Liveblog from Visioning Workshop

Large group at San Jose's Parkside Hall B to discuss the Diridon Station & Ballpark plan. It's a workshop, which means that lots of reps from City, transit, and consultants are all over the place to answer questions. Updates will be posted here as they come.

1:20 pm - No real ballpark news. This was a community event to get area residents to provide feedback on how the surrounding area should be developed.

2:10 pm - The next workshop, which will be focused and land use and transit, is scheduled for sometime in late January. That will be important simply because it will introduce something that hasn't really been discussed (even during this workshop), phasing. Consider the timeline for all of the construction work being projected to this point:

• 2011-13 - Realignment of Montgomery/Autumn Streets to Autumn Parkway.
  
• 2011-14 - Ballpark is constructed, plus Caltrain electrification.
• 2015-20 - High speed rail, including expanded Diridon Station.
  
• 2020-25 - Downtown segment of BART extension.
  

That's a really lengthy development time, plenty to get different objectives accomplished but also difficult to understand the timing of various pieces. How long will much of the immediate area be gigantic holes in the ground? Does the city work on the greenscape first or parking infrastructure? Can they be done simultaneously? Of course, there's the lingering question of how much parking should go there, which didn't get addressed at the workshop. There will be plenty of battles about how much housing if any should be there, alternatives to a ballpark, public art, and ways to better connect the station area to downtown. Everyone's playing nice now, but several garden-variety development battles are promised - and that's even after the long-awaited ballpark EIR is certified.

Cutting through the B.S.

The Merc's Tracy Seipel has a new article featuring quotes from economists questioning some of the projections in the San Jose Economic Impact Report. Here's one of the better takeaways from the article:

But experts who study the economics of ballparks reviewed the numbers for the Mercury News and raised plenty of concerns. Chief among them: The cost for the city land the ballpark would be built upon is significant, they said. With three more parcels to buy, acquiring the land for the stadium over the years could amount to at least $42 million, according to a Mercury News analysis.

"You can't come out saying that this doesn't have a cost if all we're supplying them (the A's) is the land," said Victor Matheson, associate professor of economics at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass. "The land is very valuable real estate."

Rather than be redundant, I'm reposting the "Cutting through the B.S." entry from last week, which covers much of the same ground.

---

First, I'll start off with some context on the report. The media has published several figures that sound good, but further understanding is in order.

• $130 million per year in direct spending in San Jose. This is based on what's called a "stabilized" year, which for the purposes of the report is 2018. This acknowledges that much of the newness of the ballpark will wear off over time, allowing attendance to settle just under 2 million/year (24,300/game). This breaks down to $82.8 million of spending in the ballpark, $40.5 million outside the ballpark, $1.8 million by the various visiting teams, and $5.2 million for non-MLB events. There are some odd ratios used to get to these totals. For instance, the study assumes that 10% of players will live in San Jose, and that 10% will spend 50% of their income in the city. What? The other 90% will live outside San Jose and will spend only 5% of their income in the city. All-in-all, some 5.1 million (7%) will be spent within the city. Another $50 million would come from spending directly related to ballpark and team operations. Compare the $130 million figure to projections for the 49ers stadium, which were $72 million and $160 million for the City and County, respectively. I'm skeptical about these numbers, but CSLI claims they're based on information from MLB teams, other sports franchises, and surveys. There must be some correlation, but the numbers described within the text don't always match up with what's in the tables.
  
• Nearly 1000 jobs will be created outside of construction. Granted, moving team operations from Oakland to San Jose will net dozens, if not hundreds of new jobs. From a greater regional standpoint, it's really just displacement. Moreover, there will be displacement of the low-paying jobs. Many of the Aramark-sourced vendors in Oakland will lose a seasonal baseball gig, while Aramark-sourced vendors in San Jose will gain one. For years many of these vendors have worked multiple venues to help make ends meet, which makes sense since we have the luxury of having six local pro sports teams combining to cover the entire calendar year. And if the 49ers and/or Raiders move to Santa Clara, there will be even more displacement. Many vendors won't be willing to travel 40 miles to work food or janitorial service. So it's great for South Bay workers, terrible for East Bay workers. Not that I needed to explain that in great detail.
  
• Per capita spending. The study separates fans into different groups in order to properly establish their spending patterns. For A's games, in-ballpark spending is projected to be $49 per person per game. That sounds high until you break it down into its components: $30 for a ticket, $15 for food and beverage ($6 nachos + $7 beer + $3 dessert = $16), $3 merchandise (part of more expensive item spread out over multiple visits), $1 parking (3 people per car, 30% of fans using available parking). The Coliseum's 2009 Fan Cost Index is $46.81 per person per game, and that includes a child discount on tickets. Many fans (including myself) go quite cheap by finding free parking, or by bringing in outside food. Still, I pay $13 for a bleacher seat, $7.20 roundtrip from Fremont BART to the Coliseum, $3 in gas, plus $7 for a large sandwich and drink from somewhere else. It adds up.
• That hint. In the afternoon post, I mentioned there was a hint at the deal. In the general fund revenue section is this sentence, "Under the Ballpark Development Scenario, the hard
  construction costs of the stadium are used as a proxy for the assessed value." Assuming there are no appraisal shenanigans like the kind the Giants pulled in SF, the figure points to an assessment of the ballpark only, which means that the land will remain City property while the A's will lease it for the stadium. In other words, it's a repeat of the Giants' land deal.
  

What you, gentle reader, want to know is: Are these realistic numbers? The strange breakdown of player spending and the projections of property tax pass throughs to school districts are specious. Other numbers appear to be realistic, in some cases conservative. The study projects $1.5 million in tax revenue. It's not high, and there's a good reference point in HP Pavilion. Sharks games produce between $1.2 and $2 million per year in taxes with fewer games and less overall attendance (though greater ticket prices). That said, $1.5 million is a drop in the bucket for a city of 1 million people. Claims of making money from the deal are key for Mayor Chuck Reed, as he wants to uphold his fiscal conservative credentials. Given the litany of bad stadium deals listed in the last appendix in the report, it would be a great victory if the project were simply revenue neutral. Not sexy, but a little more realistic.

Media coverage of the economic impact report and reactions:
The money: Wolff connects the dots @ Bloomberg, talks T-rights @ Forbes
The lede @ the Merc and SFGate
The tube: KTVU and KGO stories

Can San Jose meet the demand?

Tonight's contribution comes from frequent commenter gojohn, who in a previous thread had some thoughts on the future makeup of a San Jose A's fanbase. I told him that it looked like he needed some room to flesh out the concept, so I gave him this post to do it. I'll add my own thoughts at the end of the post.

---

Thanks to Marine Layer for allowing me to do this guest post. Half of it was written while sporting my 1929 A’s hat at the game today. I didn’t want to be “that guy” with a laptop at the game, but I figured I was exempt since I was writing about the A’s. I was stuck in the Stomper Fun Zone most of the game anyway.

When I was looking over the San Jose Economic Impact Report the table below stood out to me. 

I was a bit surprised to see it estimated that 50% of the ballpark attendees would be coming from San Jose. So, I attempted to come up with my own number based upon the only data that I know of that is publically available. That would be the table below from the Fremont Economic Impact Report.

This table breaks down the advance ticket sales by county for the 2005 Oakland Athletics season. Ticket sales per county should vary mainly based on the population of that county and its distance from the Oakland Coliseum. Below is scatter plot of the % county population attending games by the distance of each county from the ballpark (I assumed only one game a person. Obviously not right, but I made that assumption for all counties so it shouldn’t affect the slope of the line).

Allow me to make a few observations from this graph before moving forward. First, Napa County loves the A’s. Those fans take the long haul to the park in numbers that far exceed expectations. If the A’s move south, Napa County might be the biggest losers. Second, Alameda County attendance is slightly above expected, but Santa Clara County is a bit lagging. Doesn’t really fit with the notion that the South Bay is deserving of a new ballpark more than Alameda County because the former will support the team more. Maybe they’re better Giants fans? Obviously, there are many issues unrelated to attendance alone that factor into the decision to move the team South, and the purpose of this post isn’t to reignite the Oakland vs. San Jose debate. I’m just sayin’, if you are going to talk the talk…

To estimate how the placement of the ballpark in San Jose might affect the relative attendance values from surrounding counties, I took the trendline formula from the scatter plot above and plugged in the distance of the counties from Diridon (I’m not a statistician, but I believe this is regression analysis). Using that formula, a Diridon ballpark would result in 433K less fans per year than the Coliseum, demonstrating that having a centrally located ballpark does have a significant positive affect on attendance. Keep in mind, this assumes no increase in fan interest from the 2005 values, it is only taking the ballpark from one location and putting it in another. I had to increase the y-intercept value (aka: the fan interest index) 34% to get an attendance value equal to the Coliseum numbers. In other words, a San Jose ballpark may indeed generate more interest than an Oakland one, but the interest needs to be ~34% higher to make up for the asymmetrical location of the ballpark in the Bay Area.

The graph below shows the percentage each county would be expected to contribute to Diridon ballpark attendance. To the right of the pie graph is a bar graph that breaks down each individual city in Santa Clara County.

The 18.6% value from “other California or out of state” is taken directly from the 2005 values in Oakland. Alameda County attendees would be expected to drop by ~160K fans, while Santa Clara county would be up 570K. Of note is San Jose, which I project to consist of only about a quarter of all ballpark attendees (470K fans/year). My number is half of the estimate stated in the San Jose economic report. I can’t quite reconcile how the two values are so far off. Perhaps the report relied more on figures from Sharks games and other MLB venues. Maybe they don’t think the relationship between attendance and distance from the ballpark is linear. It’s even possible they fudged a bit. It’s tough to say without knowing their method and having access to the numbers they do. I can only say my numbers seem reasonable and that’s good enough for me.

I would think that my numbers are much more encouraging to a future ballpark in San Jose than those outlined in the report. One million fans from San Jose may be difficult to achieve. However, since I think it is unlikely the report would want to come up with estimates that would suggest a ballpark is not feasible in San Jose, I can only assume they believe 1 million fans from San Jose is reasonable. Perhaps it would be driven by a huge influx of local corporate ticket sales. If 1 million fans truly end up coming from San Jose alone, based on my estimates, the Diridon ballpark is going to be a huge success. I realize I’m beating a dead horse here, but if I’m right I hope the demand for tickets will justify adding more seats to the venue sooner rather than later.

---

Ed.: My only criticism is of gojohn's acceptance of the 2005 distribution as a transferable system. The layout and population distribution of the Bay Area makes that difficult, just as it's hard for a newcomer to the area to understand our microclimates. A truly thorough analysis (which to his credit gojohn clearly says he is not doing) would go into at least city-based figures and at best ZIP code level granularity. To understand this complexity, I went to the USGS to get a recent Bay Area population density map (PDF map from 2000). I then overlaid 20-mile radius circles around the three locales: AT&T Park (orange), the Coliseum (yellow), and Diridon South (blue). Click on the map for a larger (1.5 MB) version.

Both the orange and yellow circles represent approximately 4 million residents. Within the blue circle there are 2 million residents. The overlap of the orange and yellow circles makes product centrally located within the Bay Area, yet also inefficient in its availability. Of the blue circle's 2 million residents, half are in San Jose. That's probably where the 50% comes from. That doesn't necessarily mean 50% of game attendees will naturally come from San Jose. I expect a lower percentage due to higher ticket prices and the greater affluence of nearby communities and likely higher corporate patronage, much of which is not in San Jose proper.

Note: I neglected to mention where the 20-mile radius came from. I had previously seen a presentation showing that the vast majority of ticket buyers for a future ballpark will come from within a 18-20 mile radius. The current Coliseum location defies this convention thanks in large part to BART.

Developers wooing A's away from Phoenix

That's Phoenix, as in Municipal Stadium, not Oakland. In January I wrote about the A's discussing renovations to Muni with City officials. Apparently the officials couldn't wrap their brains around the radical concept - team pays for it up front, gets reimbursed or compensated later - so that went nowhere.

Hopefully this time Phoenix and Mayor Phil Gordon are more open to the idea now that local developers want to lure the A's from Muni/Papago Park to a newly built complex on the Salt River Reservation. The reservation is only a few miles to the east, sandwiched between Scottsdale and Mesa. It's a well-integrated part of the community despite its sovereign status, as Scottsdale Community College sits on reservation land. The two Tucson-based teams, the Diamondbacks and Rockies, are already set to move to the reservation following the 2011 season.

"The Oakland A's aren't moving," Gordon said. "Mr. Wolff is a man of his word, and he isn't going to be playing city against city or nation against city."

Mayor Gordon touts his good relationship with Lew Wolff, and I have no reason to doubt that. Still, interest from a private party may have been just the ticket to get Phoenix to the table. Not only would it be a shame if the A's left Phoenix, it would suck if there were no spring training games played at Muni, which remains a venerable yet casual baseball-only institution in the Valley of the Sun.

Oakland Metro Chamber seeks letters of support

Picked this up from V Smoothe @ SFGate's in Oakland blog.

The Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce is distributing a letter to member businesses, imploring them to show their support for "a new, state-of-the-art, transit-friendly ballpark
within its currently defined MLB territory" by signing the letter and sending it back to the Chamber. The Chamber will then package the letters as part of a presentation that will be sent to MLB at the end of the month.

[PUT YOUR COMPANY LETTERHEAD OR LOGO HERE]

September __, 2009

[Read & delete: DO NOT send this to Bud Selig directly. Return all letters to the Oakland Chamber of Commerce! We will forward them all as part of Oakland’s PROPOSAL to Major League Baseball. Thank you!]

Mr. Bud Selig
Commissioner
Major League Baseball
12 E 49th St # 24
New York, NY 10017

Re: Support for a New Baseball Park in Oakland for the A’s

Dear Commissioner Selig:
It is my understanding that Major League Baseball (MLB) has appointed a three-person committee to evaluate the options for the development of a new, world-class ballpark for the Oakland Athletics. As part of the MLB analysis, I understand that the appointed, three-member MLB committee will review the level of support in the business community for the Oakland A’s, including specific interest in luxury suites,
season tickets and other forms of corporate support.

As a member of the business community that operates within the A’s territory, I am pleased to inform MLB that should the A’s succeed in moving forward on a new, state-of-the-art, transit-friendly ballpark within its currently defined MLB territory, [INSERT BUSINESS NAME HERE] would be interested in supporting the A’s, including pursuing the rights to a luxury suite and/or a package of season tickets
subject to a more formal evaluation based on ticket price and availability.

We strongly support the City of Oakland’s efforts to retain the Oakland A’s. As you are aware, since making Oakland its home in the late 1960s, the A’s have won four World Championships, bringing pride to our community. We are proud to offer our support for the retention of this historic organization.

The Oakland A’s represent one of America’s great urban franchises, which in years past enjoyed strong support from the region’s business community – and will enjoy strong support going forward should the franchise make a real commitment to Oakland.

In prior years, the Oakland A’s had strong attendance and business community support. From 1982 – 2004, average annual home attendance (excluding the strike year of 1994) was over 1.87 million.

American League average home attendance during the same period was 2.1 million. In recent years, notwithstanding the recent economic challenges confronting the entire country, the East Bay region (Contra Costa and Alameda Counties) has continued to grow and represents an economically robust and vibrant region. Oakland and neighboring Emeryville have a thriving economic base, including serving as the headquarters for major corporations such as Kaiser Permanente, Clorox, Cost Plus, Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Waste Management, Ask.com, Pixar Studios and Novartis. The University of California system, the world’s finest public university system, is also headquartered in Oakland. The Port of Oakland, already one of the country’s largest, is moving forward with a significant expansion further contributing to regional economic prosperity. The Tri Valley area extending east of Oakland and home to such corporations as Chevron, Safeway, Ross Stores, Sybase, and Polycom, is one of the fastest growing regions in the United States, and represents an untapped opportunity for the Oakland’s A’s.

We look forward to the committee completing its work and, hopefully, attending games in a new world-class, baseball-only ballpark in the City of Oakland.

Sincerely,

I wonder if a ballpark at NUMMI/Warm Springs would've elicited this kind of effort. That site fit the "a new, state-of-the-art, transit-friendly ballpark within its currently defined MLB territory" criteria, didn't it?

Ever the realist, V Smoothe also reflects on Lew Wolff's quotes in yesterday's Bloomberg article:

The most delusional Oakland partisans will surely find a way to spin these lines, just like they have with all similarly unambiguous statements, as part of an elaborate scheme from a shrewd businessman to get some great deal out of Oakland, while the moderately more rational ones will continue to insist that Major League Baseball and territory rights will come to their rescue. But for those not blinded by love and hope, it's pretty hard to deny that it's looking increasingly clear that the best option for everyone involved (except, of course, Oakland) is for the team to move down south, and it's really only a matter of time before that's final.

Can't say I have much more to add to this.

FAQ/Talking Points

While everyone's focused on the economic impact report (and rightly so), the City of San Jose managed to slip in one other document under the radar. This one's a Frequently Asked Questions (PDF) document, which seems to be timed specifically to provide ballpark proponents two new weapons for their arsenal. You can download the document from the provided link, or simply read on for the whole shebang.

Potential Ballpark
Frequently Asked Questions
1. How will the City of San Jose and the South Bay benefit economically from having a ballpark?
People throughout San Jose will benefit from the $2.9 billion in economic output from the Ballpark.
Employees will benefit from thousands of new job opportunities created by the construction and operation of the Ballpark.
Residents will benefit from City services supported by the additional $1.5 million a year in General Fund revenues from the Ballpark.
Local business will benefit form the $130 million annual economic output driven by spending from new visitors to downtown, and the spending of the team itself for their business operations and service providers for the operation of the ballpark itself.
The entire local economy will benefit from the stimulus of new spending and investment during a time of global economic downturn.
2. How many new jobs will the project create?
The Ballpark would generate almost 1,000 new jobs a year, once in operation, on top of some 350 new construction jobs in San Jose for each of three years. These jobs include full, part time, and seasonal positions.
3. Who is paying for the new ballpark? How much will the ballpark cost the public?
The Major League Baseball team to be responsible for the cost of constructing and operating the ballpark facility.
4. Is there a plan to deal with the increase traffic and noise?
The Mayor and City Council have directed the initiation of a community engagement process and the formation of a Good Neighbor Committee for the Diridon Station Area (the area around the ballpark site). The purpose of this committee is to provide a forum to work collaboratively in addressing the issues and opportunities that arise from proposed projects in the Diridon Area, including a Major League Baseball ballpark.
5. Why was the Diridon site chosen as a potential ballpark site? Why not another (existing) site?
The site was chosen because it is the only identified site in downtown San Jose that is large enough for a Major League Baseball facility that is readily accessible by freeways and major public transportation facilities including Caltrain, VTA bus and light rail.
Access to the project will be further enhanced with the planned BART and High Speed Rail connections at Diridon Station. With the addition of BART and High Speed Rail to Diridon Station the site represents one of the best development sites in the entire Bay Area.
6. What is the timeline for the project?
There are many milestones to accomplished for a project like the baseball stadium to constructed and opened. The first step is for Major League Baseball to come to a conclusion on territorial rights. Pending a favorable conclusion, a vote by the citizens of San Jose will be necessary. It is anticipated that this will be necessary. It is anticipated that this will occur in 2010. If all goes well, the earliest a ballpark would open is Spring 2014.

SJ Economic Impact Report

I'll get into the nitty gritty later tonight. For now I'll make a few observations on the new Economic Impact Report:

1. The firm used for this version, Conventions Sports & Leisure, is the same one used by the City of Santa Clara for their 49ers stadium study. I will be looking carefully for unrealistic projections.

2. Cost of the 32,000-seat ballpark is projected to be $461 million in 2009 dollars, $489 million in 2011 dollars. Ballpark would open in 2014.

3. The City's projected impact is ~$1.5 million in additional general fund revenue, net of increased city service costs ($45k). The A's would pay for all gameday police, emergency and traffic expenses.

4. Projected 2.1 million in attendance plus 3 non-baseball events.

5. 50% of attendees would not be from
San Jose and would be coming in solely for an A's game.

6. Jobs - 350 during construction period, 980 net new jobs including 138 ballpark-specific jobs. I'll get into why I'm skeptical about this later.

7. There are hints about what kind of deal could be struck within the numbers. Think property taxes.

8. An alternative development scenario projects just over 1 million new s.f. In office space. It could produce nearly 3x the number of post-construction jobs but yield $300k less tax revenue annually. The difference here is that completion of the construction would occur some 20 years after a ballpark due to commercial market conditions.

9. Yes, there is a section devoted to indirect impacts, which I will largely ignore.

10. This is the first official analysis from the City which refers to the A's by name (88 instances).

Oklnd.com

Might as well post this before someone puts it in a comment.

A new site, oklnd.com, is selling baseball-style shirts with traditional Oakland A's colors, but sans the "A's." Part sociopolitical statement, part middle finger to management and baseball. Some will say it's clever, some will say it's pointless. To me it looks like a rip-off of CSN California's ad campaign.

The site is run by SF-based Typebox, LLC. Typebox is fronted by Mike Kohnke, who is "best known for his innovative type designs." (see Wikipedia page and history)

On a tangentially related note, I'm reminded of Oklahoma City sportstalk host Jim Traber, who grilled (MP3) OKC Thunder power forward Nick Collison for saying how nice the weather was in Collison's offseason (and former in-season) home of Seattle.

Howard Terminal Revisited

Everyone likes trains, right?

This short video was shot yesterday afternoon between Jack London Square and Howard Terminal. There's no better illustration of the impact of trains through the area. They are the lifeblood of the port's operations and an important conduit for commuters on Capitol Corridor. Should a ballpark be planned for Howard Terminal, multiple pedestrian bridges will have to be built to span The Embarcadero in order to ensure fan safety. However, that's not the only issue.

The sign above is your typical underground pipeline warning sign. Many pipelines are found alongside railroad tracks since both are meant to go long distances. In this case, the pipeline has a much more local purpose - the Oakland Power Plant.

The tank in the upper left of this picture doesn't hold water. It holds oil for the plant. Nasty, potentially flammable stuff. The plant itself is not operational 24/7, it's meant to provide peak-demand power when needed. Oakland Power Plant spans 3 blocks and is owned by Houston-based Dynegy, along with the plant in Moss Landing.

The CA Public Utilities Commission and the Port of Oakland have occasionally gotten into skirmishes about the plant. There's no denying the importance of a piece of power infrastructure like this, but the Port has resisted attempts by past owners to expand the plant. An audit performed two years ago (warning: PDF) by the CPUC revealed instances of lax training and emergency preparedness, though nothing was deemed dangerous within the scope of the plant's operation.

I've been told that with Matson's long-term deal with the Port, it's nearly impossible to relocate them. The City has been mum on a specific site in the area, but given the circumstances it may be better to focus on other land nearby. Which is too bad, imagine the building below as part of a majestic concrete/masonry ballpark façade. (It's part of the power plant.)

So where to focus? The best place may be the area north of Howard Terminal and the power plant, bounded by the BART tracks/5th Ave on the north, MLK to the east, 2nd St to the south, and Market/Brush Sts to the west.

No, it's not on the waterfront. It does have a nice view of Downtown Oakland. It's also a shorter distance to the 12th St BART station, just over 1/2 mile as opposed to 3/4 mile from the station to Howard Terminal. Admittedly, it would be strange to have BART running right past the place even though there wouldn't necessarily be a co-located station. Fortunately, there is some vacant land that would be perfect for station portals if all parties could get it together. Just as important, it's a shorter stumble to-and-from The Trappist.

Most importantly, land deals would be done with individual private landowners, not the Port. Port land is really City land, but that doesn't make it any easier to do a deal given the politics involved. We're talking about 5-6 blocks, the same amount as Diridon South.

Is this doable? I have no idea. I'm just as in-the-dark about actual proposals emanating from Oakland as many of you.

BART to Warm Springs construction to begin

After securing a bid 45% lower than originally estimated, the tunnel portion of Warm Springs extension has been given the go-ahead by BART. The tunnel will extend southeast from the existing Fremont BART station, underneath man-made Lake Elizabeth, before turning south to occupy the former Western Pacific rail right-of-way. The only station to be built is Warm Springs, which will also be the future southern terminus until construction on the extension to San Jose/Silicon Valley begins. Another station in the Irvington district is currently unfunded. The complete estimated cost for the 5.4-mile extension is $890 million.

It's odd that one of the reasons for building the Warm Springs station at the planned location, NUMMI, will probably not be around for the opening in 2014. It's also likely that nothing will have replaced the auto plant by the time the station opens. Lew Wolff has rejected any idea of revisiting Fremont for the time being.

Recap of walking tour

This was the second walking tour put on by the City. Leading the way was SJRA's Kip Harkness, along with several others from the City. The walk started out inside the station depot, where we were informed that the tour would take an hour. Bottled water was graciously provided (your tax dollars at work).

We quickly moved outside in front of the station, where Harkness explained the expanded station vision. The "Grand Central" concept was brought up, though any expansion would be done within the context of preserving the existing depot. As shown in previous materials, the expansion will provide connections to future HSR and BART, along with additional space for other uses. BART will run underground, while HSR could run either underground or above ground. One attendee asked if HSR could run under the ballpark. Harkness replied that it might be possible, but dealing with the area water table could prove difficult, especially if the ballpark were sunken - as it is in some conceptual drawings. He cited an example in The 88, a recently opened high-rise residential tower located downtown. Three floors of underground parking were in the plans, but construction crews struck water only 1.5 stories down, forcing a major pumping/rework effort. 20 million riders are expected to go through the expanded Diridon Station per year. Like most, I'm skeptical of the figures.

Next topic was the area plan. The various agencies whose projects will impact the area have been in contact and are contributing towards the plan. There is a window in which the area will be torn to shreds in order to accommodate the BART cut-and-cover operation, new foundation work for midrise (up to 130' tall) buildings, and the Autumn Parkway construction project. Guidelines will be part of the updated Diridon Area Specific Plan, from building heights to setbacks to streetscapes. Parking is the big unknown, since it's going to take some time to properly formulate the right mix of short and long-term parking.

Then we walked past some of the property recently bought by SJRA along W. San Fernando St. The only building not empty was Patty's Inn, which has a lease through 2011 (hint-hint?). A rep from Parks talked about the Los Gatos Creek Trail. It looks like the City is getting ready to buy the land on the western bank to build the trail. The fire training site south of the ballpark will not be used for a parking garage, as was drawn up in the original EIR. Housing has designs on the land, but that use is not politically feasible given the amount of neighborhood uproar it would cause.

In order to make the new Autumn Parkway streetscape the way it's being envisioned, the City may ask the state to relinquish the State Highway designation (CA-82) for Autumn and Montgomery Streets. Since those streets are state highways, they are subject to state design and maintenance rules, which would either have to be eased or modified to accommodate the changes the City wants to enact. The same goes for The Alameda, which area residents have long wanted to transform into a pedestrian-friendly, tree-lined boulevard.

Next up were the old KNTV studios (acquired) and the AT&T site (not acquired). There was talk of preservation of some kind. There could be some reuse of materials or façades if possible. I would at least expect some monuments to commemorate the historic value of the sites.

The PG&E substation situation proved interesting. The City and PG&E acknowledge that the existing layout is not exactly space efficient, so they are looking at ways to reconfigure the site in a more compact manner. It seems more likely that reconfiguration will occur than a substation move, partly due to lower cost, partly because a 32,000-seat ballpark may not require a substation move.

We then hoofed it back to Diridon Station, under the tracks and out to Cahill Park, which is west of the station. Mostly this was to show how good, community-driven TOD can be built. Keep in mind that there's a good chance that zero housing will be built in the planned area. Finally, we congregated on the Alameda, across the street from the site of the always six months away Whole Foods site. Not much to say about that. I asked about the state of the revised ballpark EIR. Harkness said that it's still in process and that no date has been set for its release, though 60 days is a pretty good guess. Those who want to be notified should head over to SJRA's ballpark page to get on the mailing list.

Questions? Fire away, and try to keep it on topic.

Upcoming San Jose calendar

A bunch of planning/ballpark-related activity is on tap for the next month+ in San Jose, including tonight's Diridon site walking tour. The full list:

• Wednesday, August 19, 6 PM: Walking tour of development area at Diridon Station.
• Saturday, September 12, 9 AM-12 PM @ Parkside Hall, Room B (180 Park Ave., next to the Tech Museum). Meeting notice (PDF).
• Thursday, September 24, 6 PM @ TBD. Good Neighbor Committee Meeting. Tentative agenda items include A) Major League Baseball 101, B) Proposed Major League Ballpark Economic Impact Analysis
  

I'll report back from the walking tour later tonight. I may even test out the blog's new Twitter account while on the tour (@newballpark).

Wolff backs off 2012 Quakes opening

The Merc's Elliott Almond interviewed Lew Wolff on the state of the Quakes stadium effort, and the news was not good. According to Wolff, the problem is sponsorship revenues.

"You can't do it out of magic," Wolff said. "There's no sense building a stadium unless you have some flow of revenue."

The club, Wolff said, needs about $5 million a year in sponsorship for a 15,000-seat, no-frills stadium. It has secured 20 percent of that so far.

"We're trying to get to the edge of the diving board," he said. "Before jumping into a pool we want to make sure there is water in it."

When Lew and I spoke earlier in the spring, we spent a little time discussing the Quakes project. Unfortunately, he said many of the same things at that point, which makes it dismaying to know that things haven't improved. We are in a recession/depression/what-have-you, so it's difficult to see that light at the end of the tunnel.

The problem doesn't appear to be the naming rights sponsor. It's more of a problem with the smaller sponsors whose ads appear on rotating and fixed signage throughout the stadium. MLS and the Quakes aren't blessed with rich TV and radio deals, so every bit of sponsorship revenue, right down to the jerseys, is important. Wolff mentioned an unusual financing angle that involved partnering with local building trade unions so that they could get their skin in the game on something they were building. That idea went nowhere.

What makes it worse is that some of the teams who would normally provide some competition locally for sponsor revenue aren't even around. The SaberCats aren't playing this year and may not play for a while, if at all. The Stealth indoor lacrosse team bolted for Seattle. A new women's soccer team, FC Gold Pride, sort of competes with the Quakes but also co-exists somewhat symbiotically.

While the six major sports teams (A's, Giants, Raiders, 49ers, Warriors, Sharks) are reasonably healthy despite the state of the economy, an on-again, off-again team like the Quakes will naturally have difficulty attracting sponsors even if they're located in the rich Silicon Valley. Unveiling drawings of the new stadium, which to date have been a closely guarded secret, should help sell the concept. Really, it comes down to the venue. Seattle and Toronto are cited as new success stories, and both are buoyed by pent-up demand while playing in sparkling new facilities. The Quakes play at the jury-rigged albeit cozy Buck Shaw Stadium, convenient but not compelling. It may be that Wolff/Fisher will simply have to place faith in the fans and potential sponsors to come out of the woodwork when a new stadium opens. It's not the most ideal position to be in, that's for certain.

Phew

Cooler heads seemingly have prevailed as BART and its unions came to a tentative agreement on a four-year CBA. It's important to note that the agreement is indeed tentative as rank-and-file members have yet to vote on the deal later this week.

Hopefully a done deal will make the following table little more than trivial:

Not pretty, is it? It's actually a simplified version of something I was working on in case of a BART strike. As I started looking at train, rail, and ferry schedules provided by various transit agencies, palpable dread came over me. Not only would it be inconvenient and time-consuming to even attempt to use many of the alternatives listed above, some like Capitol Corridor are a good deal more expensive.

When we talk about transit to the Coliseum, bus service is never mentioned. Ever wonder why that is? Maybe it's because buses don't have as varnished an image as rail. Maybe it's because of a bus's lack of perceived permanence. From looking at AC Transit's maps and schedules, it may largely be a routing issue.

AC Transit has a series of backbone lines, 72/1/99. Line 72 runs from Richmond to Downtown Oakland, #1 from Downtown Oakland to Bay Fair, #99 from Bay Fair to Fremont. These lines make fairly long distance trips possible without numerous transfers, while routing in many cases within a few blocks of a BART station. However, one major exception is Line 1, which runs along International Blvd/E. 14th for most of its route. In doing this, it makes its closest stop to the Coliseum Complex nearly 3/4 mile away. Local loop buses have to provide feeder service. Not exactly convenient. While it makes more sense for local residents since the current routing serves more of the local population, it doesn't make things easier for event goers.

Amazingly, it seems to be easier if you're coming from San Francisco. That alternative to BART includes one transfer. The trip would take 75 minutes, but at least it's straightforward. I looked for a clean ferry-based route but it didn't exist. The Oakland and Alameda Ferry Terminals don't link directly to buses that run near the Coliseum, forcing additional transfers or a lengthy walk to Downtown. Alameda's Harbor Bay Ferry looks like a good route since it actually connects to a bus (Line 50) that runs to the Coliseum. Unfortunately the ferry itself only runs during weekday commute hours, making it incompatible with baseball crowds.

It stands to reason that the major value propositions for affected fans either would be to choose to drive or simply not attend because of heavier traffic, estimated to be at least 30 minutes in additional travel time when going to the game. Still, I wanted to put this post up to show how bad the backup system is. Of course, if you chose to drive during a BART strike, you might feel perfectly entitled to park at the Coliseum BART parking lot, since there wouldn't be BART users parked there. Then again, many already park there without needing an excuse...

California Redwoods. WTF?!?!?!?!

It's a bad sign for the UFL when none of the Bay Area daily papers had a story from Tuesday's unveiling of the San Francisco California franchise team name and colors. Just as well, though, since they would have been blinded by this:

SF Weekly's Joe Eskenazi was brave enough to potentially harm his own lenses and a digital SLR's, all of which apparently came away unscathed. The color combo is indescribably awful, except to say that it looks like Paul Pelosi consulted with Proctor & Gamble's laundry detergent department to hone in on that special mix of hues. You can even now download a uniform guidelines doc (PDF) showing exactly which Pantone colors you'll need to match if you want to make your own custom Femi Ayanbadejo jersey.

BTW the team will be called the California Redwoods. According to NBC Bay Area's late sports report, home games will be played at AT&T Park. Previously, it was expected that games would be split between SF and Sacramento. Why else would they use the California moniker? The Las Vegas team also claims the Los Angeles market, which means that some home games will be played at Home Depot Center. Whatever the reasoning behind all of this, tickets go on sale later today at 10 AM. I won't be scrambling to get tickets, but I am curious enough to attend a game at some point if they actually start playing.

Blue blocker sunglasses are a necessity, though maybe not at the inaugural home game, which is scheduled for the night of October 17 (yes, that October 17), I suppose, to avoid potential conflicts with the Giants' postseason schedule.

Verizon Coliseum?

Matier and Ross report that telecom giant Verizon may be in talks with the Coliseum Authority to do a short term naming rights deal at the stadium. It would be a "five-year, multimillion-dollar deal." Yes, we had just gotten used to one season as the rightfully named Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, but the City of Oakland and Alameda County both need the cash badly, so I'm not against it one bit.

Color me surprised that a deal is being done, considering the states of the tenant franchises. It is a short deal which may point to positive talks between the Authority and the Raiders, whose lease ends after the 2010 season.

Ready for yet another corporate name that won't stick? As fans, we complain about abrupt name changes and the concept of naming rights in general. However, the corporate entities don't really care that much about whether or not we use the names. They care about media exposure, and that's what naming rights provide. It'll be interesting to see what Verizon does strategically. It already has a major high profile venue in Verizon Center arena in DC, plus a strong regional presence in the Northeast with Verizon Wireless Arena, a smaller venue in New Hampshire.

It's not a bad idea as Verizon may want to counter AT&T, which was rumored as the naming rights partner for the new Cowboys Stadium before the economy went into the tank. Verizon's only major presence in the Bay Area is as a wireless carrier, as AT&T is the predominant carrier for land-based services. Verizon may also work in an early termination clause (as McAfee did), which they could employ if one or more of the Coliseum tenants leave before the end of the deal.

Don't tase me bro!

Why is it that stuff always happens during a Rangers series? A man with a long white beard (who apparently was a Rangers fan) was a bit too animated during last night's game and was tased for his attitude.

Just as told by Rob Riggle's officer in The Hangover, the big boys need two shots - whether they are Santa or Fat Jesus.

Root beer float day tomorrow!

Update: Original embedded video was replaced with a new one.

49ers Draft EIR released

The Merc's Mike Swift has a brief summary of the report, just released by the City of Santa Clara. Matier and Ross add a bit of snark. I'm going to spend the weekend poring over the details, so don't expect much until Monday. Links to the report and related appendices can be found at the City's DEIR page.

A note about discussing the EIR: Please refrain from commenting on the press reports, which are very limited right now. Start by reading the Summary section of the report, which runs 20 pages. From there you can tackle specific topics however you please.

Trains and baseball in the 'burbs

Over at Inhabitat, there are fresh images from HOK and Parsons Brinkerhoff showing what a new multimodal rail station at Anaheim would look like. The planned site is about halfway between Angel Stadium (in the background) and Honda Center (off screen and to the right).

It wouldn't be a bad idea for the Diridon Station design team and the A's ballpark design team to swap images, as it would help the public visualize the possibilities within the area. In Anaheim, they aren't reusing an existing historic station as would happen in San Jose. Instead, a new, modern structure that looks like a huge blimp hangar would be used. It's all part of a plan to do a great deal of infill development in the "Platinum Triangle" area of Anaheim.

Speaking of planning, San Jose's third Good Neighbor committee session started a couple of hours ago. I haven't attended any of the sessions, though I plan to be at one of the last two, which will be held on the following dates:

Good Neighbor 
Committee Meeting #4
Thurs., August 13 at 6 p.m.
City Hall Wing
200 E Santa Clara St

Good Neighbor Committee Meeting #5
Thurs., August 27 at 6 p.m.
City Hall Wing
200 E Santa Clara St

In addition, a Diridon site walking tour is planned for August 19, also at 6 p.m.

If you haven't checked out the San Jose Redevelopment Agency's ballpark website, it has a few items worth viewing. Of chief interest is the planning study handout, which shows just how extensive the broader development area is.

There's also a depiction of the new Autumn Parkway layout, if you're interested.

Trouble at the Trop

If you happened to catch the A's taking a surprising two out of three on the road against the Rays last weekend, you got more than a passing glimpse of Tropicana Field. While the Rays and A's may be on opposite ends of the team development spectrum, their stadium situations are much more similar. The Trop has in the past been accused of being rather library like, allowing The Happy Heckler to hold court in full clarity. (Incidentally, the Happy Heckler may not be so happy anymore due to the real estate downturn.)

While Stuart Sternberg has put some new paint, spit and polish on the Trop, it's still not an ideal venue. He's wanted to move anywhere but the orange dome despite the team being locked into a lease until 2026 (2016 with more favorable buyout terms). Last summer, the focus was on Al Lang Field/Progress Energy Park, a downtown waterfront site. The concept was shelved as the financial specifics couldn't be worked out, especially as the economy started to go into the crapper.

This summer numerous options are being explored by ABC, a group consisting of local business and civic leaders. Multiple sites in St. Petersburg are being considered, and the site search has expanded to include Tampa. An online survey indicates that the leading site is in Downtown Tampa, followed by the Carillon business park site in St. Pete. Within the site study is a breakdown of ticket sales by county. While over half of season ticket sales come from Pinellas County (St. Pete), roughly equivalent numbers (29%) of single game ticket sales originate from both Pinellas and Hillsborough (Tampa) counties.

Local media has largely picked up the financing situation, which is problematic. The outstanding debt ($108 million over the next 17 years) at the Trop is an extra burden that must be carried by St. Pete, the Rays, or both even if a new ballpark is constructed. While dry, the financing presentation provides a good comparison between the financing structure at the Trop and other ballparks and major Florida sports venues. I'll give you a hint: almost all public.

Last, and definitely not least, is a study commissioned by ABC and undertaken by Populous (formerly HOK). The beautiful, 47-page treatise goes into great detail as to what it would take to renovate Tropicana Field to modern standards. To do the job right, which would include building a retractable roof, the cost would be a mind boggling $470 million. One of the appendix documents goes line-by-line into the requirements, which vary greatly in scope. The renovation doesn't need to include all of the prescribed changes, but most would be required. Here's a sobering breakdown:

• Circulation/Concourses: $52.7 million. Similar to the small-scale renovations I wrote about in March for the Coliseum, these improvements would come from ripping out several rows of seats to create more open concourses. The estimate here is twice as much as I projected for the Coliseum work, though this is more extensive.
• Seating Size: $9.5 million. Expansion of row treads from 32 to 33 inches in most cases, from 18 (!) to 33 inches in others.
• Club Lounges: $35.4 million. Construction of three new club areas, at field level behind the plate and along the first and third base mezzanine.
• Press Box relocation: $13.8 million. Following an ongoing trend, the chattering class would be moved from the mezzanine to the back of the upper deck, behind the plate.
• Suites: $21.6 million. Larger (500 s.f.) suites, including 2 levels along the baselines and 3 levels behind the plate.
  
• Natural Light: $99.8 million. No, not kegs of the yellow liquid masquerading as beer at every seat. This would cover improvements to the roof system that would improve light transmission through the roof, along with clerestory windows and other methods to bring in daylight.
  
• Operable Roof: $121.6 million. Your garden variety retractable roof at a newer ballpark (Minute Maid, Safeco, Marlins ballpark), in addition to the "Natural Light" improvements.
  
• Site Amenities: $8.4 million. Redone gates and entry plazas.
  
• Technology: $20.4 million. Sound, networking, closed-circuit video, surveillance. Includes en suite IPTV.
  
• Interior fit-out/Renovation: $17 million. Carpet, floors, finishes.
  
• Concessions Equipment: $13.4 million.
• Signage/Scoreboards/Video: $23.3 million.
• Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing: $33.6 million.
  

So what would it look like?

Looks a lot like Nationals Park.

The best part of the report? In the introduction is a little background about the circumstances that led to the building of the stadium. But while Populous is perfectly fine pointing out all of the modern ballparks it has penned, it in no way acknowledges the simple fact that they designed Tropicana Field!!!!! Yes, it was spec'ed and built before the modern ballpark era. Yes, it was meant to be multi-purpose. Still, no acknowledgement at all? Come on, now.

The upshot indicates that $470 million spent would still yield a somewhat inferior facility. The conclusion:

Tropicana Field would undoubtedly be a better facility, both in its ability to entertain fans and generate revenue, with an approximately $350-470 million (depending on whether a retractable roof is included) renovation. However, the multipurpose seating bowl geometry, overly narrow seating treads, compromised seating sections, and poor distribution of lower and upper level seats would still yield a ballpark with substantial flaws.

I suspect that a Coliseum renovation appraisal (save for the need for a roof) would be strikingly similar.