Last night I spelled out the four types of comments we’d likely see in tonight’s session. It pretty much fell in line with that demarcation, but I wasn’t ready for the considerable intensity of one particular type of comment.

I took shorthand of each of the 42 comments and tabulated the totals. Suzanne Chan took her own poll and had it as 8 for, 30 against (!), and 4 neutral, giving the caveat that most of the negative comments were not negative about the project in general, but rather a specific site. I had slightly different numbers. Read ’em and weep:

You can see that 20 out of the 42 comments were related to the Warm Springs alternative, in which the ballpark would be decoupled from the village and placed near the future BART station. Opposition was passionate, some parts thoughtful and others hysterical. One resident didn’t want a ballpark serving alcohol a half mile or less away from the local elementary school. Another mentioned the twelve traffic light cycles he had to wait through at the Auto Mall/Osgood intersection on Black Friday, as shoppers entered and exited the nearby Fry’s parking lot. Two commenters talked about “letting the genie out of the bottle” as the ballpark would start to transform the area from a safe, well-heeled neighborhood into East Oakland around the Coliseum.

The addition of the Warm Springs alternative was a response to suggestions by BART and the MTC. The transit agencies and the A’s feel that a ballpark could fit into a transit-oriented development design, though the concept is merely in its infancy. Surely they knew what kind of wrath they would encounter if they floated the idea, right? Many of the anti-WS folks were not opposed to the A’s or the Pacific Commons site. They were vehemently against having it in their backyard.

Had Warm Springs not been included in the Notice of Preparation, tonight’s comment distribution would’ve looked more like this (Other means neutral):

That’s fair when you consider that sessions like these tend to bring out more negative comments.

Matt Artz of the Argus (thanks for the shout-out BTW) focused his article on Catellus, who officially came out against the project as it exists in the Notice of Preparation. Catellus is the real estate unit of ProLogis and has been working with the A’s and the city to mitigate existing retailers’ concerns. Unfortunately, I think Artz left out something. The statement read by Catellus veep Aidan Berry was not so much a general disapproval as it was frustration over where the ballpark was placed in the original plan. The site plan placed the ballpark less than 1/4 mile from the three big box anchors: Costco, Lowe’s and Kohl’s. Those three have been and always would be the most difficult to deal with because their business models don’t mesh with a ballpark. The statement suggested that another site within Pacific Commons would’ve been more agreeable. The ballpark location hasn’t changed since conception, ergo Catellus can’t sign off. I can only guess that the A’s didn’t want to pursue a change because it would require a major change in the EIR, especially with regard to environmental concerns (I could use some expert verification of this, e-mail address in my profile hint-hint), and that would lengthen the process yet again.

How difficult is this? The NIMBYs want the project as far away from them as possible, at the expense of environmental and transit concerns. Some business owners and transit advocates want the ballpark at Warm Springs, but had little to say about the NIMBY issues. Meanwhile, there are supporters out there who want either Pacific Commons or Warm Springs or don’t care either way. And that, my friends, is why ballot box planning is so problematic. People tend to look only at their own interests. They have every right to do so, but that doesn’t make them good planners.

Council member Anu Natarajan chided the crowd at the conclusion by bringing up frequent complaints by Fremont residents that there aren’t enough entertainment options in the city, that there isn’t enough good retail. She initially supported the plan in an effort to address those quality of life issues. No good deed goes unpunished, eh?

KTVU sent veteran reporter Lloyd LaCuesta to the proceedings tonight and he got the scoop du jour, a letter from Bud Selig urging Lew Wolff to take care of business in Fremont. And if he can’t?

Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty interpreted that as meaning Selig is encouraging discussions with San Jose. Haggerty, who had a large part in putting the Fremont deal together, is as much in tune with East Bay politics as anyone.

Moving over to San Jose, Mayor Chuck Reed was asked for his reaction:

Basic pol-speak there. He went on to mention that San Jose has an already completed EIR as well as the Diridon South site at fair market value. Fair market value? Previous estimates for the 14-acre site were around $74 million, though that may have dropped somewhat with the flagging real estate market.

To keep things in order, this post will be the territorial rights and San Jose thread. The previous post and tomorrow’s post will cover Fremont. Any comments straying from the subject matter in any thread will be deleted, you have been warned.

I’ll say good night posing this question: Why did Selig allow Steve Schott to start discussions with Santa Clara?

Tonight was spent mostly observing various people’s responses to the displays and the back-and-forth with representatives of Fremont and LSA Associates, the firm conducting the environmental impact report. Keith Wolff was also in the house.

The largest crowd was gathered around the image above, and for good reason. Many of those in attendance were residents of that neighborhood across 680 from Warm Springs. They are going to be there tomorrow, and they will have numbers. The session tomorrow is shaping up to be an interesting contrast of constituent groups. We’ll see four types of comments:

• NIMBY types from the Mission San Jose neighborhood. Regardless of which parcel in Warm Springs could be chosen for an alternate ballpark site, many of those residents will protest vigorously.
• Ballpark supporters who prefer the baseball village in its original, whole form.
• Transportation advocates who would like to see the decoupled village/ballpark concept as shown above.
• Environmentalists who don’t want to see development endanger the adjacent wetlands.

It’s hard to say which group will be more prominent. I’ll make an informal tally while I’m there. A warning about that – the session tomorrow is only an hour long, and even if they devote the entire hour to public comments (which they won’t), only 30 or so comment slots will be available to speakers. Commenters are encouraged to use either the written comment forms or contact project principals via e-mail. From a process standpoint, public comments all get the same treatment and attention since they are a matter of public record. People tend to feel better about voicing their concerns directly, so if you get there early enough to get in the queue, let er rip!

I did learn one thing about the process that is, well, depressing. I mentioned earlier that the Warm Springs Alternative would be included in the EIR, but due to the lack of information about the alternative, additional time-consuming EIR work would be required. Traffic and other impacts would have to be studied in the same detail as the original site. That would conceivably push back the completion of the EIR, which then would delay construction, etc. I struck up a pleasant conversation with LSA’s Shannon Allen, who when asked about this possibility said, “It gives me a headache.” Me too.

While I was away prepping the Turkey Day feast, I had received an e-mail from the City of Fremont, advising me a City Council work session for the baseball village scheduled for this Tuesday, December 9. This is not a rescheduling of tonight’s “open house” type event, it’s an additional session to occur prior to the Council’s normally scheduled meeting. So here’s the complete schedule to avoid any confusion:

• Monday, December 8 – General Public Scoping Meeting on the Notice of Preparation for the EIR, 6:30-8:00 p.m. @ Fremont City Hall Council Chambers.
• Tuesday, December 9 – City Council Work Session for Ballpark Village Project, 6:00-7:00 p.m. @ Fremont City Hall Council Chambers.

Fremont City Hall is located at 3300 Capitol Ave.

For SVS+E, the Sharks-related company that manages HP Pavilion, ice rinks in San Jose and Fremont (very close to the Warm Springs BART station site), and the San Jose Civic Auditorium, it’s a chance to seal up the large events market in the South Bay. They’ll manage the new stadium, which may or may not have a stage to accommodate large concerts. Only Shoreline Amphitheatre, which is run by events giant Live Nation, qualifies as local competition.

The agreement appears to be a few steps removed from having SVS+E operate Cisco Field. Given that many of the business-side and money people from both the A’s and Sharks tend to rub elbows a lot, such an arrangement is a near formality. But where will that stadium be located?

Despite the recession, the Yankees are positioned to bring in an extra $200 million a year in revenue because of the new Yankee Stadium. Perhaps pinstripes will have a slimming effect on Vallejo native C.C. Sabathia.

We’ll start off with a pleasant image, courtesy Google Earth/Panoramio user Typeaux.

That’s the view east towards the Fremont Hills from what could be considered the northeast corner of the planned Warm Springs BART station. Next, a map (also from Google Earth):

Pros compared to Pacific Commons:

1. BART. Regardless of which parcel is chosen for a ballpark, it will be within a few hundred feet of the Warm Springs BART station, which is expected to start construction next year and open in June 2014. That’s two years from the planned opening of Cisco Field, but it’s better than not having BART.
2. Site relative to freeways. Sandwiched between 880 and 680, 4 different exits are available to service the area. From Oakland/Hayward, 880 South to Auto Mall Pkwy. From Tri-Valley, 680 South to Auto Mall/Durham. From Santa Clara County, either 880 North to Fremont Blvd. or 680 North to Mission Blvd.

Cons compared to Pacific Commons:

1. Insufficient area road system. 4 different freeway exits are nice until they all funnel into two narrow roads, Warm Springs Blvd. and Grimmer Blvd. Currently, Warm Springs is only a two-lane road near the BART station, which will be widened to 4 lanes in conjunction with the station’s construction. If they plan to put the parking on the Westwood parcel, it will be gridlock hell.
2. Proximity to NUMMI. That gridlock, which will probably be spelled out in the EIR, won’t make NUMMI happy. Grimmer Blvd. in particular is an important surface road that contains an entry into the plant. A NUMMI spokesman talks of a “win-win” for the plant and the team, but it’s hard to see that happening unless either major concessions are made to NUMMI or the plant itself closes down. Neither option sounds palatable or cheap.
3. Proximity to a local neighborhood. There is a reasonably well-heeled residential neighborhood just east of 680. It’s accessible from Grimmer Blvd., a potential source of gridlock. Granted, residents already have to deal with the freeway so noise shouldn’t be that big an issue. The ballpark is only going to make it worse. Light pollution from the ballpark could also be a nuisance.
4. Proximity to the Hayward Fault. The BART station is only 0.5 miles from a known active trace of the Hayward Fault. The stadium may be even closer.
5. Land cost. The Merc has a new editorial that paints the Warm Springs site as a nearly perfect place that will allow A’s fans to suddenly ditch cars. Only 15-20% currently take BART to A’s games. That means 80% or more drive. They’ll continue to drive. It’s nice to be able to take some cars off the roads, but let’s be realistic. It translates to a reduction of roughly 2,000 cars per game. An improvement, yes, but not paradigm-shifting in the least. For that 80% of fans, around 10,000 spaces will be needed. If they don’t build a single garage and rely entirely on surface parking, 78 acres will need to be acquired to accommodate the parking need. That won’t be cheap.

I must sound like a nattering nabob. It’s not intentional. I point these issues out because when you solve one problem (BART), you open up the possibility of other problems. That’s exactly what the Warm Springs site does, given the current situation.

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.

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.