Category Archives: San Jose

05.18.10
by

SJ EIR Certification Hearing Wednesday

It’s an important night tomorrow night, as the revised ballpark EIR will have its certification hearing. Should the document be certified, the City Council will take up when it expects to have the ballpark issue on the ballot. Of course, the closest date is the November election, so there’s no real drama there. I have heard that ballot language is already being tested.

The Merc’s Tracy Seipel covers some of the uncertainty regarding the final shape of the project. Key to this is the location of a new parking structure. Of the two new parking options, the one with the most traction is a garage on the main arena lot, adjacent to HP Pavilion. It’s not the most optimal site distance-wise from the ballpark site, but it is the site that creates the least upheaval thanks to it being city-owned land, not privately-owned land. Some area residents have also preferred this site because it would mean no garages in the area between the ballpark and the arena. I’m not sure that this is feasible long term, but it’s worth considering if only from an aesthetic standpoint. There has been some hubbub about the Sharks not liking a “no parking” option, which makes sense. They have an agreement with the city to have a certain number of spaces available for events, and a ballpark would encroach upon that.

The issue here is not whether a garage will be built, it’s a matter of where and by whom. While the ballpark is a big part of the Greater Downtown area, it’s only a part of a broader development plan. Depending on the final configuration and footprint of a ballpark, there may actually be room for some parking right next to it. A garage there could be financed any number of ways and would probably require its own EIR since it would change the project, but that’s a bridge to cross if it is ever reached.

Simply put, a garage next to the arena makes the most sense. It satisfies the Sharks/SVSE, some transit advocates, area residents, city requirements, and perhaps even the A’s (though they don’t have a voice). The thing is that A’s and Sharks ownership is tight, so it wouldn’t be beyond the Sharks to act as a proxy for a party that doesn’t officially have a voice yet, such as the A’s.

There will be a liveblog on Wednesday.

05.02.10
by

A Tale of Three Cities

In the world of salesmanship regarding cities and stadia, there are lots of documents. Some are required, such as the environmental impact report. Others, such as economic impact reports, are often little more than glorified press releases. EnvIR’s have well-detailed rules and process, whereas EconIR’s don’t have rules and tend to be written for a particular outcome and audience. They are effectively sales pamphlets, usually forgotten long after their messages served their purpose (or not).

When I started reading Oakland’s EconIR, it occurred to me that instead of dissecting the document, it might be better to compare it to other docs that came before it. San Jose has put out two different reports, though I’ll focus only on the newest report from last September. Fremont had an EconIR for the Pacific Commons, but it also came up with its “conceptual approach” earlier this year as the NUMMI closure approached.

Commonalities
All three cities built their reports on a few basic tenets:

  1. The ~$500 million in construction cost will be borne by the A’s
  2. The city will provide land and infrastructure improvements needed to support the ballpark
  3. Some kind of cheap land lease will be negotiated
  4. Sell the public on the most positive projections, minimize or leave out everything else

To do the comparison, I had to re-read all three EconIR’s, which believe me, is no way to spend a weekend. In any case, I did it and here are the results:

The numbers in the table were given to bolster some kind of development case. For Fremont, it was a “ballpark village” with higher-end retail and new residential units adjacent to the ballpark. In Oakland, it’s thought that the ballpark fills a “hole in the donut” in the downtown/waterfront area, making the ballpark a catalyst for broader redevelopment plans and goals. While these seem similar, there is a major distinction to make: in Oakland the A’s would not be the beneficiaries of projected economic growth, whereas in Fremont they would be. San Jose’s report describes potential for ancillary development, but never makes claims nor targets any specific areas for growth. It’s unclear if MLB is more or less impressed by any of these approaches.

In the community meeting yesterday, Eric Angstadt mentioned a large “matrix” of information that MLB was looking for so that they could sift through the various options. In looking at that, certain options such as a Coliseum ballpark or a ballpark built over I-980 between 14th and 18th Streets were dismissed. That left Oakland with three sites it considers essentially the same, acquisition cost and difficulty notwithstanding. As far as I know, Fremont’s only option is the northern end of NUMMI, and Pacific Commons is not in the discussion. Diridon is San Jose’s only site, since it’s the only one going through the CEQA/EIR process.

I’ll end this post by asking you to read the table again, then post some questions or responses as to how certain numbers were derived in the comments. I intentionally left that analysis out, preferring instead to let the table start the discussion on its own.