Category Archives: News

11.08.11
by

San Jose City Council Session 11/08/11 Liveblog

Turnout is better than most Council sessions, but that’s not saying much. I expect at least a dozen speakers. The livestream can be found here.

Council Chambers as of 1:45 PM. Ceremonial items are first up, agenda item should be taken up at approximately 2 PM.

2:00 PM – Mayor Chuck Reed is giving his best sales pitch in his plain-spoken, Midwestern way. Effectively, he’s saying that in exchange for the land, San Jose is getting $7 million for the land and $1.5 million per year for the general fund. (There’s a slide explaining this, I’ll put it up when I get the chance.)

Mayor Reed's support slide explaining the economic impact of the ballpark on San Jose

2:10 – SJ’s Director of Economic Development Kim Walesh is further talking economic impact, states that ballpark is 3X that of 49ers stadium. (I am not in support or opposition to this statement, I just think it should be taken with a grain of salt.)

2:17 – Another staff member points out that A) Proceeds of land sale cannot go to the General Fund, and B) There are no sale or development opportunities for the land in the near future.

2:20 – Public comments are being taken first, then questions from the Council. Baseball San Jose principal Michael Mulcahy is first in support, followed by new Silicon Valley Chamber CEO Matthew Mahood. Arguments in favor are as much about economic growth as they are baseball.

2:23 – A lawyer representing Stand for San Jose is up next, saying that EIR and S-EIR are inadequate. A 65-page comment letter is being submitted.

2:25 – Rose Garden and Shasta/Hanchett neighborhood group representatives decry the use of public funds for the project. Argument is that “you can’t short sell bonded public land.”

2:28 – Another speaker with a short slide show, followed by Marc Morris, who says the whole thing is a bad deal.

I should point out that the anti-ballpark speakers are getting a smattering of applause.

2:33 – Neil Struthers of the South Bay Building and Construction Trades Council speaks in support, followed by Scott Knies of the San Jose Downtown Association, also in support. Those are the last public comments.

2:38 – SJ legal is responding in part to the comment letter by the Stand for San Jose lawyers, disagreeing with many of the conclusions made within the letter. Interestingly, the letter mentions Victory Court as an alternative site. I agree! How’s that coming along? Where’s the EIR?

2:42 – Councilman Sam Liccardo speaks first, obviously in favor of the ballpark and land deal. So does colleague Pete Constant. Constant addresses the matter of using these public funds for city services instead of the ballpark: “If we could, we would.” (Kind of a shaky argument there given the circumstances of redevelopment.) Cites the Arena as proof positive of economic impact of sports (which in the Sharks case is difficult to argue against).

2:47 – Councilwoman Madison Nguyen supports with a caveat: she asks if the referendum is necessary. Mayor Reed and City Attorney John Doyle say that it is, though Doyle says that it’s ultimately the City Council’s call. (Could be extremely controversial if there’s no vote.) Nguyen explains that she believes the public deserves the final say.

2:50 – Councilwoman Rose Herrera echoes something Liccardo said (paraphrasing), “You don’t come across $500 million privately funded projects everyday.”

2:51 – Councilman Donald Rocha (recently elected) asks about additional community use beyond the 10 days per year specified in the option agreement. Doyle responds that City kept a suite at the arena, but that was because it was publicly funded. It would be different at a privately financed ballpark. (The lack of built-out space/square footage at the ballpark may make this harder to negotiate as well.)

2:55 – Councilwoman Nancy Pyle reiterates that redevelopment proceeds can’t be used for city services or employee benefits. Asks about 1 year as opposed to 2 year option. OED staff says that 1 year was not long enough (!), 2 years is more reasonable. (Could that mean that the decision is that much further off in the distance?)

2:57 – Councilman Ash Kalra asks if City has received any indication from baseball that it will accelerate its process if City does. Reed says that owners meetings next week may decide, or meetings in January, etc. Doyle says that fate of redevelopment is also a factor. Doyle explains how funds are used, explained that $1 million has been spent on relocation costs. Staff reinforces notion that per option agreement, A’s cannot use land for anything other than a ballpark.

3:10 – Council is still trying to clarify the need for a referendum. Liccardo says that it’s still entirely up to the council. (Seems like they’re going back-and-forth between CYA and “Is it safe?”)

3:11 – Councilman Xavier Campos talks about continuing the history of the A’s and the benefit of that, even though he’s a Giants fan.

3:12 – Liccardo emphasizes that if option is not exercised, City keeps $200k and land.

3:13 – Reed bookends the Council statements with a closing argument in favor. Expresses desire not to have land sit idle for 10 years as a parking lot. Thanks Lew Wolff for the opportunity.

3:15 – Motion to approve option agreement passes 10-1 in favor. Councilman Pierluigi Oliverio, who I recall did not speak on the matter, is opposed.

That’s it for now.

11.07.11
by

SJ City Council to consider land deal on Tuesday

Update 10:25 PM – Not surprisingly, the Merc’s editorial board has come out in favor of the land deal.

Procedurally, the approval of the land deal to complete the Diridon ballpark site should be a slam dunk, considering the SJDDA (which approved it in the first place) and the City Council are effectively one and the same. Still, since tomorrow’s City Council session will be a public affair, there should be a mix of voices pushing to persuade/dissuade the Council. In particular, I wonder if any/many of the Occupy San Jose protesters will attend, since they will be in close proximity. Far be it for me to expect fireworks at a San Jose City Council session, but I’ll be attending anyway. The session will be at 1:30 PM at Council Chambers.

City has also posted the agenda for the session and an all-important memo containing the details (PDF) of the deal. Some of the finer points:

  • The issue at hand is the approval of an option agreement (end of memo), in which terms are laid out for the A’s to purchase the land. That’s not the end of it, because a formal purchase agreement will have to be drawn up within 90 days of execution of the option agreement.
  • Quoting from the memo directly here: “The Redevelopment Agency paid approximately $25,160,000 for acquisition and relocation costs for the entire ballpark site.” That’s a bit misleading, because the land being sold does not include the parcels that are yet to be purchased to complete the ballpark site.
  • Colliers International estimated that the entire value of the site is $38,250,000 if for its “highest and best uses”. Appraised solely for a ballpark use, the land is worth only $19,100,000. Back when Diridon was first discussed in 2005, the market value of the entire Diridon site was probably close to $70 million. If they had purchased the PG&E substation and the land fronting Los Gatos Creek, the cost would’ve soared over $100 million easily.
  • Purchase price of the site for AIG (yes, that’s the “Athletics Investment Group” if you haven’t been watching local broadcast disclaimers) is $6.975,227, or 36.5% of the appraised value, and does not include the already public land within the site (Montgomery and Otterson Streets).
  • AIG’s option to purchase the site is for two years ($50,000), with the possibility of an additional year ($25,000).

This is the only item on the afternoon session agenda, which should allow for a lengthy discussion and comment period. Baseball San Jose put out a letter on its blog providing talking points on the deal.

11.06.11
by

CBA Talk: Cost certainty is a four-letter word

After another 8-hour marathon negotiating session, the NBA and NBPA again found themselves without any kind of agreement for a new CBA. This time, Commissioner David Stern also threw down the gauntlet, leaving the owners’ newest offer on the table for the players to stew over until the close of business Wednesday. If the players don’t accept the offer, the league will pull the deal and offer something measurably worse. First, let’s go over the basic tenets of the league’s offer.

  • League offers 49-51% “band” of BRI (defined league revenue) to players. This is essentially the same as the 50% offered to the players previously, but with a few wrinkles. The base offer is 50% to players, plus 1% annually set aside to fund retired player benefits. The 50% share would be dependent on the league reaching an unspecified BRI level, probably $4 billion. Any amount over that threshold would be split 57-43 in favor of the players, up to a total cumulative BRI split of 51% for the players. Running the numbers, for the players to reach 51% the league would have to beat the $4B revenue projection by $666 million, or 16.67%. That led NBPA president Derek Fisher to characterize the 51% figure as “impossible” to attain. In a move reminiscent of the NHL’s CBA, the players would be limited to 49% of BRI if BRI were significantly lower than the projection (also by an unspecified amount).
  • Escalating Luxury Tax. The previous dollar-for-dollar tax would be transformed into a much more punitive tax, starting at $1.50 per dollar over the tax threshold for the first $5 million over, then $1.75 for the next $5 million, $2.50 for the next $5 million, and $3.25 for the next five million. In addition, a “double tax” would be assessed at either $1 (league) or $0.50 (union) for teams who pay the tax three out of five years.
  • Variable Mid-level exception. There would actually be two definitions of the exception. For teams not over the luxury tax threshold, they’d be able to pay $3-4 million for 3-4 years. Teams over the threshold would only be able to pay $2.5 million for up to two years. There’s also some talk of having the maximum length of a MLE contract vary from season to season. This is clearly the most confusing part of the discussions and may be in flux, so expect some corrections in a few hours.
  • Sign-and-trade modifications. Luxury taxpayers would no longer have the ability to do sign-and-trade deals. If a team is over the cap and tax threshold and wanted a marquee free agent, they could work out a trade with that player’s previous team by having the previous team sign him for a lengthy max deal, then trade him immediately to the desired team for a mix of other players and draft picks.
  • Offer valid until close of business Wednesday (November 9).

Those five tenets were suggested by federal mediator George Cohen, and subsequently adopted by the league. A sixth item involving higher shared revenues for teams who don’t trigger the luxury taxes was not approved. For their part, the players aren’t backing off their request for 52.5% of BRI, though Fisher seemed to be somewhat amenable to 51% if it were a truly achievable number.

The Wednesday ultimatum sort of acts as a mini Doomsday, since the NBA will offer less if no deal is reached and it will probably cancel games in December. Any hopes of being able to play a full 82-game schedule in 2011-12 would be dashed. And there’s the growing possibility that the union will take a page out of the NFLPA’s playbook by calling for the union to decertify and an antitrust lawsuit against the NBA.

BRI for the 2010-11 season was $3.8 billion, which was up from 2009-10’s $3.65 billion, so it’s not hard to see the $4 B target as achievable. That’s where both sides are getting the “$40 million equals 1%” argument from. The players got 57% of BRI in the previous agreement, so a drop to 52.5% or 50% is a major concession. The problem for the players is that there’s a huge difference between the economy back when the last two CBAs were ratified and today’s economy. The NFL accomplished a major pullback in its negotiations with its players. The NHL is looking at the NBA talks with great interest, and is rumored to be pushing for a major pullback as well. MLB has no guaranteed payout to players as it has no salary cap or floor, but it regularly pays less than 50% to its players. The new trend for the four major North American sports is for the player-league split to drop to between 48% and 52%, depending on how revenue is defined. It’s quickly becoming a matter of bargaining against the other leagues, perhaps more than it is about preserving or changing existing agreements.

Every week lost in the 2011-12 NBA season translates to $100 million lost in game revenue, including tickets, other arena revenue, and broadcasting revenue. Over the span of ten years, which is the preferred CBA length for both NBA and NBPA, a few hundred million is not that much to lose compared to the impact of losing 2.5% of BRI over the course of ten years ($1+ billion). The league may see this as a test of the union’s collective will. Some want to play ASAP, others want to go the decertification route. It’s getting to the point that several weeks of games (and thus paychecks) will be lost and unsalvageable. There’s no guarantee that by holding out, the players will end up with a better deal. It didn’t work for the NHL players, and it didn’t work for the NFL players. MLB and the MLBPA must be laughing at their counterparts. Their biggest bone of contention is fixed slotting for first round draft picks, which the players union considers its own miniature form of salary cap. Somehow both sides have convinced the players that the lack of a salary cap/floor/guarantee is best for all concerned, despite the players getting less combined than their counterparts. But they get the biggest, longest individual contracts with most guaranteed years. While baseball’s business model does little for broad competitiveness among teams, it generally works for the players in terms of meritocracy and tenure. That’s hard to argue with when the other leagues have so much trouble arguing over details.

11.02.11
by

McCourt reaches agreement with MLB to sell Dodgers

Update 11/3 11:15 AM – House Rep. Janice Hahn (D-Redondo Beach) introduced a bill to allow for public ownership of the Dodgers. Public ownership is not allowed per MLB’s constitution, but it’s a nice gesture. Hahn actually used the issue as part of her platform and rode it to election day in June.

Update 4:35 PM – The Associated Press (SI link) got reactions from Wolff, Tom Werner, and Mark Attanasio about their potential interest in the Dodgers. Wolff’s take:

“I’m very interested in having the sale occur for everybody involved,” said Wolff, a successful L.A. real estate developer. “As far as my interest in purchasing the Dodgers, I don’t have any. I’m interested in getting a new venue for the A’s.”

But would Selig, Wolff’s fraternity brother at Wisconsin, ask Wolff to join a bidder?

“That would be absurd,” Wolff said. “The Dodgers are going to go to an auction, and the highest bidder hopefully will revitalize the franchise.”

Bloomberg also reported that Fox may be interested in acquiring the Dodgers once again, but the company quickly denied it.

Update 3:00 PM – The New York Daily News cites an unnamed MLB insider who says that “it is unlikely Selig would try to steer A’s co-owner Lew Wolff and Boston Red Sox CEO Tom Werner – both Selig allies – toward making a bid on the Dodgers.”

Update 1:50 PM – Now it’s getting interesting. Bill Shaikin is reporting that the a prospective bidding group includes former Dodger GM Fred Claire (O’Malley era), A’s/Warriors/49ers exec Andy Dolich, and Ben Hwang, who looks to be the head of the group.

Original post below

Well that was faster than anyone expected.

Word started leaking over the weekend that Frank McCourt and Bud Selig were in serious discussions to have McCourt sell the Dodgers. This was confirmed Tuesday night by the LA Times’ Bill Shaikin, and further confirmed by a press release:

“The Los Angeles Dodgers and Major League Baseball announced that they have agreed today to a court-supervised process to sell the team and its attendant media rights in a manner designed to realize maximum value for the Dodgers and their owner, Frank McCourt,” read a joint statement. “The Blackstone Group LP will manage the sale process.”

Going back to the summer, when the McCourt divorce proceedings really got ugly, the prevailing wisdom was that unless Frank McCourt ran out of cash, he’d fight to keep the Dodgers to the bitter end. That would mean enduring a bankruptcy trial, lengthy divorce proceedings, and a possible auction of the team. Now it looks like the team will no longer be under McCourt’s control by the end of the month, and a new owner could be found and approved. Neither McCourt nor MLB are saying what prompted this turn of events. Whatever precipitated this, there’s no doubt that the timeline for selling the Dodgers has been significantly accelerated.

That gives MLB roughly six months to approve the next owner, though the process will be largely guided by the federal bankruptcy court, which will preside over the team’s auction. The auction will probably include the team and Dodger Stadium + parking lots, since those will all need to be sold to cover the McCourt’s enormous debts, short term financing, and a $130 million payment promised last week by Frank McCourt to Jamie McCourt. Everything could be sold as a package or on a piecemeal basis – that’s up to the court to decide. CNBC’s Darren Rovell has the over/under for the all inclusive sale price at $875 million, though several analysts have mused that the team and related properties should fetch well north of $1 Billion.

Of course, that leaves the question of who will make the winning bid. Having a court oversee the process gums up the works if you’re looking for a Selig crony to come in to get a sweetheart deal. Last year, the duo of Mark Cuban and Jim Crane drove up the price of the Texas Rangers by $100 million through auction bidding. There have been murmurs of several groups champing at the bit to get their shot at the Dodgers, so that $1 Billion mark could be eclipsed early. One thing to keep in mind is that not only does the new owner have to assume a ton of debt, they’ll probably have to agree to make $100+ million in improvements to Dodger Stadium in order for the team to stay “viable”. With an enormous bidding war for the Dodgers’ TV rights due in a couple of years, that’s relative chump change. Will it be Mark Cuban, Ron Burkle, or some private equity hotshot?

Prior to the auction beginning, you can bet that speculation will include Lew Wolff asserting interest in the Dodgers, a charge that he denied in January. That rumor was merely an unsubstantiated musing by ESPN’s Buster Olney and not based on any legitimate inside information. Wolff is buds with Bud, so he has to expect his name to be in the news and there’s little he can do other than deny, deny, deny. Given the circumstances of the team being beholden to the auction process, it doesn’t benefit either Wolff or MLB to have Wolff involved in the proceedings. There will be more than enough bidders, and there should be multiple entrants whose backgrounds and bids are far more substantial and less risky than Jim Crane’s or Frank McCourt’s. In addition, the asking price of the Dodgers will be so high that MLB won’t be able to pull off a Montreal-style “contract-and-expand” deal, with the other 29 owners digging deep into their own pockets to buy the team.

When the winter meetings come around in two weeks, it’s clear that if the CBA is item 1A on the agenda, the Dodgers are 1B. Crane will finally be approved as the new owner of the Astros, perhaps just to get it out of the way. It’s unclear what that means for the A’s. Wolff’s getalong working style may mean the A’s issue is tabled until January. Then again, Wolff could barter his vote for “future considerations”. It’s impossible to say whether or not the A’s will even come up, let alone have Wolff’s territorial rights request addressed. Does Selig want to focus only on a few select urgent issues? Do the owners have enough information to act now on T-rights, or do formal presentations need to be made? We should know in two weeks.

11.01.11
by

Revised Citi Field dimensions unveiled

Sandy Alderson is making his mark as the new general manager of the Mets, and it starts with changes to the dimensions at Citi Field. Sure, beleaguered owner Fred Wilpon probably made up his mind long ago, but Alderson must’ve had some say over the details. The new dimensions are much more neutral than the expansive, pitcher-friendly measurements of old, as you can see from the comparison below.

The corners remain unchanged and didn’t need to be changed. Gone is much of the Modell’s notch in right field, to be replaced by a picnic area and a chain link fence. Where the original juts out in the power alley, the dimension and wall remains. Another short fence brings in the notorious triples alley in deep right-center under 400 feet (hint-hint, Giants). In left field, most of the 16-foot high wall will have an 8-foot fence placed in front of it, which should make David Wright’s life a lot easier. Wright tallied 14 HR at Citi Field during the 2011 season, it should be interesting to see how much he and Jason Bay benefit. Bay in particular has not been able to make the adjustment with only 18 HR in 900 PA over the last two years. In addition, it’s just as important for the Mets that Citi Field shake its reputation so that it can attract free agent sluggers in the future.

Despite the planning goof that Citi Field was at the outset, it generally follows the important rule that it’s always easier to bring fences in than to move them out. Around here we’re worried enough about Cisco Field that we’ve turned to making suggestions about making the dimensions more neutral. Unlike Citi Field, which was built on a large expanse of land, Cisco Field’s dimensions are limited by a major street to the east. There’s no moving that, or a gigantic wall/building in right.

10.30.11
by

News for 10/30/11

A few newsbytes as the week begins:

  • Matier and Ross report that the 49ers are gunning for a 2014 opening of the Santa Clara stadium, even though the finances – especially the stadium builder licenses – aren’t ironed out yet.
  • One of the reasons the CEQA/EIR process exists in California is that municipalities and citizens can identify issues that need to be addressed and take care of them early. In Miami, the Marlins ballpark is being built with no significant new transit infrastructure in an area that desperately needs it. The Orange Bowl/Little Havana neighborhood is at least 2,000 spaces short of what should be supplied for a full house, and on-site parking totals well less than 5,000 spaces. The nearest Metrorail station is almost a mile away, and shuttles to take fans from that station and other parts of Miami are currently unfunded.
  • Speaking of transit, the California High Speed Rail project will face renewed scrutiny with the release of an updated (and final) business plan on Tuesday. The Merc’s Mike Rosenberg paints a pessimistic view, as federal funding has dried up and has made continuation of the project an extremely difficult decision. So far, $650 million has been spent on planning and engineering studies.
  • Side note: If HSR goes down in flames, the combined cost of that project and the shuttered Solyndra plant in Fremont would be $1.1 Billion. That would pay for the 49ers stadium and change, or an A’s ballpark in Oakland/San Jose and a Sacramento Kings arena. Before you scoff, know that the total annual revenue for just the NFL and MLB combined ($16 Billion) surpasses that of the movie industry – box office and DVD sales – on an annual basis ($15 Billion).
  • Not only are the Scranton-Wilkes Barre Yankees forced to spend the year barnstorming while their ballpark is renovated, they won’t be able to keep the Yankees team name in the future. The Yankees brand is to be exclusive to the club in the Bronx. The same will go for all of the other Yankees minor league affiliates. Way to keep it in the family, Steinbrenners.
  • Commissioner Bud Selig may have to determine the proper compensation for the Red Sox allowing Theo Epstein to escape to the Cubs, since the two teams can’t come up with mutually agreeable terms on their own.
  • Wondering if Selig will actually retire after his contract ends in 2012? The establishment of an office at his old alma mater in Madison might be the ticket. Selig apparently wants to write his memoirs and participate in the history department at Wisconsin, including the hiring of a professor to teach the history of sports.
  • In addition to Selig’s endowed chair, three members of The Lodge (baseball team owners) also set up a scholarship in the names of Selig and his wife, Suzanne, as part of the university’s Great People Scholarship program. The owners? Three who are incredibly indebted and linked to Selig: fraternity brother Lew Wolff, current Brewers owner Mark Attanasio (who bought the team from a trust headed by Selig’s daughter), and Red Sox co-owner Tom Werner (who was a major beneficiary of the three way Boston-Florida-Montreal ownership swap deal). What do you get for a man who has everything? A scholarship in his name, of course! Now that’s a going away present.
  • One thing to keep in mind regarding Occupy Oakland: the horrific injury suffered by Iraq War veteran and Wisconsin native Scott Olsen will almost assuredly result in a lawsuit against Oakland/OPD, one which is not likely to come out well for the City. Whenever that judgement is rendered, it’ll be more money that Oakland simply doesn’t have for projects such as an Oakland ballpark.
  • On the bright side, the Oakland Tribune and other local papers will keep their names after all.
  • Tony LaRussa goes out on top.

Good stuff to come later in the week.

10.27.11
by

Dodgers may push A’s decision to backburner

The Chronicle’s Susan Slusser sheds more light on the San Jose land deals, adding this tasty bit at the end:

It is unlikely baseball owners would consider the A’s stadium at their meetings in Milwaukee next month because the Dodgers’ ownership situation is expected to dominate the agenda. Meetings scheduled for January might be more likely.

This probably wouldn’t have been an issue if it weren’t for the twin news items of Frank McCourt reaching a settlement with Jamie McCourt, then MLB reaching a settlement with Frank over a likely sale of the Dodgers. The Dodgers bankruptcy trial has been postponed, pending the outcome of both of those issues. The divorce settlement could be court-approved on November 14, right before the Winter Meetings. Assuming that it is approved, the Dodgers could easily push the A’s to the backburner, with the agenda already packed with the Astros-to-Crane sale and ongoing CBA talks.

10.26.11
by

A’s to get huge discount on SJ ballpark land

As part of the complex land deal the City of San Jose is trying to complete in order to assemble the Diridon ballpark site, City is selling five acres of land it has already acquired to the A’s (and Lew Wolff) for $6.9 million, according to the Merc’s Tracy Seipel. Indexed for inflation, that price is only a quarter of the original purchase price and half the land’s market value. The land in question includes the former Stephens Meat plant (now a parking lot), the vacant former KNTV studios, and other properties along West San Fernando. The land sale will be voted on at the November 8 City Council meeting.

If the Quakes land deal is any guide, City will do the following assuming they get the green light from MLB:

  • Make final offers to holdout landowners including AT&T, threaten eminent domain if needed
  • Allow A’s to step in and buy properties at market value plus relocation costs
  • A’s deed all land back to City
  • City arranges for nominal ground lease for A’s to build ballpark (similar to China Basin)
diridon_parcel_map-03_2010

Ballpark site parcel map as of March 2010

The whole package would have to be voted on be the citizens of San Jose sometime within the next year. I expect City to push hard for a special election sometime in the early spring – perhaps during spring training or as the baseball season begins – instead of choosing for the 2012 June primary or November general election.

Mayor Chuck Reed continues to express confidence (bravado?) in the City’s ability to finish the land deals without resorting to eminent domain. To that end, an AT&T spokesman gives a sufficiently cagey answer when asked about selling the Montgomery work center.

Within the span of nine days, we’ll have three major developments in this neverending saga:

  • November 8: San Jose City Council votes on land deal
  • November 10: Oral arguments begin on redevelopment court case in San Francisco
  • November 15: Territorial rights may be taken up on the owners meetings agenda (not guaranteed)

I’ve cleared my schedule properly to cover all of this, in person for the local stuff.

10.24.11
by

News for 10/24/11

We’re still three weeks from the winter meetings, at which the A’s situation is not guaranteed to be resolved. Until then we wait and stay informed.

Features to come after I finish a few things.

10.20.11
by

High Speed Rail design options reviewed in San Jose

As part of the ongoing planning process for the California High Speed Rail project, a Good Neighbor committee meeting was held tonight at the Roosevelt Community Center, east of downtown San Jose. To make the review more localized, several segments were identified and “separated” so that each could be reviewed separately. Diridon Station is not only a major transit hub, it is also the nexus of two such segments: San Jose-to-Merced and San Jose-to-San Francisco. The Good Neighbor committee, which is made up of local residents and other potentially affected parties, has been providing feedback on the station design, planning throughout the station area, the ballpark, and the most controversial piece, the prospect of either an aerial or tunnel rail segment that will run through the area. From the beginning, local residents have been opposed to an aerial option and have forced the City to include a tunnel alternative as part of the environmental review. This is in keeping with what Peninsula residents have wanted for some time, though finance constraints may make it difficult to move forward with anything other than an aerial option.

A modern, wave-shaped station may serve as the HSR terminal. It would stand adjacent to the existing depot and above the planned BART line.

The image above is only one of several possible station designs, all meant to give the public a sense of the building’s mass and volume. The apex of the new station would be 90 feet above grade, more than twice the height of the current station but 20 feet lower than HP Pavilion, which is located a block away. There could be a large public space in between the two stations or a larger, fully connected “grand” terminal.

The current view from the west along the Alameda (Santa Clara St) as one approaches Diridon Station and HP Pavilion

Same view with the aerial viaduct for high speed rail added. A mezzanine level takes travelers from the station to the HSR platform, above the commuter trains.

I’ve mentioned before that the ballpark has not received nearly as much resistance from locals as the HSR project, and the above pictures are Exhibits A and B of that resistance. The height of the rail will be 65 feet above grade, with another few feet above that for the platform and a retaining wall and/or fence. The columns and the viaduct itself appear to be buff or sand-colored concrete, which should help soften the look compared to drab, gray concrete. Still, there’s no getting around the fact that the structure itself is a behemoth. As the alignment enters and exits downtown, it will be widened to four tracks, making it the equivalent of a very tall freeway. Expect the property values for recent buyers at Plant 51 to come crashing down (at least on the side that faces the station) if the aerial is built.

The ballpark did get mentioned, insofar as there is some buzz about whether or not MLB will be making a decision on territorial rights (yes, some of those folks read this site). If the owners and Commissioner Selig decide to take the issue up (they never have officially) and rule in Lew Wolff’s favor, the decision will set a few more things in motion. Another Good Neighbor session would have to be held shortly thereafter. At that session several things would have to be discussed:

  • Design of Cisco Field and how it differs from the alternatives approved for the original and supplemental EIRs
  • Timing of the project, including land acquisition, referendum, groundbreaking and construction
  • Status of needed infrastructure improvements (Autumn Parkway)

If/when this session occurs, I’ll post a notice well in advance. I urge anyone with a passing interest to attend. (Note: A similar session to the one held tonight will be held at the MLK Library a week from tonight.)

Satellite photo showing how everything fits together. Blue line is the HSR alignment.

Twenty-five years ago, the Diridon area was partly light industrial and partly residential. HP Pavilion allowed the City to clean out many of the residences (via eminent domain). With Cisco Field, it’s expected that most of the industrial properties will go away as well, as those don’t fit in with the concept of a commercial transit hub. We touched on this two years ago, and this is yet another small step towards fleshing out the vision. The Diridon Station Area Plan, which was approved by the City Council in April, is starting its own EIR process now (PDF).