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.
Transportation splits:
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.
newballpark.org 
To be honest, I wouldnt mind doing away with the weekday day games.
I always thought they should have at least a few, for the schools and other kids groups to go to during the week.
They also make the workday go by faster when I get to listen on the radio. But there is always the disappointment when I get home at night and there is no game to throw on the tube.
Meh, never been to a school that would go to an A’s game during the day.
I have, I was never in the classes that went, but we definitely had classes that went to A’s games.
My daughter did just this past season. Home Run Readers or something.
The other thing that makes day games desirable…. the team can head toward the plane afterward when they’re going on a roadtrip.
still would rather have the ability to watch the game.
R.M.,
Do you think transit usage is being underestimated? I ask because I remember the first of the now-defunct Grand Prix weekends: 150,000 patrons over three days. Light-rail was heavily used over the course of the three days. Even during today’s summertime festivals (Jazz Fest, Tapestry), a lot of folks (including my family) take light-rail into downtown. Anyhow, I’ll be parking at the Branham Station lot and taking LR to The Yard. I’m sure others will use the Park N Ride lots along the Campbell/Santa Teresa lines as well.
An EIR is supposed to show what happens in a worst case scenario and dial it down from there. The transportation split is indicative of what happens at Sharks games, and keep in mind that there won’t be an cheap, easy way for East Bay fans to get down there besides driving, so the projections shouldn’t be better than what they’ve estimated so far.
Strangely, a commenter was worried about cars coming from outside some of the more distant neighborhoods in order to take light rail to the ballpark.
One thing we might see happen is parking from the Quakes Stadium/Airport West may be leveraged along with a shuttle. The plan there is to have up to 6,000 spaces, and there are plenty of open home dates in which the parking facility could be used for baseball. It would have the added bonus of keeping some of the fan traffic out of the downtown core. I’ll expand upon this in a later post.
Is the “worst case scenario” analysis the reason special ACE and Caltrain trains weren’t mentioned as a possibility in the EIR, or are they not being considered as an alternative?
ACE doesn’t run schedules that are compatible with the baseball schedule. Caltrain is mentioned, however it’s only used by around 1% of fans per the distribution at this point.
Amtrak would seem to be an easy and (relatively) inexpensive wat for a person in Richmond-Berkeley-Emeryville-Oakland to get to Diridon. In fact that’s how I got home to Oakland from one of those grand prix (not a bad way to travel with a deathly bad hangover).
“way”
Forgot all about the Amtrak Capitol Corrridor Mark; way to go! R.M., how about “special” Amtrak CC trains for A’s games?
You can’t project a service that doesn’t exist. Right now there isn’t a train from San Jose to Oakland/Sacramento that runs after 7:30 PM. It would make more sense to add a regular train, perhaps at 10:30 PM. The trains can hold hundreds, so it’s not a matter of capacity. A special train shouldn’t be necessary unless there is little demand for the late service outside of baseball fans.
If the A’s are going to move South, I think the least they could do is help subsidize a Capital Corridor train that serves the ballpark. It would probably pay for itself in PR. They could retain a few more N. Alameda and CC county fans AND cut down in greenhouse gas emissions!
And is adding a special ACE train that out of the question? Maybe I’m just naive, but with a ballpark next to a train station hub, I’d like to see trains taking advantage of that, at least until BART services Diridon.
The A(‘s)-Train baby!!!! Woooo-woooo!
The way things are going for BART, that may not happen thirty years
Hi folks,
I’m the pastor at 56 S Montgomery, right across from the Cal Train (our building is getting a makeover at the present time). Since I arrived at the church a few years ago, I’ve been hearing this ballpark idea become more and more of a reality.
Honestly, I think the stadium idea would be great for the community. I’m just wondering how this would affect us… If anyone hears anything, please let me know! I know in the 2003 redevelopment plan we were supposed to be EM’d by the city, but that still hasn’t happened.
Thanks!
philvargas@hotmail.com
Your church should be safe. The ballpark will be bounded by W San Fernando & Autumn Streets.
Hey Pastor Phil! I remember you from one of the study sessions many, many moons ago. Your site is being considered for the 1,200-space garage, though I don’t think it’ll win out in the end. Even though a garage at HP Pavilion is further from the ballpark, it’ll be cheaper and easier to build there in the end.
At some point, your block will be slated for something else – maybe parking, I can’t be certain – and I hope the City treats you fairly as they’ve done with the ballpark site landowners.
This may just push Nav over the edge:
“Oracle CEO Larry Ellison is fresh off winning back the America’s Cup, a move that could bring that event to San Francisco. But now that his boating competition is finished, he’s got bigger fish to fry.
Ellison is determined to reel in ownership of an NBA team. His first choice is the Golden State Warriors.
His second choice is to swipe another NBA team and move them to beautiful downtown San Jose.
[ … ]
Ellison’s mention of San Jose is a combined wake-up call, middle finger, and brass balls bargaining tactic directed at current Warriors owner Chris Cohan. The rumor mill has been hopping for months that Cohan wants to sell and that Ellison wants to buy, but they can’t agree on price. Ace reporter Tim Kawakami says in the Mercury News that Cohan values the franchise at $400 million, while Ellison thinks it’s worth $310 million.”
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/Ellison-Wants-the-NBA-in-San-Jose-84619032.html
only two markets have two NBA teams (LA, NY/NJ) . The Bay Area just isnt big enough to support two teams especially with the kings playing about 100 miles away. unless the warriors move to san jose which wouldnt make to much sense to begin with, there is no way another team will.
Unless of course Sacramento can’t get an area done for the Kings. But then you’ve got the Maloofs coming up against Ellison which I don’t see resulting in the Kings in SJ. Ellison would be much more likely to move the Warriors to SJ than the Kings.
From what I know of Larry, if he couldn’t buy the Warriors, he would sure try to bring a team to SJ to push the W’s out, even if it meant dumping lots of his own money. He’s very competitive and when he sets his mind on something, he’ll do whatever it takes to make it happen.
I’m hopping Larry won’t ask taxpayer for money to build a Warriors arena.
NO STADIUM IN SAN JOSE!!!!!
http://www.standforsanjose.org/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/San-Jose-CA/Stand-For-San-Jose/217116953552
This guy makes Nav look like a genius in his ridiculous posts—not even aware that an arena already exists in SJ???—2 guesses where his IP addy is from—
This time it’s Sunnyvale. At least it’s getting closer.
Sunnyvale? At least this loser can’t vote in San Jose.
Dont really see why he would potentially want to move the warriors when they are a top ten draw in the NBA in their current situation. That is unless things change after 2017. Still would love for him to own the warriors though