SEIR notes and liveblog
I’m at tonight’s Good Neighbor Session. City is just about finished with a presentation, we’ll be getting into the committee’s Q&A shortly. One major observation: Unlike the previous HSR-focused sessions, tonight’s Ballpark EIR-focused session is anything but packed. Plenty of empty seats, and I recognize a few supporters and opponents. Notes to follow.
Clipped from the SEIR:
6. Project Construction and Schedule
If a City-sponsored ballot initiative were to be approved in November 2010, site preparation, infrastructure development, road abandonment and relocation would begin in the spring of 2011. Opening day would be in April 2014 or later.
To date 8 of 16 properties are owned by, and the remaining properties are in discussions with, the San José Redevelopment Agency.
A recent economic analysis estimated that the modified project would generate 980 full- or part-time and seasonal jobs in a stabilized year of operations as compared to the previously estimated 1,500 to 1,800 jobs that would be generated by the 2006 Stadium Proposal.
Relocation of the substation south to the existing Fire Training Center site has subsequently been determined by PG&E to be infeasible due to cost and flooding issues. Under the modified project the PG&E substation may be reconfigured as previously described in the 2006 Stadium Proposal.
- There is some reduction of impact in changing the size from 45,000 to 32-36,000, but not a significant reduction.
- Noise and freeway traffic would be higher than in the 2007 study, though that’s because of the changes in data gathering.
- The study cites the Submerged Stadium alternative as the least environmentally impactful option:
As noted in the certified EIR and the preceding section, the Submerged Stadium alternative would generally represent the next-best alternative in terms of the fewest impacts and it would meet the City’s objectives to the same extent as the 2006 Stadium Proposal and the modified project. The Existing Plan alternative would come close to the Submerged Stadium alternative in terms of the fewer impacts but it would not meet the City’s objectives for the proposed project, which is to develop a Major League Baseball stadium and associated facilities.
The Submerged Stadium alternative would involve the excavation of the site by 24 to 28 feet to submerge the stadium and achieve a consequent reduction in overall height by the same 24 to 28 feet. The (150 space on-site) parking garage, as proposed in 2006, would also be submerged to a similar level. Pedestrian access to the interior of the stadium facilities would vary from the proposed (atgrade) concept, but this alternative assumes that the remainder of the project’s characteristics would not change.
Regarding urban decay:
The study concludes that the relocation of the A’s from Oakland to San Jose and the cessation of use of the Oakland Coliseum as a major league baseball venue would not cause urban decay in the City of Oakland. Specifically, no businesses are likely to close; therefore consideration of the consequences of extended vacancy and of potentials for recycling space are moot.
Back to the session, the committee is discussion public transit and parking. In the SEIR, there is a mention of having parking facilities that are meant for HP Pavilion events when there are simultaneous events, in conjunction with ballpark-specific facilities for A’s fans. I’m interested to see how this would work. Also, there’s a difference between what City estimates for parking and MLB’s estimates. City is going with the Sharks’ pattern of 2.3 persons per vehicle at each event, while MLB typically sees 2.8 persons per vehicle. This may be due to more of the new ballparks being on the East Coast, where public transit is more readily available and parking tends to be more expensive.
36,000-Seat Alternative (35,400 actual with no-shows) Auto 90.5% 32,037 Public Transit 4.5% 1,593 Walk/Bicycle 3.3% 1,168 Charter Bus/Taxi & Limo 1.1% 389 Drop Off/Pick-Up 0.6% 212 Parking Demand 13,929 (2.3 persons/vehicle, MLB anticipates 2.8/veh)
Marc Morris notes that there’s no mention of weekday day games (businessperson specials). Is it because it’s bad news or because it’s out of the question? Parking availability would be significantly less for those games.
Q: Who’s paying for the new parking structure near the ballpark/HP Pavilion?
A (Dennis Korabiak): There will be major revenue from the facility. Knowing that there are options including bonds, partnerships with the Sharks, others.