SEIR Community Meeting

I rarely get to these things early. Just so you know how rowdy the place is, here’s Council Chambers 3 minutes before they were set to begin.

6:37 PM – Wow, there are as many city employees here as attendees. This should be fairly quick. Darryl Boyd briefly went over SEIR process, followed by Dennis Korabiak, who recognized all of the familiar faces and cut out much of the layperson explanation stuff.

6:45 PM – Q&A starts early. A couple of A’s fans have arrived. Some in the affected nearby neighborhoods would prefer that no parking structure get built between the arena and the ballpark, which means that if any parking were built at all, it should be at the arena lot.

6:51 PM – Reminder: Comments on the SEIR are due by March 29. A Planning Commission hearing to certify the SEIR would occur in May, followed by the City Council deciding to place a ballot measure in June/July. Boyd notes that the session is not for debating the EIR, they’re for presenting a summary of the SEIR and for taking in and recording comments.

6:58 PM – Question about how noise is being measured. The city is bound by CNEL in certain areas, such as the southern approach to the airport east of the ballpark site. In the SEIR, it is mentioned that monitoring will have to be done pre- and post-construction. Averaged and incidental noise will be measured. Boyd clarifies that in areas that will have “significant and unavoidable” impact, such impacts cannot be mitigated to a “less than significant” level. From the SEIR:

NOISE-2b: After the ballpark design is finalized and pPrior to the first ballpark event, a detailed acoustic study shall be conducted by the City of San José to confirm the predictions of the long-term noise levels at noise sensitive uses within the 60 dBA Leq contour line shown in Figure V.E-2 Figure IV.B-2 of the ballpark, which have been made in this SEIR. The study shall be used to determine noise attenuation measures to achieve a 45 dBA Leq interior noise level at nearby residences located within the 60 dBA Leq contour line. Attenuation measures at the stadium shall include, but not be limited to, distributed speakers for the public address system and limitations placed on sound levels associated with various activities. Measures taken with affected property owner’s consent, at receptor locations may include, but are not limited to installation of dual-pane windows, mechanical air conditioning, sound walls and improved ceiling and wall insulation.

Necessary remedial measures shall be implemented, or otherwise assured to be implemented within one year to the satisfaction of the City Manager. Implementation of mitigation measures NOISE-21a and NOISE-21b would reduce impacts associated with baseball games. However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

7:09 PM – Question about the impact of blimps (MetLife, Goodyear) hovering over neighborhoods as they have to get out of the way of landing planes. Apparently, this was experienced during the last time the NCAA men’s regional was held at HP Pavilion.

7:25 PM – One more question about global warming/climate change impact. One commenter wanted a simple explanation for the cumulative impact, it couldn’t be easily given. Two tables used within the SEIR address carbon footprint for a metro and greenhouse gas emissions for the ballpark, related but in the end difficult to easily tie together issues. FWIW, here’s the damage:

  • San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara carbon footprint: 1.573 metric tons (7th lowest among US metros, SF-Oakland-Fremont is 8th)
  • 13,439 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year from the project. Of that total, nearly 10,000 metric tons would come from traffic to and from the ballpark.
  • Water use is expected to be 165 acre-feet per year.

And that’s it. I’m gonna try to catch the last set of hoops matchups.

21 thoughts on “SEIR Community Meeting

  1. Where are all the pitch fork wielding local opposition members?

    • The frequent Good Neighbor sessions have been successful in getting affected parties to talk through their issues. At this point the only way you can’t know anything is if you’ve been living under a rock all this time. True to form so far, the ballpark doesn’t inspire nearly as much concern as high speed rail.

      • For noise, how plausible is this idea? Offering to help sound proof houses (within reasonable limits) in the areas most effected by the sound problem? This would go a long way to what would most likely be the biggest complaint that nearby residents would have-that they can’t sleep on game nights.

      • Oh for goodness sake, a typo and a dead link. That joke didn’t go as well as planned. It was a picture of ear plugs.

      • This was brought up at the Quakes stadium session. Several Newhall residents cited the amount of neighborhood outreach they’d received compared to all that’s been done for people in the Diridon area. To be fair, I think the latter is in a quieter neighborhood and definitely involves a bigger development. Good to see the city making some peace.

    • They’re in Fremont.

  2. bud selig on A’s broadcast right now!!!

  3. Selig on stadium situation

    -no report yet
    – committee will come back with recommendation and he will take that to the clubs and “we’ll go from there”
    -Giants do have territorial rights and it’s real. History is what it is even if the A’s once owned the territory.
    -won’t speculate on how to resolve territorial rights if recommendation is San Jose
    -mentioned something about when he goes to the clubs he will make a strong case, or something to that effect
    -A’s need a new venue. The issue is well beyond that.

    • -I should add he said committee will come back with a recommendation “shortly”
      -Once the recommendation is in the A’s will be working toward a new stadium
      -Fosse mentions Wolff being very impatient. Selig says that’s true, but Giants have their own opinion. Says in his time as commish, he’s used to these kind of disagreements
      -Fosse mentions how close Oakland is the AT&T, and how SJ is further. Selig mentions that is one of the issues that has been discussed, but there are a number of factors

      • Thanks for the recap. I caught the tail end of it in the car. Interesting how Ken and Ray have been more vocally giving the company line and rationale.

      • “PHOENIX — Baseball commissioner Bud Selig met with Oakland Athletics officials on Sunday in regard to a new stadium but said there is no timetable on when a committee he formed to study the issue will put forth a recommendation on how to proceed.
        “There is no question that the A’s cannot compete [financially] in the venue they’re in,” Selig said, referring to the team’s longtime home, the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum.
        Selig met with San Francisco Giants officials a week ago to discuss territorial rights. The Athletics have considered a move to San Jose, among other Bay area locations. The Giants currently have a Class A team in San Jose.
        “There still is information we are looking for. It is a complicated process with a lot of complex issues and is time-consuming,” Selig said. “But we would still like to move as expeditiously as possible.”

      • Especially with Korach. In the past, I’ve heard him mention on the air how he would rather not comment on the ballpark situation. Fosse, on the other hand, has sounded downright giddy whenever a new ballpark has been discussed.

      • Thanks gojohn for bullet pointing this out. I was listening to it and hoping someone else caught it.

        If anyone recorded the game and can post just the interview online, it would be an interesting listen first hand… Bud Selig sounded way less staunch in is support of TR’s. He also seemed to be indicating that San Jose is the front runner… why else would he have to take the recommendation to the clubs? If it was Fremont or Oakland, he wouldn’t have to.

      • Yes, if anybody can post it online that would be great. Thank you mentioning this, gojohn.

        And Jeffrey, the recommendation could easily be Oakland or Fremont. It isn’t too hard to imagine that MLB could recognize Oakland’s geographic location, and an unwillingness to cut out the historic fanbase, and insist they stay put. However, recognizing the inequity of allowing the Giants to have exclusive rights to SC County, they recommend opening it up to both teams (not that it would change that much on the grand scale).

        To help indemnify the Giants, Oakland’s revenue sharing checks would be halved, maybe more, to pay down the debt on AT&T. It would go a long way to putting the teams on equal footing. Swapping counties makes no sense, and complete indemnification of the Los Gigantes is prohibitively expensive — Wolff & Fisher can’t afford it, and the debt-service on a new stadium. Which is to say nothing about having a budget to actually improve the team.

      • If the A’s stay in theircurrent territory, there will be no reason to indemnify anyone or change rights in any way. Ther eis nothing stopping the A’s from marketing to San Jose from where they are… the only thing the rights stop them from doing is building a stadium in San Jose.

        And way to drop in the Oakland spin in your comment. That sort of wordsmithing is impressive. This member of the historic fanbase is impressed, anyway.

  4. Thanks, ML. I’ll have to check it out later tonite. There’s also a new article on the Athletics’ site:

    And sure there is, Jeffrey. You’re indemnifying the Giants against any potential loss associated with making Santa Clara County a shared territory. You’re adding it to A’s list of territories, but the caveat is neither team can build a stadium there. You’re trying to make the situation more equitable across the board. With $20-million in debt service on AT&T and a payroll rapidly approaching $100-million (if it isn’t there already), the Giants have a legitimate reason to want compensation for *any* type of encroachment on Santa Clara County. Looking at the long term, the Giants could cry foul because it would cut into their ability to resign Tim-may, Cain, and Sandoval. Buster, too. But that’s a ways off.

    Pro Oakland? Yes, but I can accept the team in San Jose. Other than Wolff’s slavish desire, and a more affluent potential fanbase that can support an artificially increased ticket price, the pros of San Jose aren’t that overwhelming. If the numbers I’ve read pan out, Wolff is going to need to generate an additional $50-million annually just to pay the annual debt-service on the new stadium. That’s going to be a tough nut to crack.

    Whatever does happen though, there will be some sort of status change to Santa Clara County. I’m anticipating it’ll become shared.

    • Nic,
      Welcome to the blog. Just some quick “territorial 101” for yah:
      1) Giants don’t actually obtain revenue from having SCCo. as their territory. The only thing having SCCo. as their “territory” means is that CURRENTLY (key word) they can keep other MLB franchises from relocating their…THAT’S IT! SCCo. corporations/residents don’t pay taxes to the Giants or provide other forms of monetary assistance (with the exception of actual fans and sponsors).
      2) If MLB teams did receive revenue from (or for) their territories, or if they actually had value, the other two-team markets would also be split and not shared. Could you imagine the Dodgers and Angels fighting over, say, Riverside Country?
      3) Fans and corporations in SCCo. are free to attend games/do business with the Giants or A’s.
      4) A’s are free to market/advertise and seek corporate sponsors in SCCo., regardless if it’s not their “territory” (see Cisco Systems). The Giants can also do the same with Alameda/CoCo Co (see Chevron).
      5) Actual corportate sponsorships, as well as season-ticket sales, for Giants originating in SCCo. are actually minute and completely overblown by the likes of Neukom/Baer. Even with A’s in SJ, citizens/corporations of SCCo. can still support the Giants if they wanted. And no one has yet proven that “minds will miraculously change” with the A’s in SJ.
      I do agree with you on this Nic: SCCo. should, or will, become a shared territory just like the other two-team markets.

    • AT&T Park cost around $350 million. Cisco Field is estimated to cost around $500 million. Debt service on AT&T is $20 million a year. Debt service on Cisco may be $30 or 35 million, but there’s no way it’ll be anywhere close to $50 million.
      And yes, the “more affluent potential fanbase that can support an artificially increased ticket price” together with corporate base to buy premium seating will easily be worth an extra $30-35 million a year increase over the A’s existing small base.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.