Watch this space for frequent updates. Comments are in brackets [].

8:00 – Mostly full, at least 150 people
Pat Dando addresses meeting – informal conversation

Council members: Constant, Kaira, Liccardo, Chu
Redev head Mavrogenes
Comerica Bank

KCBS reporter present

8:07 – Lew speaks
Business is not business as usual
We can’t wait out the recession
We need to use the few assets we have to at least get projects teed up

I hope SJ won’t tolerate the kind of self-interest delays that threaten projects

No public money/Union built soccer stadium – We plan to use union labor because that would be the best use for the project. It’s not about trying to deliver a block of votes.

“I guess I’m a lobbyist”

All of my projects are union-built and didn’t use a single lobbyist.

I shouldn’t have to hire somebody to talk to the council. The current law is strange to me.

8:13 – Baseball

Cisco Field will do what the Arena and the Sharks have done for the region.

A few self-interested and in my view absurd voices have used double-speak to derail the process.

On this wild traffic situation, it isn’t anywhere near the alternative use for the alternative site [not specified].

We think issues should be fully aired, but not forever. A “No” answer is as good as a “Yes” answer for those of us who want to move forward.

There are ways for the city to smooth the process without reaching into their pocket.

The process is killing California. How is the stimulus package going to stimulate things?

Let’s help the city. Let’s not fight every little thing. Let’s support people who want to create jobs.

Forget about my baseball and soccer desires. [cue up cancer analogy] The process is the end product. We’ve gotta get to an end.

8:19 – The cost of indecision

The cost of not doing something is greater than the cost of going forward.

Q&A begins

When he moved to LA, Lew talked about the Arena. People asked him where San Jose was. He bought a bunch of 45’s of “Do You Know The Way To San Jose” and handed them out. When the Sharks came to town, the city got on the map.

When we open the soccer stadium, the naysayers will go away. The Arena and the Sharks have been the single biggest stimulus for the city.

Dando cites several cities who have benefited from having sports teams.

Studies fail to cite how a stadium is financed. A city going out of pocket is far different from a private developer who wants to build it himself. Protesters like to say we’re trying to tag the city – we’re not. In terms of economic impact, I’d love to debate anyone from these schools (Cal, Stanford) [is Roger Noll available?].

8:30 – The Earthquakes have been great for the community since we brought them back. [Dando thanks Lew for bringing the team back, Lew thanks John Fisher. Dando asks about Beckham.]

Dando: Talk about bringing back one of the Giambi boys.
Wolff: We have a lot of young pitchers, and it’s important to try to get them more than 3 runs a game. It’s going to be tough but the teams will be more comparable (compared to last year).

Dando: Talk about the soccer stadium.
Wolff: We’re piecing things together without any public money.
Dando: Any timing we can look at?
Wolff: In the next year we should be able to see something. I don’t see the need for luxury boxes. It’s going to be a user friendly stadium, with seats as close to the pitch as possible.
Dando: Has the real estate market changed the financing?
Wolff: We’ve always had at least two gameplans. We’ll have some income streams coming in to the A’s that weren’t expected that’ll help with the stadium. I won’t go into anymore detail on that.

Dando: Let’s talk about the A’s in Fremont. What are some of the obstacles you may have to overcome if it doesn’t work?
Wolff: From the day we’ve started I haven’t entertained any “what if’s.” We’re trying to earn our way to be in a city. I didn’t think it would be this difficult.
Dando: What do you see happening with T-rights if Fremont doesn’t work?
Wolff: If I even entertain those thought it keeps me from working on Fremont. I want to build a stadium. It’s small, it’s doable, and it’s financeable even in this crazy market. I’m gonna go crazy if I can’t get it done… I feel that there should be a time limit on environmental impact studies, which was the case when we first started out [I can’t verify this].

Dando: What do you feel this soccer stadium will do to put us on the international stage?
Wolff: The more distribution we have – we want to get to about 20 cities – the better is for the soccer community. You look at regions in terms of number of soccer players, and Northern California is #1, followed by 8 states, then Southern California.

Wolff: We had a meeting in Phoenix about the spring training facility (PHX Muni). There were 8 public employees at the table. We came up with a concept in which we’d pay for it upfront and either the city could pay us back or we’d get lower rent. They said they couldn’t do it for various reasons even though there wasn’t any specific reason at all. They came back to us in a month much more willing to discuss it, because they realized they were doing things “the old way.”

Dando: I think there should be a standard on how many projects succeed, not how many fail.

Wolff: I dropped out of developing here for a while. Phil DiNapoli and I had a project to build a Marriott Courtyard where you get off the freeway here downtown. The land is still undeveloped. We had 40 meetings. We spent $1.2 million. Finally I asked the redev head if we were done, she said “Yes we are done.” I got a call over the weekend about the roofline. Some elected official didn’t like the roofline, now you have to change it. I said we’re not doing it. Goodbye.

We have to stop doing that. The process benefited the project, but we could’ve done everything in 10 meetings. [I vaguely remember the Courtyard project and wondered why it disappeared.]

9:00 Dando: Is there a particularly design you’re trying to do in Fremont like Camden Yards?
Wolff: We don’t want to do retro. We have foul poles running through (luxury) boxes. It’s so intimate that we have to have a few columns [big acknowledgement]. We have a few things and Cisco has a few things that we’ll be bringing to the table. [cites oft-mentioned technology]

Dando: What do you see happening along with the soccer stadium?
Wolff: We don’t see a lot of ancillary uses right now. We see a lot of civic uses – graduations and such. If Apple has a product demonstration we’d like to have it happen there. San Jose lacks a modern outdoor venue [Spartan is old].

Dando thanks Wolff. Wolff mentions that even though he doesn’t officially live in San Jose, he’s here a lot as his daughter and grandchildren live here. Wolff is headed to Treasure Island to do the Giants-A’s joint media session.

The Merc’s Denis C. Theriault has an article today on where San Jose stands with respect to site and process. As has happened on this blog, there’s a debate as to how aggressive San Jose should be in pursuing the A’s while the team is still focused on Fremont. Downtown area councilman Sam Liccardo appears poised to pounce on the chance, saying, “If we have an opportunity for a stadium in San Jose,” Liccardo said, “I will clear my desk.” We’ll see if that’s the quote of a champion for the cause, or Larry Reid.

As noted previously, San Jose has most (but not all) of the likely targeted Diridon South site acquired. An environmental impact report has already been certified. MLB’s territorial rights to Santa Clara County, which are owned by the Giants, would have to be acquired by hook or crook. Theriault also brings up the possibility of a referendum, to which as we all know by now Lew Wolff is allergic.

So then, leaving aside the T-rights for a moment (no one on the outside knows if/how it can be resolved, including me), how could the A’s and San Jose ensure that a vote would not be required? I’ll go back to the handy snippet of the city’s municipal code that addresses stadium construction:

4.95.010 Prohibition of the use of tax dollars to build a sports facility
The city of San José may participate in the building of a sports facility using tax dollars only after obtaining a majority vote of the voters of the city of San José approving such expenditure.

A “sports facility” for the purpose of this chapter is to be any structure designed to seat more than five thousand people at any one time for the purpose of viewing a sporting or recreational event.

“Tax dollars” for the purposes of this chapter include, without limitation, any commitment to fund wholly or in part said facility with general fund monies, redevelopment fund monies, bonds, loans, special assessments or any other indebtedness guaranteed by city property, taxing authority or revenues.

Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the city from allowing the construction of a sports facility funded by private investment.

If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, then the remainder of this chapter and application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

To add to that, City Attorney John Doyle put out a legal opinion about how the City should proceed with its land acquisitions and other ballpark-related work. This has to do with the code above, as the words “participate in the building of a sports facility” could mean many different things depending on interpretation. He laid out three rules:

• The City can pay for enviromental impact reports without needing a referendum.
• The City can acquire land from willing sellers without needing a referendum, as long it could be used for purposes other than a ballpark.
• Any eminent domain actions would require a referendum.

The second rule goes out the window when it comes time for the City to deal with the A’s in business terms. The City won’t be able to give the land away to the team, and it can’t give them a $1/year lease or something similarly sweetheart. The term “fair market value” gets tossed around and while real estate values may have dropped by as much as 20% from the initial acquisition, any larger discounts could also be considered a giveaway, triggering a referendum. Effectively, the A’s should count out any help other than the process-related work that has already been completed.

Theriault also mentions the height of the stadium. The SJ ballpark EIR was for a 45,000-seat ballpark with three decks and tall light standards. Cisco Field is only two decks and 32-35,000 seats. It can be 150 feet tall with light standards, or significantly less if the lights are incorporated into a roof structure.

Tonight another outreach meeting will be held at Weibel Warm Springs Elementary School in Fremont (thanks for the correction, Calvin). It is not known if representatives of the A’s will be present. The protesters will be out in force again.

Tomorrow is the SJ/SV Chamber’s breakfast (7:30 AM) event with Lew Wolff. The event will be held at the Adobe HQ’s Park Conference Room. Registration is closed. I’ll have a wrap-up after the proceedings.

On February 24, the City of Fremont is expected to have a session in which the ballpark project will be on the agenda. The A’s might file another application reflecting a shift in focus from Pacific Commons to Warm Springs.

Good news for A’s fans in Sactown. Talk station KTKZ will carry 127 games this season (no it’s not 162 but it’s an improvement nonetheless). KTKZ is a 5,000-watt, Class B station, so its reach is not that of a blowtorch. Still, it should cover the Sacramento market reasonably well at the very least (day/night coverage maps). I’ll throw this out to Sac readers: Can you get KTKZ, and how well does it come in?

Earlier this afternoon I was interviewed by Sarah Varney of KQED-FM’s The California Report. The interview was nearly 20 minutes long and ran the gamut of ballpark, site, and economic topics. I’m not certain if any of it will be used. Regardless, a podcast/stream link will be up for the story once I get it.

The Argus’ Matthew Artz has the details and the pictures of the 500-strong meeting and protest at Weibel Elementary in Fremont tonight. What was originally intended to be a small meeting of only 25 residents ended up becoming a big Q&A in the school’s cafeteria. If you attended, please post your takes of the session.

In an opposing view on the Argus op-ed page, former candidate for Fremont city council Vinnie Bacon takes on Dominic Dutra’s piece last week and raises questions about the proposal in the process.

Meanwhile, Bizjournals has word of the A’s making Warm Springs their main focus (the decoupled option). I may not have been clear about this before, so I’ll say it now: I don’t like the Warm Springs concept. Compared to the Pacific Commons plan, it’s rushed and poorly conceived. The fact that a specific parcel hasn’t been identified and a project level site plan isn’t available only feeds into area residents’ fears. If, as Lew Wolff says, the A’s are trying to earn the residents’ support, the effort so far is an epic fail.

This Thursday, the A’s are scheduled to have a meeting with 25 members of the Warm Springs community at Weibel Elementary, a school only 1/2 mile from the oft-speculated ballpark site. The fledgling Fremont Citizens Network plans to protest outside the meeting. Could get interesting.

If you’ve ever had the pleasure of heading out to spring training in Arizona, you’ve probably come away from it feeling it was a great fan experience. Compared to the regular season, the Cactus League is more relaxed and the players more accessible. Unlike Florida’s Grapefruit League, most of the teams in the Cactus League are based in towns in and around the Phoenix area, making it easy to catch multiple games in a short timeframe (including doubleheaders). You might even be able to get a round of golf (or at least 9 holes) in before the customary noon tilt.

The ballparks may be the best part of spring training. They have around 10,000 seats, roughly the size of a AA or AAA park. Often, there is a small amount of chairback seating, most of the rest bleachers. A grassy berm frequently surrounds the outfield. There are no club seats and fans are encouraged to roam all over the grounds.

That isn’t to say there aren’t creature comforts. The newest ballparks have a full deck of luxury suites. Most ballparks also have expansive team practice facilities right next door. This season finally brings the Dodgers to the desert, after spending nearly 60 years at Dodgertown in Vero Beach, FL.

Given the state of affairs at the Oakland Coliseum, it may seem congruous for the A’s to have spent their last 30 springs at simple, ordinary Phoenix Municipal Stadium. Muni has been around since 1964, which makes it older than the Coli. Muni does not have a grassy berm. The last time I went in 2003, it didn’t even have an enclosed press box. In fact, it was the only Cactus League ballpark that had an open air press box, which sounds great except on those exceedingly warm days, when it had all the ambience of an average bus shelter.

So it’s not overly surprising that Lew Wolff’s looking for upgrades to the old girl. The strange part comes from the financing of renovations. Wolff knows that the City of Phoenix is strapped for cash much like any municipality in the nation. Instead of the normal “ask city for money, city raises bonds” deal typical of all spring training ballpark deals, he’s offering to pay for renovations upfront, and when the city gets back on its feet well enough to pay it back, it can do so. The A’s are locked in until 2014, so there’s no threat of them leaving immediately. Besides, where would they go? Tucson?

Wolff’s already done this “paying for renovations” type of thing only two years ago, when the Quakes paid for a bunch of improvements to SCU’s Buck Shaw Stadium in exchange for an interim lease while they figured out how/when to build their permanent stadium. So far, so good for all concerned.

While the A’s and Quakes are working on two different facilities with completely different sizes, layouts, and site plans, I’m starting to think that Wolff is trying to time the future construction of both venues in a manner that is more efficient in terms of labor. For instance, if Devcon is bidding on both facilities, with the plan to work on the Quakes stadium first (because it’ll take less time to build) and the A’s ballpark immediately thereafter, many of the specific phases of construction work can be packaged together. Wolff has been talking with local labor unions from nearly the beginning. Packaging the work is a great potential buy-in point for them (interesting note on union financing from Jay Hipps’ article).

Today’s Argus has an opinion piece by former Fremont councilman Dominic Dutra. In it he argues that a win-win solution is still possible. The crux of his argument:

The city should strive to honestly and forthrightly address these impacts while also citing the potential for growth in office, commercial, residential and other development.

While impacts are certain to exist, the A’s appear to be making significant and good faith efforts to address these concerns in order to mitigate them to an extent acceptable to most reasonable people.

Of equal importance, if traditional economic development patterns hold true, this planning effort should result in ample evidence that a stadium located adjacent to vacant land, major freeways and transportation hubs (such as the proposed BART station) would lead to significant economic growth for years to come.

Parallel with this planning effort, the city should perform a financial analysis to determine what the long-term financial benefits to the city would be in terms of additional property tax, sales tax, business tax, redevelopment tax increment, etc.

These future revenue enhancements then could be weighed against the cost of increased service demands.

Whether or not either of the alternatives is certified, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to revisit the economic impact report released 20 months ago. The economy has changed drastically downward in the last 6 months, and it would behoove all to see how projections may have changed in that timeframe. It would be helpful for baseball village supporters or those who may want to put a similar concept in place in the “downtown” Fremont area.

Over the weekend I got an interesting message from someone who worked for the City of Fremont. Apparently, there was a small push to get the city and the A’s to consider a Fremont ballpark site other than Pacific Commons and Warm Springs. The source even got a mock-up aerial photo showing where the ballpark would be placed:

For those who are not familiar with Fremont, the site is Central Park. The ballpark would be placed next to police headquarters, a short distance from the park’s Lake Elizabeth. It would displace a cluster of softball fields, which could conceivably be relocated. Central Park is located at the corner of Paseo Padre Parkway and Stevenson Boulevard, and is at the outer edge of what could be considered Fremont’s “downtown” area.

The major advantage to this site is its proximity to BART, 1/2-mile away. Since it’s on parkland, it also wouldn’t require private land acquisition. According to the source, there is plenty of potential for parking in the commercial area to the west. The site is actually along the path planned for the Warm Springs Extension. BART would tunnel under the park, including the lake.

Two issues immediately pop up regarding the site. It’s about 3 miles from either 880 or 680, and the drive is on what are currently congested, major arterial streets (Stevenson and Mission Blvd.). If you look closely at the broader view below, you’ll also see that anyone driving will be going through a whole mess of residential area, much of it single-family residences in the Irvington and Mission San Jose neighborhoods.

In the past on this blog, someone has brought up a similar concept. I had always considered it difficult because of the distance from the freeways. This concept died in City Hall despite some persistence. No explanation was given as to why.

What do you think of this concept? Does it solve the problems presented by the Pacific Commons and Warm Springs alternatives, or does it introduce more problems than it solves?