball teams, Warriors, Sharks, and Pac-10 sports, made carriage of CSNBA throughout Northern California/Nevada and Southern Oregon a no-brainer. On the other hand, CSNCA is a relative newcomer. CSNCA only has the Kings right now, and they're blacked out in the Bay Area. CSNCA has struggled to get carried on non-Comcast cable systems throughout Northern California. While inking the A's would make CSNCA a more compelling channel, having the A's would also boost the channel's subscriber fee, especially if the channel were on basic cable as the A's are requesting.

Follow-up: ars technica has an article this week citing a survey by ABI Research. According to the survey, 20% of antenna-only viewers will cease to watch TV altogether. Additionally:

70 percent of the surveyed TV watchers plan to hook a digital converter box up to their over the air antennas, while another 10 percent plan to switch over to cable or satellite pay-TV. According to analyst Steve Wilson, though, the rest of the current over the air households will simply stop watching traditional television altogether.

That translates to only 3% of American viewers that will stop watching TV come February. That's not a bad percentage considering the kind of upheaval the transition is being hyped to be.

EIR Process - A Preview

The baseball village is not the only development happening in Fremont. Almost 5 miles south on 880, at the county line, is a planned big box/retail center called Creekside Landing. While the merits of having yet another set of big box stores on this stretch of freeway is debatable, Fremont is certainly interested in the sales tax revenue.

Should the shopping center have its EIR approved, grand opening would occur in Fall 2010. The concession the developer is expected to give is an extension of Fremont Boulevard, from where it dead-ends at a flood control channel just north of the property, to Dixon Landing Road. The road there already runs south from Dixon Landing through Milpitas' McCarthy Ranch development and into San Jose, right by a series of Sandisk and Cisco buildings. When completed, it's likely that the completed western approach would be part of an alternate route to Pacific Commons and the baseball village.

In keeping with the rollout plans, a draft EIR is on file for Creekside Landing at the City of Fremont's Environmental Documents website. As is often the case, this large EIR has been split into some 25 documents. The first several PDFs cover the background on the development. That's followed by sections on air quality, aesthetics, geology, water quality, transportation, and land use, just to name a few. The executive summary covers all of the various environmental impacts in brief.

An EIR is meant to look both forward and backward, but it does this in a fairly narrow manner. For instance, the transportation study focuses mostly on traffic effects at 31 intersections within approximately 5 miles of the project site. Within the 82 pages of the transportation section, only one page covers public transportation, and it only describes existing service in the vicinity, not future planned service. No assumptions are made on future service availability. That will not be the case with the baseball village EIR, since the A's are making the claim that a similar percentage of fans (15-20%) will not drive to Cisco Field as they are traveling to the Coliseum. Still, the uncertainty of future transit planning makes it difficult to gauge impact, so it's likely that a worst-case scenario will be discussed at length. Interestingly, the Creekside Landing EIR does not factor in other developments' impacts, such as the baseball village. The village's EIR, coming right on the heels of this EIR, probably will have the same treatment. This is despite the likelihood that both developments operating simultaneously will have measurable impacts on the area, on each other, or they will compound each other's effects. Keep this in mind as the election season ends and we enter the EIR phase.

MLB TV ratings drop, A's stay steady

Sports Business Journal reported earlier in the week that MLB's ratings slipped compared to last year. The hit was taken for both national and local broadcasts. Some of this can be attributed to the Yankees' on-field performance. Typically, they're a massive ratings grabber that pulls the league's weight, but as it became clear they wouldn't surpass either the upstart Rays or the World Champ Red Sox, ratings plummeted. Surprisingly, the Red Sox had an even bigger percentage drop than the Yankees despite their success (are Red Sox fans getting spoiled?).

A look into all of the local ratings for 2008 (courtesy Sports Business Journal) shows some interesting market characteristics.

Here in the Bay Area the Giants took a big dump, as was expected with their first post-Bonds lineup. The A's, who came off a disappointing 2007 season and went into full rebuilding mode, didn't show a significant ratings drop and generally held onto their audience. That's good news, as it indicates there may be a baseline from which the A's TV audience can be built - especially on a different network that features them more prominently.

The table also shows which markets are "baseball towns" as opposed to "football towns." Midwestern markets with the exception of the two Ohio teams and Kansas City pulled in ratings of 6 or 7. Three of the four AL West teams don't do great within their own markets, whereas Seattle holds up fairly well. And the combined Washington-Baltimore market is absolutely pitiful. MLB and the O's have to be looking long term with MASN, because they're severely overpaying the Nats for TV rights.

Going back to the baseline, the A's respective numbers (1.7 rating/42,000 households) set a bar that other cities would have to significantly clear in order to attract the A's. Let's see how these numbers hold up against three would-be out-of-state candidates. First, a comparison of the Bay Area to the three candidates in terms of Nielsen market size:

• Bay Area (#6 in nation): 2,476,450 households
  
• Sacramento (#20): 1,399,520
• Portland (#23): 1,175,100
• Las Vegas (#42): 728,410

That puts the Bay Area as 77% larger than Sacramento, over twice as large as Portland, and over three times the size of Vegas. So for those three to match the A's rather lackluster ratings in the Bay Area (each rating point here equals 24,400 households), they'd have to hit the following local numbers:

• Sacramento: 3.0
• Portland: 3.6
• Las Vegas: 5.8

Sacramento's target would be the easiest of the three to reach, but their lack of corporate dollars and their own difficult economic status would drive the ratings requirement higher. The Northern California/Nevada television region, which is shared by the Giants and A's, would also likely be redrawn to divide it between the Bay Area, Central and North Coast (Giants) and the Central Valley (A's). The net result would diminish the market size for both teams. Portland isn't as hard hit economically as Sacramento, but their bar isn't exactly low as they'd have to approach a 4 to make it worthwhile, a number that would make it second to Seattle among West Coast teams. As for Vegas, fuhgetaboutit.

This is a good sign for the A's as we await an announcement about their television future. I don't expect the A's to surpass the Giants anytime soon. The Giants are sinking back to earth after repeatedly doubling the A's ratings in their Bonds period. If the A's ratings can consistently stay above 2 (or roughly 50,000 households), they'll be in pretty good shape for the foreseeable future, even with the economic crisis we are currently muddling through.

The post-Fremont strategy

Georob writes:

As awful as this sounds, this may be a good time to revisit the subject of contraction and why it could or could not happen.

I know you and others have stood by the theory that the only reason it was brought up last time was as a premptive threat leading up to renewing the players association contract.

People forget though that at time we were still getting over the high tech bust as well as 9/11; and that the economic future looked very shaky.

So as the dow tanks yet again this morning, I ask the question: What about now? If the Fremont project is put on hold for an extended period, the A's won't stay in Oakland beyond 2012, and it makes no sense to move out of the Bay Area, what's left to do?

Perhaps this is where San Jose finally comes into play, but I'm sorry Tony; the Giants will still want to be compensated for it. And in this economic climate, who's gonna come up with the money to do it?

Sorry, but we need to discuss contraction.

Let's separate this into the two core issues. First, is contraction possible or likely? Second, what is the A's next move should the Fremont plan fail?

Contraction
I've maintained a pretty consistent stance regarding contraction over the years. The current economic downturn won't change that. Over the last decade, the commissioner has timed talk of contraction to gain concessions - either from cities deciding whether or not to publicly finance ballparks, or from the players union during CBA negotiations. Of all MLB teams, only three remain in outdated or suboptimal facilities: Tampa Bay, Oakland, and Florida. Florida had the bulk of their legal obstacles removed in their quest for a ballpark at the Orange Bowl site, so they can be removed. Tampa Bay ownership's waterfront ballpark plan was shelved in June, and though they may want to take advantage of the team's success to piggyback a new deal, a fast-track situation such as the proposed plan isn't likely. That leaves the A's, and we know what that situation is.

In retail or the service industry, talk about closing locations comes up because they underperform as individual entities. That doesn't really apply here thanks to revenue sharing and the fact that teams rarely if ever lose money. MLB made $5 billion last year. I don't think they're struggling in the least.

Contraction doesn't work with a single team. Two would be required, thanks to MLB's constant, serial scheduling format. Realignment would also happen, bringing two NL teams into the AL (Colorado/Arizona and one Central/East team), a prospect either target team's owner would surely fight hard. Then there's the issue of buying out both teams. Team valuations aren't likely to drop much if at all, compared to the stock market and real estate. Why? Because the valuations are based on long-term deals such as stadium and suite leases, naming rights and sponsorship agreements, broadcasting deals, and of course, fans attending games. These factors tend to be locked in for years at a time, and while fans tend to be transient for the lower revenue teams, those teams aren't going to become insolvent just because they lose a half-million fans from one year to the next. Let's say that despite these issues, MLB decides to contract anyway. The combined price for the two teams will approach $700 million, because they couldn't be contracted until after the current CBA expires after the 2011 season. That translates to $28 million per team. Perhaps new Giants managing partner Bill Neukom might be interested in paying $28 million to get rid of the A's, but would any other owner? I doubt it. Even if you drop the Rays and A's from the current revenue structure, other teams' shares and net payout/receipts don't budge more than $1 million (assuming the basic terms of the CBA are carried over), creating little financial incentive to perform the contractions. And would MLB be able to make up for the loss of revenue in affected parts of the country? That's hard to say. The Giants certainly won't change from being a $200 million revenue team to a $300+ million revenue team due to the factors described previously.

It's for these reasons that I can't see contraction happening anytime in the next decade.

Move, or contract and expand
The simpler prospect would be to move either or both franchises. Coincidentally, Forbes published a new article two days ago titled, "The 10 Sports Franchises Most Likely to Move." Surprisingly, the A's aren't on the list. The article appears to be a bit behind in its assessments of teams, especially the Marlins' situation. That said, the list isn't surprising at all - other than the prospect of the Phoenix Coyotes possibly moving back to their original home, Winnipeg (Go Jets!). Moving a team is now a competitive situation. As alluring as Las Vegas once was, it has suffered significantly from the real estate crisis and probably can't support more than one major league team. No one there is talking MLB, preferring to focus on either the NBA or NHL (hockey is more likely). An arena is planned for east of the strip, the principals being sports giant AEG and a consortium including financiers and blockbuster movie producer Jerry Bruckheimer. Other cities such as Portland and San Antonio may not be in financial dire straits, but the current credit market makes even publicly financed venues much more difficult than they were a decade ago. Sacramento is as bad off as Las Vegas, and there's already one team there struggling to get a new venue.

I suppose there is a chance of MLB doing the same sort of "sale" that was done with the Expos when they were moved to DC. MLB and the owners effectively contracted the team, then expanded anew, extracting a franchise fee from new owner Ted Lerner. It's a akin to a publicly traded company initiating a stock buyback program, then issuing new stock down the road. That was made more complicated due to the "musical chairs" method of shifting ownership groups among teams, and that's one among several reasons why I don't think MLB could pull it off again. Despite the fact that the move process IMHO was rigged in favor of DC, all sorts of machinations had to take place for it to occur. There's no large market out there that would elicit such large offers should either the A's or Rays be contracted and moved like the Expos. Having both available would drive down their potential post-contraction sales prices since they would be competing with each other for the same bidding pool of prospective owners. If the remaining MLB team owners' primary motivation is to make money from the purchase and sale of one or more teams, there's no guarantee of it now or in the immediate future.

Stay put
Wolff angered many Oakland partisans by claiming on multiple occasions that the A's won't stay in Oakland. Still, I wouldn't put it past them to stay, especially if the economic mess remains for years to come. The reckoning will come in 2011, when the Raiders have to decide what to do next. It won't be possible to house both in different stadiums within the Coliseum site due to the expense and upheaval required. Oakland and the Coliseum Authority will have to choose who to deal with. Take away your green-and-gold colored glasses, and it's hard to say which team they should choose. Should the A's have difficulty getting a stadium deal done outside of Oakland, they can continue their lease through 2013, stifling the Raiders' ability to transform the Coliseum - if that's what they want to do in the first place. The political and economic realities of getting something done in Oakland remain, though it's possible that the next mayor may be more sports-friendly.

San Jose
That leaves the elephant-in-the-room option, the South Bay. I've said for a while that if Fremont falls through, the A's will look there before they look anywhere else, including out-of-state. That's where the A's biggest corporate support will come from, that's where Lew Wolff has such deep roots in the community. San Jose has the certified EIR, transit links, the land for the ballpark, and available adjacent land to be developed for other purposes.

However, there's a question of how a ballpark would be financed. A lifestyle center shopping village couldn't be built there. Housing could but it would be of limited height. Lastly, there's the issue of territorial rights. There's no reason to believe Neukom won't be as recalcitrant as Peter Magowan.

Look at it from a different perspective. Which option, of the ones I've described, sounds easiest? Contracting teams is incredibly expensive and doesn't show any tangible financial benefit for the remaining teams. Moving, or contracting and expanding, is a difficult proposition for the governing parties and also doesn't move the needle appreciably. Staying put is still at best an interim step until the permanent move is made, wherever that is. Territorial rights negotiations may be the least difficult proposition because of its fundamentals: it's done only within the confines of MLB, doesn't require changes to the basic tenets of t-rights, precludes an owner from suing, doesn't require another team such as the Rays to accomplish, and has real prospects for better revenues coming from the A's. I continue to think that much of this still goes back to Selig, who wants to cement his legacy by having new or renovated venues and unprecedented "prosperity" in place for all 30 teams before he leaves office. Should Fremont fail, one of these options appears to be far easier to accomplish than the rest.

Fremont election coverage

This week's East Bay Express has an article on the three (four?) -man race for Fremont mayor, and how it maps out in terms of the baseball village issue. The piece was penned by Robert Gammon, who also co-wrote the excellent "How we got to this point" article from two years ago. This comes on the heels of Wes Bowers' coverage (Fremont Bulletin) of a candidate forum from two weeks ago.

During the initial discussions about the plan, both Mayor Bob Wasserman and Councilman Steve Cho painted themselves as supportive of it, though Cho distinguished himself in remarking that a public vote would be a proper thing to do. He also said at the time that he felt that voters would support the plan. Wasserman and the other council members did not support a referendum, declaring that they didn't support ballot box planning.

The third mayoral candidate is former Mayor Gus Morrison, who was termed out prior to Wasserman assuming the reins. Morrison has been to date the most vocal critic of the plan, even after a one-on-one with Lew Wolff.

Morrison's interest anti-growth stance has been well documented in Fremont. There's an interesting wrinkle to it, captured in this quote:

"Originally downtown was supposed to be equidistant between 880 and 238. We had a plan for a life center when I left office the only life center between Oakland and Santana Row and it sort of died after I left," he said. "Now the A's want to come along and build a project with a life center the only one between Oakland and Santana Row and we can't have two. There seems to be a conflict."

So is the issue so much about the development in general, or where the development is located? There's no chance of the A's looking to downtown Fremont even though it has BART, because the area is 2 miles of traffic lights away from either 880 or 680. Are there business interests who'd prefer to push such a development downtown? Is that realistic?

He's not alone in his disapproval. Local Sierra Club chapter leader, Vinnie Bacon, is running for city council. Bacon has also been against the project from the beginning. Two city council spots are up for election, and those could also have a huge effect on the plan's status. Cho's term is up at the end of the year, as is Councilman Bob Wieckowski, a noted plan supporter.

A look at the LWV roster of candidates for the two council seats shows a laundry list of interests: public safety, budget/revenue matters, growth, business development. Another council candidate, Alan Stirling, is obviously anti-stadium when he said this:

"Not one sports stadium in the history of this country has been built without public money," he said. "You have to look at your money when looking at this process. (Teams) have walked away from deals when public money wasn't offered."

I can name a stadium that was built without public money: Stanford Stadium. And it was built in record time, by a developer who knew what he wanted, and partnered with public and private entities to get it done. The quote above smacks of vague generalism, and isn't reflective of the current political/economic environment in California, and to a finer point, the Bay Area.

I can't say I know much about any of the other candidates. Planning commissioner Suzanne Chan and Larry Montgomery are supporters of the plan. Curiously, Montgomery supports building a convention center adjacent to the baseball village. As a San Jose resident, I'm an outsider to the process and have my own home issues to worry about (BART to San Jose).

The desirable outcome for plan supporters would be to have incumbents Wasserman and Wieckowski to keep their seats and leave the final seat up for grabs. Even if Bacon were to get the final seat, that would leave the Mayor and four out of five councilmembers as supporters of the plan. The nightmare scenario for the Wolffs would have Morrison winning and Bacon displacing Wieckowski.

CSN West name change

While looking through my Comcast onscreen program guide this weekend, I noticed a channel name change. Digital channel 400, which was previously abbreviated CSNW (Comcast SportsNet West), is now CSNCA. As you might guess, that CA stands for California, making the new name Comcast SportsNet California.

Curious about this, I immediately hit the CSN home page to see what happened. The CSN West page is still up, but it has been updated with a new logo to reflect the name change. All of the corporate scrubbing will assuredly follow suit soon.

There's nothing in the press releases section or anywhere else about the name change. The Wikipedia entry for CSN shows that the reference to the name change was edited on Friday.

Was the change precipitated by the A's possible TV deal with CSN? Perhaps, but I'm guessing "No" because I don't see any conceivable difference in brand recognition between CSN West and CSN California. Instead, it may be that the launch of Comcast SportsNet Northwest in the Seattle area prompted the change, in order to avoid confusion. CSNNW had already been operating in Portland for some time, so there's a hole in that theory there. Whatever the case, I'll try to find out later today. Interestingly, CSNNW is not carried by either DirecTV or Dish. According to this press release, some Sharks games will be carried by CSNNW.

This isn't major news. Still, look for a November press release announcing the deal between CSNCA and the A's.