Not so breaking news
- 11.16.10, 21:48
- 120 Comments
The EIR Notice of Preparation is here. Guidelines for the CEQA (EIR) process can be found here.
The informal selection of Victory Court as the preferred ballpark site has been the worst kept secret in Oakland for several weeks now, and we’ve known about the Planning Commission meeting since last week. So why are the regular media choosing to cover it now (EBX/Trib)? Must be a slow news day.
Still, there are a few takeaways, and credit goes to Robert Gammon in that regard. Mostly, they have to do with Mayor-elect Jean Quan’s view of the project, which is more meaningful than anything any other Oaklander, elected or not, has to say on it.
- MLB’s commission wants a ballpark done for Oakland in time for Opening Day 2015. This is reasonable considering the normal 18-24 month EIR lead time, which could actually go longer because of Oakland’s recent history with large project EIR’s. Given Lew Wolff’s admission that he has been denied further extensions to the Coliseum lease, it leads to wondering about how a gap between the end of the 2013 season and the start of the 2015 season would play out. Is Oakland holding that extra year as leverage with the idea of pushing MLB in its direction? Is MLB entertaining Oakland’s bid in order to secure that extra year or perhaps more if necessary? Beyond those two parties, there are even more interesting questions. If the Raiders secure their own Coliseum stadium deal, won’t that impact an A’s 2014 year in the Coliseum, and vice-versa?
- Quan said she also believes a new ballpark at Victory Court will help businesses in closeby Chinatown and could provide the impetus for a new hotel/convention center. It’s strange that the big unifying development strategy for all of downtown Oakland is a ballpark. It makes sense for a ballpark to be a major attraction, but the linchpin? That doesn’t make sense. However, that’s the direction that Oakland is moving towards with this hole-in-the-donut strategy. What if the ballpark doesn’t pan out? That doesn’t mean that Oakland will be ready to go with Plan B, whatever that is. It’s one thing for corporate interests to help pay for a ballpark. That’s not going to happen with a convention center complex. Those projects are usually 100% public/redevelopment funded. From a purely numbers/potential standpoint, a ballpark makes sense because it’s essentially “free” money and buzz, especially if the financing part can be worked out. Something else in the ballpark’s place could take many more years to get going.
- Quan believes that the only way Major League Baseball would turn down Wolff and Fisher’s request to move the team to San Jose is if the City of Oakland shows that it has a viable plan for a new A’s ballpark and that city leadership is committed to making it happen. If true, this spawns a number of new questions about MLB’s timeframe. Will they set a hard date to complete the EIR and land acquisitions? Will MLB set targets or milestones for the project? What if Oakland doesn’t meet those milestones, or new challenges or opposition shows up? Could MLB create for itself an easy out if things aren’t going well? What constitutes fair or unfair is almost entirely subjective.
- In another Gammon article about Quan, it was noted that as part of Quan’s “Not Don” campaign, a mailer “repeatedly pounded Perata for the Oakland Raiders deal, a financial debacle that will end up costing East Bay taxpayers more than $600 million. At least two mailers, showed a mostly empty Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, with the message: ‘Thanks, Don.’ ” The challenge for Quan is to show that she can more competently get a stadium deal done than Perata. The key to this is transparency at every stage of the process. Since the original four sites in May were whittled to one with no public vetting and at least a few commenters will chime in on 12/1 with their own recommendations, it’ll be fascinating to see how the preferred site and alternatives are handled. Will all buildable sites have to be included in the EIR? What if the EIR actually recommends a different alternative to Victory Court (unlikely but still)? The dagger in the Fremont plan was the abrupt change from Pacific Commons to Warm Springs, with no public input beforehand. In San Jose, the Diridon site was not the frontrunner at the outset and only became the preferred site over time. From a selling the public standpoint, how warm are the citizens of Oakland to any stadium deal, even one that has the team picking up the entire construction tab? We’ve seen a Facebook group, we have yet to see a single poll on the subject.
While we’re waiting for the process to kick off, I’ve found a couple of nuggets that might be helpful. First up, a cursory look at the California EPA’s Cortese list shows that none of the parcels at Victory Court fall under brownfield or contaminated status.
Source: Project EIR Notice of Preparation
One of the more curious aspects of the project is the land grouping, including the Laney College parking lot. While it makes sense for the ballpark to use the Laney lot as part of its parking infrastructure, it’s also quite possible that like the Diridon plan, there could be no parking at the ballpark at all. If there’s no parking at the ballpark, there’s also less environmental impact from the ballpark. That doesn’t mean that the 880 on/off-ramps won’t need improvements, but it could mean that the cost for those improvements won’t be as severe as they could be. Instead, fans would be encouraged to park at Laney (expanded or not), downtown, or at JLS. It’s only one of many details that will have to be addressed as part of the process.
“Not enough, probably need twice as many or more, because San Jose is so suburban and may never have BART. ”
Wow, even their white-collar professionals stoop to this bullshit…
tony d., thanks for your reply. Public transit in Santa Clara County is the worst ridership per mile in the nation. See attached.http://21stcenturyurbansolutions.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/bay-area-transit-efficiency-how-bart-caltrain-vta-light-rail-and-muni-metro-stack-up/
Moreover, many of the lines up the Peninsula will poach Giant’s fans. If MLB required 800 spaces for San Diego, with a well performing transit system. As a result maybe a SJ Ballpark will need more than 800 spaces in comparison to San Diego for VIP’s and day gamers if they can get the. The agency still has to pay for Autumn Expressway and possibly freeway ramp upgrades. Maybe Oakland could get away with 400 spaces because of it excelling transit system that has it’s crossroads in Oakland at BART’s 12th Street Station. One of MLB first criteria is that the ballpark be near viable transit. As for HSR and all the opposition to it going up the Peninsula which will make it unaffordable.
Suburban because the residential density per square mile is very low in comparison to the current A’s fan base.
I hate deride the Diridon ballpark but it is such a poor location. Just for starters, it’s a mile from the center of Downtown, the Pavillion after you have walked under the freeway.
980 Park is affordable and accessible. We should all get behind it if we want to keep the A’s in the Bay Area.
What the hell did I just [try to] read?
- Your link analyzes light rail ridership, something Oakland doesn’t even have. You’re comparing something to nothing. VTA bus ridership is nowhere near worst in the nation.
- San Jose metro area is actually third densest in the country. San Francisco/Oakland is just ahead. I guess that drop from #2 to #3 is a deal-breaker?
- Not sure what “Autumn Expressway” is, except perhaps your terminology to spin a simple city street into a massive infrastructure project.
- The site is a mile from downtown? Really? Maybe, someday, maps will be readily available online so you can check your facts.
@tonyD–and downtown SJ is urban? It’s not quite as suburban like the Fremont planned park which failed,. but not quite as urban like most big city’s downtown. So we can say that it’s semi-Urban,or Sub-Urban. Just look at that skyline? 2nd rate to say the least. Looks like Fresno north.
BTW, Mr. Grunwald knows more about this stuff than almost anybody on here, even ML, who’s just a blogger. Mr. Grunwald does this for a living–Urban Planning and Architecture for Downtown Revitiliazation, Waterfront Properties and Planned Communities, so show some a little respect, even though you disagree with him, and want Oakland to fail and SJ to succeed.
@ jk-usa: I know this is the internet and all, but rein it in a little. I like this site and the level of discussion is pleasantly high. We’re just following the news here, not making it. This isn’t a competition. We’re discussing, making educated speculation and asking informed questions. You’ve already made it clear you want the A’s to stay in Oakland, but no one here controls where the A’s are going and repeated hijacking discussions with slanted remarks doesn’t do anything advance anyone’s understanding of this whole ballpark saga. There’s no need to keep spamming your point of view. Think of it this way, what if every single person on this board kept repeating hostile remarks? The it’d be useless. Just follow the golden rule.
@Bryan – You’re a little behind on what the City of San Jose is doing. The Autumn Parkway project was scaled down significantly since it was originally planned. It’ll be a simple two-way, four-lane with a median boulevard. The most expensive part was supposed to be the railroad crossing, which will in fact be an at-grade crossing with gates. This is because only 3 trains runs through that area per day, allowing the city to get an exception. The City is not planning to build any parking near the ballpark. This is partly due to budget constraints, but it’s also due to the fact that if they don’t build parking, they can utilize existing on/off-ramps, turn lanes, etc.
HP Pavilion is not just on the other side of 87. It’s 0.52 miles from Market Street. The Diridon site? 0.60 miles. There’s no need to spout off random, incorrect figures to take down other site concepts. All sites should be judged strictly on their own merits.
Mr. Grunwald,
Since, according to jk, you know more about this kind of stuff then anyone here, why do you continue to ignore the facts regarding Diridon South?
Again, the site currently offers VTA light rail bus (current ridership figures are completely irrelevant), Caltrain from the Peninsula, Amtrak CC/ACE from East Bay, and in future BART and HSR.
Diridon South’s transit connectivity is currently outstanding and by 2020 will be unparralled in Northern California.
By the way jk, there are many an urban expert/developer (Wolff among them) who would wholeheartedly disagree with Mr. Grunwalds assessment, so don’t give me this crap about respect.
Zennie Abraham chimes in, thinks Victory Court will cost $600 million.
This one of those rare situations where I agree with Zennie. Too many people are trying to push their own agenda, and it seems that whomever controls the process wins. All of these disparate voices may all have very good intentions, but it’s no way to build a consensus. Jean Quan’s reputation is as a consensus-builder. We’ll see how that works out.
Jim, downtown Oakland and downtown San Jose are really quite alike in size and scale. A tabletop skyline is no indicator of ubranity.
Bryan, why not have Oakland get behind 980?
Jeffrey,
I am trying to overcome the usual patronage in Oakland politics. The local developers have bought up the City Council.
Only hope I have, is to have the Planning Commission reconfigure the EIR Notice of Preparation to include two “proposed actions” in EIR parlance. Not alternatives. With two proposed actions, both or one could be certified at the end of the EIR process. 12 months or more. I believe the 980 Park may be certified before Victory Court because of the community support I have obtained. Including all the community, business and environmental groups surrounding both sites. In general, they prefer 980 Park over Victory Court for reasons of traffic and parking impact, treat of eminent domain and cost.
I would need a continuance of the Planning Commission Public Hearing on December 1 for the City Staff to add 980 Park as a parallel “proposed action”. Given that the VC site was cooked up behind close doors without community participation, I think this is a reasonable request.
So is Oakland expecting the A’s to build the stadium with no public support? Oakland feels entitled to the same deal Frisco got – a privately funded stadium. But Oakland aint Frisco and PacBell Park was built when the economy was booming. As long as Oakland does not have investors willing to spend $1 billion on the team, land and ballpark (with no corporate or public support) then the whole Victory Court thing is just spinning wheels. Wolff does not want to build a privately funded ballpark in Oakland. Which means if that is the only choice offered to him by MLB, then he puts the team up for sale and no one comes forward willing to do the project under the conditions I just stated. And the stalemate continues until the team leaves the Bay Area and the fabulous San Jose option goes completely to waste.
@Bryan- The 980 site needs major work and is in a less than desirable neighborhood if you drive by there.
If 980 or ANY SITE in Oakland for that matter was viable and had the possibility of being successful you do not think the BRC would have brought this up?
The problem lies on several fronts and Zennie Abraham points out the major problems from the Oakland political end as one of the major issues.
The other 2 issues are:
1. Viable site in Oakland
2. Paying for the stadium without public money
There are zero viable sites in Oakland for the simple reason of “who is going to pay for it?”
Oakland does not have the private sector in their general area to build this privately. It is not happening period.
San Jose on the other hand may have a more “suburban” site (Ha! not really, it is in downtown) but they have the private sector backing the project as evidenced by the SVLG letter to Bud Selig.
Money talks and Money walks….period.
San Jose has it while Oakland does not. Why do you think the SF Giants “Crybaby” over San Jose all the time?
@Sid-The neighborhoods around 980 Park are what they are. In my opinion, certainly improving. Anybody really concerned about the neighborhood will park in the VIP garage and never have to touch the streets of Oakland–however that would be a shame. I think you will see a “ballpark village” much as in San Francisco and Denver. You know the neighborhood around Camden Yards was not so great until the ballpark arrive.
-I think you are on the right track when you talk about money. If you put the ballpark construction cost aside–it is $350-450M and has to be privately financed. All the ballparks will be support on pile foundations over poor soils, so there is no cost difference between the substructure–much like the Giants ballpark was built over bay mud.
–On the public side of the the equation is the site acquisition and infrastructure upgrades, parking subsidy, roadway improvements, etc. I have already gone on record stating that both VC and Diridon sites will cost the host city’s redevelopment agencies over $200M in subsidies factoring in land rent and some tax increment (over what currently exists).
–980 Park will cost $25-30M for freeway ramp relocation and upgrades to keep traffic flowing as it does today. Land rent (using the sweetheart rent the Giants pay the Port of SF) and tax increment on a ballpark will generate over $8.2M/year–or capitalized value of over $100M. Four times the cost of the freeway mitigation cost. Now that is a good deal, with lots of coverage. The parking garage, also on the air rights would be self financed from parking fees because it is located within walking distance of the downtown office core and Uptown entertainment district.
–Yes Money talks and Money walks–it will walk to the cheapest alternative in the same advertising market area. In the end, it is advertising that drives the deal.
I don’t get the argument…..”That is a rough neighborhood so nobody will go to the games. Does anybody remember China Basin before the Giants built AT&T? I do. It was on the water but it was a horrible part of town. Now look at the area. The Giants built it and they (the developers not related to the Giants) came. As Bryan said Denver and Baltimore built a ballpark and it transformed certain districts in their cities.
Bryan – You speak like that of a planning commission and not of a business owner: “it will walk to the cheapest alternative in the same advertising market area.” Isn’t what cheap got Oakland into this mess in the first place? instead of building a new stadium, Oakland decided to just construct the monstrosity that is Mt. Davis. The correct statement, is that the business flows to where the money is at. And as evident by Cisco’s 130 million dollar gesture as well as the SVLGs endorsement, the apparent money thus far is in SJ. Your views, like that of typical Pro-Oaklanders, is that the A’s are an Oakland entity and has the right to move, change owners, dictate whatever price you deem is fair. Unfortunately, you forget the bit that the A’s are owned and operated by JF and LW as tenants of Oakland and not your property. What are you dangling so that they are enticed to stay? Cheap alternatives?!!!!
Cisco’s naming rights are $20-30M/ year, on a present value basis. Hardly a game changer.
re: If you put the ballpark construction cost aside–it is $350-450M and has to be privately financed.
And I’m still not hearing of any investor group ready to spend $1 billion on the team and ballpark in Oakland, with no corporate or public support. Oakland feels entitled to a privately financed ballpark like Frisco but no one is coming forward ready to offer that.
MLB has foolishly locked itself out of the lucrative San Jose market and is stuck in the not-so-lucrative Oakland market. Nice move, MLB. But I guess we can’t force MLB to be intelligent if it wants to be stupid.
Bryan, Cisco naming rights are part of the “private financing” and combined with the Silicon Valley Leadership Groups willingness to spend on tickets, etc, they are a huge game changer. Look at how AT&T Park was financed.
@Bryan- Cisco has a 120-130 million dollar naming rights deal in place for San Jose. It is a “game changer” because you can take that contract to the bank and get a loan for 120-130 million using the contract as collateral. Of course you would pay interest but that finances 120-130M of the entire 460M project or about 25% of it. That is what the Giants did in 2000 with Pacific Bell at the time.
I must say you are the first Pro-Oak person to speak with some sense and rational on this forum…for that much kudos to you!.
Diridon will not be 200M in redevelopment funds as you cannot count the Autumn street expansion as that is going to be done anyways with or without the ballpark. Plus Diridon is due a major facelfit with HSR and BART coming in 10 years. San Jose in reality is spending around 50M or so on the land and they are going to buy it regardless of the A’s.
Parking is not a problem in Downtown San Jose they have several existing structures less than 3 miles away from the site and the Sharks are going to build a new structure in their current lots behind the Arena.
980 is not a great area while Downtown San Jose is just that…A downtown site that Oakland lacks that is centrally located to 4-5 major freeways.
I agree advertising does drive the deal and San Jose and its 75 SVLG members who signed that letter to Bud Selig is exactly the “advertising” that will drive the deal to get done. Doug Boxer says he has 350k or so from East Bay Corporations but refuses to put out names….not good while SVLG has had their executives sign and put their names on the letter to MLB.
Look, of all the 2 team markets (NY, LA, CHI) every single team contributes to revenue sharing except the A’s in Oakland.
Is the Bay Area a 2 team market? Yes, if you place them in the 2 most financially lucrative areas of the market. That is San Francisco and San Jose by far and no one can really argue that Oakland is even close to these two cities in corporate support.
I would not mind seeing a new ballpark in Oakland but it requires public money that is not there so we need to stop with the “pipe dream” and go with what reality states is feasible….That is the A’s coming to San Jose and staying the Bay Area for years to come.