Excuse me while I put on my rumormonger political/business/entertainment/tech blogger hat.

Like many of you, I’m less than excited about decidedly non-sports gabber Michael Savage filling the drive-time slot at “All Sports” XTRA 860 (KTRB). Though I don’t agree with his politics, it’s more the betrayal of the station’s format that irks me. Depending on what KTRB’s ratings goals for Savage are versus his syndication cost, we’ll see if this experiment lasts. Based on the unease that marked Rush Limbaugh’s stint on KNBR, it probably won’t end well. Either it will be a ratings winner, prompting an increase of talk, or a loser that forces some other rethinking of KTRB’s format. Meanwhile, A’s fans are once again caught in the middle.

Last week at AN, Nico chatted up broadcasting veep Ken Pries to figure out what the hell was happening in A’s radioland. What it appears to be is KTRB exercising control over the pre- and postgame programming. By limiting the amount of pre-game stuff and spending money on talent like former KNBR employee Chris Townsend, they’re protecting their investment in Savage. I like Townsend, he’s developed an edge over the years since he was “exiled” from the Bay Area.

This is where rumormongering comes in. KTRB has been changing programming on a semi-regular basis since they’ve switch to sports talk, and surely they’ve been looking for an opening to launch local programming. I wasn’t sure if that opening was really there until KNBR’s weeknight host Damon Bruce jumped from Sportsphone 680 to sister station KNBR 1050’s noon-4 slot. That’s a really big deal, as KNBR long ago chose to use syndicated and often tape-delayed programming to avoid competition with its local hosts on 680. Bruce, who has made no secret of his displeasure with being constantly preempted by Giants and Warriors games, won’t have many conflicts on 1050. I suspect that Bruce, knowing that KTRB has been looking for some kind of local programming anchor, may have talked about truly jumping ship to new show – probably the preferred drive-time slot – at 860. When KNBR found out, they scrambled to keep Bruce from moving, inevitably giving in to his demands for a better slot. Now Bruce can bash the Giants and Warriors as much as he likes (at least as long as he doesn’t call Dominican hitters brain-dead). In steps F.P. Santangelo to work Sportsphone, where he’ll work relatively cheap and as a Giants homer (though he acknowledges his time with the A’s as well). Perhaps KTRB had been banking on Bruce or someone else, or Savage was option 1 all along. To me it looks like KNBR felt it needed to preserve its hegemony over the market, and so far it has succeeded, leaving KTRB scrambling and the A’s and A’s fans in the lurch.

Of course, I have no factual basis for anything in the above paragraph. But it sounds like as plausible an explanation as anything else. Your thoughts?

I don’t need a caption for this one.

Well, I’ll describe it anyway. The pic above comes from the California High Speed Rail Authority’s community workshop presentation, held last Wednesday in San Jose (additional workshop preso). CHSRA has also released its update on the Bay Area-to-Central Valley segment called “Revised Draft EIR Program Material.” This option, which IMHO has the best chance of moving forward, has the train running in an aerial south of the ballpark and along I-280 and CA-87. One of the pics below has portion done up as a cable-stayed bridge with suspension towers. Can anyone identify which ballpark was lovingly placed next to the tracks?

None of the other pictures have a ballpark in it, but hey, it’s a start. But back to the the pic at the top. We see the new open air, elevated platform, plus a garage next to the arena. Additionally, the blocks between the ballpark and the arena have been developed. Based on funding and timelines, everything you see in the pic couldn’t be completed until 2025-2030. The ballpark and garage would come first, with BART construction holding up the commercial development. It’s also likely that the triangular area above the new development would also be built out, as Adobe is planning an expansion on those parcels.

This one’s the view from the Cahill Park neighborhood. Note how tall the structure is, it appears to dwarf the five-story Plant 51 loft/condo building on this side of the tracks. The next pic really shows the scale of the platform and aerial.

While there is much talk about going with a tunnel alignment (just like the advocacy on the Peninsula), such an option may prove to be cost-prohibitive. I can only hope that San Jose’s city fathers learn from the Bay Bridge debacle and stay away from adorning the aerial option. San Jose isn’t a place for distinctive bridges. Nothing would send a worse message than the city putting resources into designing aesthetic appeal into a bridge that can’t be used by cars, pedestrians, or bikes. The towers could violate the FAA’s height restrictions for SJC. The bridge wouldn’t even be visible from the ballpark’s seating bowl.

This may be your last chance to see this:

The UFL’s California Redwoods are headed up I-80 to Sacramento, where they’ll play at Sac State’s Hornet Stadium and undergo a name change as well. As part of the deal, the team is footing the bill for a new playing surface, perhaps a new Field Turf or next gen Astroturf. Will the new nickname have something to do with the river (a la River Cats), or the oft-used gold miner theme? Dry your tears, people, there’s plenty of other football in the Bay Area.

Follow-up: Apparently there’s rumor going around about the NFL being interested in buying a major stake in the UFL. If true, ~$50 million is relative chump change for a league that could effectively replace the defunct NFL Europe as a feeder/development league, with owners in tow. Now that’s a lot more than the $6.1 million shelled out to buy the assets of the AFL in a bankruptcy sale, but it’ll take much more to its successor, AF1, up and running again.

Pollster Rick Lindholm (not to be confused with actress Riki Lindhome) is back with a new set of polls of Santa Clara and San Jose residents regarding their respective stadium “propositions.” This time the results are a bit different – though the polls’ wording may have something to do with it. Consider the following two questions:

QUESTION FOR SANTA CLARA VOTERS:
Shall the City of Santa Clara adopt Ordinance 17.20 leasing City property for a professional football stadium and other events; no use of City General or Enterprise funds for construction; no new taxes for residents for stadium; Redevelopment Agency funds capped for construction; private party pays all construction cost overruns; no City/Agency obligation for stadium operating/maintenance; private party payment of projected fair market rent; and additional funds for senior/youth/library/recreation to City”s General Fund?

QUESTION FOR SAN JOSE VOTERS:
Question: Do you approve or disapprove of moving the A’s baseball team to San Jose?

Obviously, the San Jose question leaves a bit to be desired. We don’t know anything about how narrow or broad the final San Jose measure will be, or what commitments it would make of the city if approved. We also don’t know how much money is on tap for the pro-ballpark folks to use in their efforts. That said, the A’s-to-San Jose effort has practically gotten a Colbert bump, from 45% for/43% against to 53% for/37% against. The difference, as implied in the article, is that the issue has more visibility only two months later and may be viewed as more tangible. Lew Wolff has stated San Jose as his preferred landing spot. That’s without any ad push by pro-ballpark folks, and most importantly, without the official blessing of one A.H. “Bud” Selig.

On the other side of the Airport, the results are more of a mixed bag. That’s not surprising, given the wording of the question. It’s the exact same language as what will appear on the June ballot. Unfortunately, that means when asked, voters might have to consider most if not all of the words in the question. Keep in mind that the 49ers have signed off on the language, and that there’s no mention of either the $114 million in contributions or the Santa Clara owned public authority that will ultimately be responsible for up to $330 million more in funding. As confusing as the question looks, it’s about as 49er-friendly as it can get. That’s not to say that the Niners are in trouble. They have been spending in force and will continue to do so until the measure gets passed. At this point, I’m certain that the only hope for stadium opponents is for some serious money to drop out of the sky for their cause. I should also point out that on KQED’s Forum two months ago, I mentioned the $330 million. That’s not to say that I’m against the 49ers stadium – I don’t take a position one way or the other. I’d simply prefer that it be a fair debate and dialogue with voters, and it’s quite apparent that one side is much better at getting their message out.

San Jose boosters shouldn’t be thinking about season ticket waiting lists just yet. Rest assured that after the SEIR is certified in April/May and SJ’s City Council drafts ballot language for November, that measure will come under greater scrutiny. I don’t expect that the final question will include anything about new public funding, since Redevelopment has just been authorized to spend another $30 million on site acquisition. However, there remains a small chance of eminent domain proceedings for one or two existing landowners, and if that’s the case the measure will prove to be much more potentially divisive – though we’re talking eminent domain against a business, not a homeowner. Personally, I’m at best lukewarm on voting for an A’s stadium if eminent domain is involved (I would’ve felt the same way about San Jose Arena if were of voting age back then). At the same time, I’m definitely not down with a holdout jacking up the price significantly above FMV + relocation costs – there has to be some give and take involved.

Another thing to take into consideration: timing. Previously I had opined that having both the 49ers and A’s ballot measures in the same election cycle would be harmful to one if not both initiatives, since there would be some amount of comparison. This is setting up to have the 49ers have a full leadup to the June primary, whereas the A’s campaign will pick up almost immediately afterwards, thereby eliminating the possibility of a direct, concurrent comparison.

Don’t get too comfortable with the poll numbers. Lindholm has been gathering data on roughly a monthly basis, so when the next pulse is taken we may see something very different. I’m an huge fan of Nate Silver‘s poll aggregator FiveThirthyEight, and frequent readers to that site know that the half-life of a poll can be measured in weeks or days at best.

Other numbers to chew on regarding San Jose:

• Population: 905,180
• Registered voters: 346,227
• Petition threshold for ballot initiative: 5% or 17,312 registered voters
• Normal turnout for a November election: 64% or 221,585 registered voters (36% for primaries)
• Possible necessary Yes votes for a San Jose ballpark: 110,793 (16.3% of San Jose’s adult population)

Full disclosure on my feelings about the Santa Clara 49ers stadium: I’m rather torn on it. I’m not a 49ers or Raiders fan, so I don’t have any personal feelings about either team. I was born in San Francisco and lived there until I was 4. My dad, fearing the rise in violence there in the late 70’s, got a job at a Valley tech firm and moved us to Sunnyvale in 1979. He was attracted to the wide open spaces, the prospect of having a decently sized yard to grow fruits and vegetables, and the lower crime. In hindsight I sense my mom was ambivalent since she knew San Francisco well, but she signed on in the end. My dad’s employer was located in the “Lockheed/Moffett Park” area near 237, and next to the company parking lot was a still active cornfield, where he took me and my twin brother on occasion.

Eventually, that cornfield was paved over. We’ve seen what happened to the Valley over the next 30 years. My mom passed away nearly three years ago, my dad retired last year and now spends most of his time watching CNN and Discovery/Animal Planet while on Facebook. He goes to his homeland, the Philippines, twice a year to tend to family matters and land (no, he is not rich).

My dad likes Sundays. He still goes to church, albeit irregularly, the same Catholic church you can see from 101 when going to Great America. Sundays are the one time during the week when it feels a little like the slower pace of 1979, when people weren’t in such a damn hurry to get everywhere. With the Niners coming in, traffic cops will be posted at the entrances to his little neighborhood, to protect the parking from football fan invaders. He hated the inconvenience when Great America forced this policy for their Independence Day fireworks shows, he’ll hate it much more when it’s 10 or 20 additional dates – mostly Sundays – per year. I don’t want there to be yet another reason for him to leave. As much of a curmudgeon as he’s become, I love him and want to keep watch over him once in a while.

Over those 30 years, the neighborhood has become a Filipino enclave. My parents were one of the first families to move into what was then and still is today a decidedly middle class neighborhood. They sponsored one family, who became citizens and sponsored other families, who became citizens and sponsored yet more families. This happened for both my dad’s and mom’s side of the family. Mom, who toiled at Security Pacific/Bank of America for 35 years, wrote the script that all of the newcomers would use to become Americans. There are still new relatives coming in, all legally, all wanting to be citizens. One is in her mid 60’s and has been here for a decade. She just got her paperwork to start the citizenship process. She has been working as a seamstress – a damn good one – at Great America much of that time. If Great America goes away, whether or not it’s due to the 49ers, she’ll have to do something else, go somewhere else. Maybe that’ll be a final return to the Philippines, where she has been sending what little money she has to her husband, who see sees maybe once a year. Two other relatives are newcomers, both in the hospitality industry in the area. Both would welcome the new jobs, they could both easily and willingly do the food service work – those jobs that so many criticize as “meaningless” – so that they could save money and eventually bring their families over.

So you see, there’s an intensely personal debate going on within me over this. Because of that, I’d long ago recused myself from the debate. And that’s the way it’ll stay since my own extended family will be split over the outcome.

First thing first, I believe it requires several false assumptions to think that Oakland has to choose either the A’s or the Raiders/49ers. For one thing, any Redevelopment funds used to purchase a site near Jack London Square would come from a separate source than funds used around the Coliseum because they are in different redevelopment areas. From a different angle, the 49ers are already focused on a different plan so it is hard to count on them being involved as of yet. So let’s all calm down about what the 19 acre purchase really means.

But if these assumptions ultimately prove true, or the eventual result is that the A’s leave and the Raiders/49ers move into a renovated or new stadium at the Coliseum site, is it necessarily a horribly bad decision for Oaktown? As with anything, the answer is murky and depends on who is doing the answering. Here is my stab at the important things to consider when trying to answer this question.

We will take a new stadium, some fries, a shake… oh and can you throw in a Super Bowl with that?

It seems in baseball, when a City is trying to pitch a new stadium to tax payers they always play the “All Star Game Card.” The equal and opposite reaction in the world of the NFL is the Super Bowl. It is hard to imagine a Super Bowl coming to the Bay Area in either of the current stadiums. It is less hard to imagine a new Bay Area stadium competing favorably with cities like Indianapolis. But is the Super Bowl worth it?

A recent Ball State study on the economic impact of the NFL’s championship game provides some answers. You should read that study, it is short and it calls out all of the shortcomings with the various methods used to predict/report the economic impact of a huge sporting event. From that study, here is a table showing the economic impact of Super Bowls past (using the regional impact economic modeling approach).

So the argument in favor of a football stadium, in the place of a baseball stadium, hinges in part on the ability of the City to land a Super Bowl. The study I cited above found that the 2012 Super Bowl will be worth about $200 Million to Indianapolis (in 2006 dollars). So, not only does the City have to land the Super Bowl, but the economic impact of that Super Bowl has to be greater than the economic impact of the displaced baseball team, which is sort of apples and oranges with a baseball team playing throughout the year while the Super Bowl is a one week party. It would surely help for Oakland to have the Super Bowl on a Miami like schedule, though I am not sure that is likely.

Another thing to consider about a Super Bowl in Oakland… the most likely spot for tourists to stay for a Super Bowl week in Oakland, is in San Francisco. A city that is already one of the tourism leaders in our country. So, while the Super Bowl may bring different tourists, it is not a safe assumption that it will bring more tourists to the region.

Soccer: The Global Game

Another thing to consider, a newish venue in Oakland could serve as a venue for World Cup games, international friendlies and a larger venue for the high profile Earthquakes games.

Much like the Super Bowl, the economic benefit of the World Cup is debatable. And, there really is no hope of having a Miami like schedule when it comes to hosting the World Cup. But if we combine World Cup games for a few weeks (every 20 years) with international friendlies and high profile Earthquakes games… this could bring out a few fans and their wallets.

As a point of reference, last season the Quakes played 2 games in Oakland and 1 in Candlestick Park. S0 really, the amount of Quakes games in Oakland would be limited. All in all the global game would not have a big impact, but when combined with 20 NFL games and the Super Bowl it isn’t hard to see the logic.

Everything Dies Baby, That’s a Fact…

The last thing I would be thinking about is concerts. The above subheading is from Bruce Springsteen’s seminal masterpiece “Atlantic City.” We could probably expect the Boss to come and rock a stadium show. U2, Dave Matthews Band, and various other large concert draws would too.

Another thing to consider is an argument could be made that from a concert perspective, a new stadium in Oakland would be more about “protecting” the City’s current dominant position in the Bay Area stadium sized concert market.  Or, in other words, most acts that can fill a stadium play in Oakland now.

One last thing to consider here, this is a list of the top acts in 2009, one thing to take note of is that most of these acts actually play arenas more than stadiums. Or, in short, there ain’t too many folks who can draw big enough crowds to justify playing in a stadium. On a personal note, that is fine by me because I prefer to catch my concerts at places like Wente Vineyards in Livermore or Freight and Salvage in Berkeley (and in a former life at the 924 Gilman).

In summary, it is hard to imagine the answers to these questions pencil out an economic impact that is a net positive when compared to having the A’s in a Downtown ballpark. Luckily, the Coliseum redevelopment plan, in and of itself,  doesn’t erase the possibility of an A’s stadium near JLS. Does it impact the plausibility or the probability? Who knows?

Just in case the Santa Clara stadium concept gets voted down, the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority gave the green light to a feasibility study for a new NFL stadium on Coliseum grounds. The study will cost $125,000, the entirety of which will by paid for by the Authority. Conventions, Sports & Leisure International will be doing the work, as they did for the 49ers’ and A’s economic impact reports. (Seems like they’ve got this market cornered, no?)

Zennie Abraham is upset about the apparent lack of minority involvement. My guess is that since CSLI worked with the Niners on the single and dual-team concept, whatever they learned from that experience could be leveraged for a new Coliseum stadium. One interesting note: CSLI is also doing a post mortem economic impact report on Petco Park. Of course, I painted the 49ers’ study as overly rosy and the A’s as a mixed bag, so it’s hard to know what to expect from CSLI. Cam Inman thinks the study is a waste of money since we can easily predict the results.

Perhaps the most troubling thing is the apparent disconnect between the Raiders and the Authority. From Amy Trask (via Chris Metinko’s Tribune article):

“We have expended resources in evaluating and furthering the concept of an urban redevelopment project, anchored by a stadium. In that regard, we have already engaged (at our expense) professionals to assist with this analysis. We have not heard from the Joint Powers Authority about the funding of a study, so it would be inappropriate to comment further.”

I thought that these two parties were in some hush-hush negotiations over the past year. Man, oh man. I, myself, am coordinating a move of my employer’s 12-person office to a bigger space in a different building within the complex. There’s no feasibility study needed, but that seems like one of those major items on a project plan, like “finalize budget” or “send out communications to employees.” What does it say about the state of affairs that Trask said she wasn’t contacted, and that the team has been doing its own studies? Sounds like they aren’t on the same page at the very least. Are the Raiders that interested in staying at the Coliseum? The only public rumblings we’ve heard so far were the Raiders talking to Dublin about Camp Parks.

All this gets a big shrug out of me.

Update: Matier & Ross report that Oakland has bought 19 acres of land near the Coliseum as part of this effort. My guess is that it’s the old HomeBase site (PDF) on Hegenberger. Some observations:

• The land cost is $19 million for 19 acres. Wolff was willing to buy Coliseum North land for $1 million an acre.
• The HomeBase site is rectangular, making it perfectly sized and shaped for a football stadium.
• If the stadium is placed correctly, it should avoid EBMUD’s massive sewer interceptor, which runs right through the Coliseum and Malibu lots and can’t have any structures on top of it.

Last November, upon hearing much whining from my fellow East Bay residents, I did a little sleuthing on transportation options to get to a potential new stadium in San Jose. I found out that most of the whining was fairly justified. Getting to an imagined park in San Jose would not be as convenient as getting to the current home of the A’s for large portions of the fan base.

Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about the SEIR in San Jose and its transportation assumptions.  I figure it is time to update the transportation discussion.

First, let’s revisit the original findings:

• The East Bay is a big area, so…
• It is probably better to break it down by Inner East Bay and Tri Valley/Diablo Valley
• Inner East Bay (as measured from Berkeley) faces a 1 hr 30 min drive
• Tri Valley (as measured from Pleasanton) faces a 30-45 minute drive
• No actual train service exists on a  schedule to serve these folks, realistically
• Transportation plans (BART/HSR) for the region will not make an impact on East Bay travel times before 2020 (and that is an optimistic estimate)

So now that reality has smacked us in the face and yelled “You have to drive!!!!” What are the solutions a team might kick around to get the East Bay folks some transportation? Fear not, fellow citizens of Eastbaylovakia… I have some ideas.

While I won’t throw out specific plans, here are the methods I think are key to solving the transportation challenges.

Subsidized Bus Lines

I am an East Bay resident. I work in Sunnyvale. Many of my coworkers also live in the East Bay. Our company has an interesting solution to the transportation challenges we face: a free shuttle service. In my case, due to strange work hours on occasion, the bus line is not always helpful. But, on the days I can leave my house by 0620 and leave the office at 1600, there is no better way to get to and from the South Bay than the Bauer’s powered shuttle service.

The service picks me up at the Tassajara Park n’ Ride in Dublin. Drops me off at the office and does the reverse in the afternoon.  There is another stop, further north on 680 for Diablo Valley residents. A similar service used to operate up and down 880 for Oakland/Berkeley residents.

Imagine the Green and Gold Express running up and down 680 and 880. The shuttle could be to and from Fremont BART or they could go the route my company does and hit a few park and rides on the major highways. Either way, it is a solution I expect to be pursued on some level.

Extended Train Schedules

So, there is this Capitol Corridor thing. And this ACE thing. They are comfortable. Come with Wifi. Possibly a bar cart. Not to mention the potential for some baseball history themed train rides from Sacramento, or Stockton on down. The two lines serve a considerable portion of the A’s current territory. Capitol Corridor has from Auburn to Fairfield to Martinez to Oakland to Fremont, etc. ACE covers Stockton, Tracy, Livermore, Pleasanton and Fremont.

Here are the two routes with all the stations noted:

Routes courtesy of capitolcorridor.org and acerail.com

Only problem? The schedules they keep don’t exactly mesh so well with night games.  The last ACE train rumbles toward San Jose at around the time any random rooster might crow. It last departs from San Jose, heading out on a northeasterly tact, sometime around when batting practice starts. The Capitol Corridor doesn’t do much better. The simple solution is to introduce a new time slot for each route on night games (similar to what Caltrain does for Sharks games). I’d love to come in on a train from Pleasanton, on a “Turn Back the Clock Day,” with a bunch of other A’s fans, all of dressed in period garb. I can hear the ticket taker barking, “1929 priced beer in the bar cart boys and girls!”

Maybe this is pure fantasy, but it is fun to think about.

Another potential challenge here is the cost/time. A round trip ticket from Berkeley to San Jose on Capitol Corridor is $16 and requires a 1hr and 30 minute train ride. A round trip ticket from the Tri Valley is $12.25 and requires a 1hr train ride from the the Pleasanton station. Obviously, the further away you go, the higher the cost/time commitment.

Based on these numbers, it is probably safe to say that the train schedules would probably need more frequent weekend service. That will be when most folks from extended distances would come to town for a game and , probably, when most fans in the East Bay would come. I know I could get a lot more excited about a 2 hr round trip train ride on a Saturday then I would on a Wednesday.

Express Light Rail Trains

I have absolutely no idea if this is even possible. I love VTA Light Rail, for the simple fact that I think of King Friday every time I pass a “Trolley Crossing” sign. Also, because I have a free pass and anytime I need to get to Downtown San Jose I just jump on the next train and there I am.

Maybe the train only stops at sites with a parking lot and then at the Convention Center, the station at  San Fernando and Delmas and at Diridon. I am not sure if you could have a few express trains running on all routes. I imagine it would cause some congestion in the system.

This would be my preferred method on week nights. I could drive into work, catch an express train out at Moffett Park and be at the game well before the first pitch. The downside being I’d have to catch a train back out to Moffett Park before driving home, but that is doable every once in a while.

All of this conjecture points to the one non MLB controlled challenge at Diridon: Transportation for East Bay fans. Should San Jose get the nod and the park is built, success will depend (in part) on how well the available transportation options are utilized. Perhaps the A’s will bring together VTA, ACE, Capitol Corridor, and Bauer’s and together this group will agree to some unified strategy of people moving.  Stranger things have happened, right?

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.

The Trib’s Kelly Rayburn sets the table for what should be the forthcoming report to the commish this week.

The commissioner’s committee is expected to discuss the ballpark sites, the cities’ abilities to make infrastructure improvements, market and corporate vitality, and the politics surrounding a possible move, numerous sources said.

Nearly lost among the posturing among all of the cities and booster groups is noted Stanford sports economist Roger Noll’s opinion:

Roger Noll, an authority on the business of professional sports, does not see the territorial rights issue as a death knell for the A’s designs on San Jose. He believes the matter can be settled for the right price: $20 million or $30 million.

“My expectation is eventually they will move. How long it will take to move, I don’t know,” Noll said. “Among all the options the most likely is San Jose.”

I’m not sure where Noll gets the number from, and I think that whatever compensation is made won’t be a simple $25 million lump sum payment. However, it’s a more realistic number than what many have been calling for: $100-300 million.

It’s 137 pages and will take much of my weekend. The rest will be either sleep or SF Beer Week events.

If you’re wondering what happens next, here it is:

E. CEQA PROCESS

The SEIR is being circulated for public review and comment for 45 days. During this review period, all interested parties are encouraged to read the document to inform their understanding of the project and its anticipated environmental effects, and to submit written comments regarding the environmental issues and analysis presented in the SEIR.

Every comment letter received on the SEIR during the 45-day comment period will be reviewed by City staff and the environmental consultant team, and the City will provide a written response for every substantive comment received addressing environmental issues associated with the baseball stadium. The SEIR will be revised as appropriate in response to comments received, and the City will prepare a Final SEIR, consisting of the SEIR, the public comments received, the City’s responses to substantive environmental issues raised in the public comments, and any text revisions resulting from the responses to comments. The Final SEIR will act as a supplement to the previously certified EIR.

The Final SEIR will be released, and a copy provided to all commentors, a minimum 10 days prior to the public hearing before the Planning Commission of the City of San José to consider certification of the Final EIR. If the Planning Commission certifies the Final EIR as complete and in compliance with CEQA, the Commission may then hold a public hearing regarding any recommendations related to the proposed baseball stadium. The decision of the Planning Commission to certify the Final EIR may be appealed to the City Council. Instructions on filing an EIR Appeal can be obtained by calling (408) 535-3555 or at http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/applications/.

The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider certification of the SEIR, in the event of an appeal. If the Council upholds the Planning Commission decision and certifies the SEIR as complete and in compliance with CEQA, the Council can then consider approval of actions for a stadium project as described in the Baseball Stadium in the Diridon/Arena Area EIR, as revised by this SEIR. It is anticipated that the City Council will place a ballot measure before the San José electorate regarding the use of public funds for construction of a stadium. Pursuant to provisions of the San José Municipal Code, the City may utilize tax dollars to participate in the building of the stadium only after obtaining a majority vote of the electorate approving that expenditure.

See you on the other side. Of the weekend, that is.