Update 10:35 – The Merc has an editorial rebutting the “Stand for San Jose” group. The brief opinion also references Astroturf.

Note: My comments will be in italics.

Principals are making their introductory statements about the purpose of the meeting, EIR/CEQA process and other factors that are germane to the City Council eventually coming up with a decision regarding the ballpark proposal.

6:38 – Dennis Korabiak confirms that the new projected capacity is 36,000. Also confirms that the parking structure that was planned for the block south of the ballpark is no more. Instead, it’ll be either two blocks north on Autumn Street, or a multi-level structure on the site of the existing Arena parking lot. See NOP for updated maps/pictures.

6:41 – The ballpark shown in the drawings is not specific, it’s a placeholder. Akoni Danielson points out that changes will be made to Park Avenue. Korabiak talks about the transformation to only 2 lanes, instead of the “grand parkway” envisioned in years past. Also describes the transformation of Autumn Street to a “river parkway” to Coleman, which will be done with or without the ballpark. He finishes clarifying the errors in vehicle counts for I-280 between CA-87 and 11th St, which are a big reason for doing the revised EIR.

6:47 – Danielson describes EIR circulation process. A Draft SEIR (“S” for supplemental) will go out and a 45-day comment period will follow. He expects the process to finish by summer. The planning commission will then vote to certify the EIR. He reminds us that the previous EIR did not have an appeal, and thus was certified without incident or legal action. I should mention that this is a smaller room than the one normally used for the Good Neighbor sessions. Attendance is probably 50 people.

6:51 – Korabiak makes clear that a vote is required for this project, and that the earliest a vote could be taken is November 2010. A “no” vote kills the project.

6:52 – Dennis Brown from LSA Associates (same firm that did previous EIR and was working on Fremont EIR) speaks. Focus will be largely on traffic. Will also be focusing on reduced size and carbon footprint (greenhouse gases). Also will include impacts from HSR and BART.

6:55 – Question time. First question asks about new capacity:

Q: Is this an appropriate size?
A: Korabiak says that the trendline is going down, without mentioning Lew Wolff’s statements about a 32,000-seat facility. Korabiak is selling intimacy, using a comparison from this room to council chambers as an example. Follow-up: Is this size an economic impediment to the team?

Q: You say that public money requires a vote. This report requires public money. Why doesn’t this require a vote?
A: Because the money isn’t being spent on the ballpark, it’s being spent on the study. Otherwise it’s a Catch-22. CEQA requires the study.

Q: Why is Diridon the only site for the ballpark? There’s too much impact… the Fairgrounds would be perfect.
A: The purpose of the EIR to make the public and the council understand the impacts. We also looked at the FMC site and other sites. We are also describing alternatives.

Q: How will the transit (VTA) cutbacks be reflected in the EIR?
A: We’re coordinating with VTA to incorporate that information into the report to gauge cumulative impact.

Q: What about construction impact? If they do it at night it will be terrible.
A: The document will contain impacts from construction. Korabiak mentions that he was the project manager for the Guadalupe River Park project, which involved significant amounts of piledriving.

Q: I’m unclear as to what the scope is going to be. You just talked about construction noise. Are you really going to open that up again? (Marc Morris)
A: We will see if the old EIR information is outdated and then update it to reflect changes such as the facility size, new/different parking structures and roadways.

Q: What about updated traffic analysis?
A: We will update to reflect the change in traffic.

Q: Are you going to address any of the issues regarding outside advertising, digital scoreboards?
A: We have no specific proposal at this time. If we have a proposal for this we may need to do an additional SEIR for this aspect.

Q: So if this passes, we won’t get to make any input?
A: Don’t assume that. Things that conform to our sign code would be okay. If it doesn’t conform, it wouldn’t be okay and we wouldn’t change the sign code without another environmental process.

Q: The previous EIR was rubber-stamped in the middle of the night because it was thought that the A’s were going to Fremont. Will this EIR get more scrutiny? What about the differences in the site?
A: The only difference in the ballpark site is the expansion into Park Avenue and narrowing of the street.

Q: What about how Cahill Park (townhouses) and Plant 51 (condos) affecting sound?
A: That will be taken into account.

Q: Will the A’s be referenced in the EIR?
A: Yes.

Q: If the ballpark were shifted south, would the impact be different regarding the FAA’s SJC one-engine disabled operating requirements (height)?
A: We’ve been working with the airport to come up with updated procedures. Performance of engines is better, and jets now have two engines instead of four. In the project area there is a “flat plane,” so there isn’t any difference.

Q: What happens if the agencies that are required to answer questions for the EIR don’t provide answers in time (referring to HSR in particular)?
A: We are working with them, but we don’t run those projects and so we can’t control when they’ll comment.

Q: What other sites are being considered?
A: FMC/Coleman, Flea Market, Reed & Graham, Del Monte. All of these sites are in some other development plan at this point, with the possible exception of Reed & Graham.

Q: How will we know what events could be allowed/restricted there based on the noise?
A: We can’t talk to the A’s, so we can’t get too specific but there will be a use agreement. If monster trucks became key to the agreement between the team and city, then we would determine if it fits into the “box” of acceptable use and Council would make the final decision.

Q: Are soccer games being at the ballpark being considered as part of the EIR’s impact/use?
A: It hasn’t been on the table.

Q: How did you determine there were only 10 days of conflicts between the arena and ballpark?
A: We asked the A’s to give us our attendance of days by time the games are held (weekdays/nights/weekends). We overlaid that with every event at the arena and did a hypothetical analysis of when both venues were operating. It’s in the 10-15 day range.

Q: You didn’t include any impacts from the weekend festivals (held in downtown) to the ballpark?
A: That’s more of a management issue. Permits are required six months out. The TPMP (transportation & parking management plan) will address those cases.

Q: What about blimps and skywriting planes trying to advertise in the area?
A: We’ve flown helicopters and planes in the area and once we were 10 seconds inside the flight path the FAA told us to get out. Area is in the flight path/noise contour.

Q: Is the nuisance of forced neighborhood permit parking considered an environmental impact?
A: As far as we know that’s a neighborhood decision, not a forced decision. We consider that a nuisance but not a significant impact.

Q: How far does the EIR report go out in terms of analysis?
A: For traffic we may look miles or tens of miles for freeway segments. We won’t look miles away for noise. It depends on the topic.

Q: Suggestion for mitigation: If neighborhoods require permit parking in the future, the burden of the cost of those permits should go to the stadium, not the affected residents.
A: Noted.

Q: Why is this the location as opposed to the alternatives, given the potential significant impacts?
A: This goes back a decade, including a site at CA-237 (Zanker). This site has ultimately stood the test of time. This is a repeat of a meeting held seven years ago. This is your meeting to tell us what you think of this. Tell us what you want us to analyze.

Q: Have the alternatives been studied as deeply as this?
A: Those alternatives have been included in the 2006 EIR.

A commenter counters that this site makes sense because of the transit options, cites the impact of AT&T Park.

A lawyer for “Stand for San Jose” (astroturf group?) is here to submit a letter regarding concerns from the community. There were conflicts between the EIR and the general plan and neighborhood plans. As per CEQA, approval of the project shouldn’t be piecemeal, it should be concurrent with those plans. You’re going to the public with the vote. They have to have the information. The EIR has been sitting on the shelf and it needs to be updated across the board so that the public can make the decision with the best information.

Q: Does the EIR include an alternative that covers buildout of planned development per the neighborhood plan (Diridon Arena plan)?
A: Yes.

Q: Will the change of size affect the ballpark’s height, if so how much? And how will that affect the FAA’s policies?
A: We don’t have that information yet.

Another comment about site alternatives. And that’s it. I’m off to pick up a copy of the letter from the “Stand for San Jose” group.

8:11 – I just got the flyer and the website for Stand for San Jose. The domain is registered to the San Jose Giants.