The Merc’s Mike Swift has two good pieces today. The first covers the generally anti-public funding attitude for stadia in California. The other article has noted sports economist Roger Noll’s skepticism over the 49ers’ Santa Clara stadium plans, while also saying that the Fremont site is “much more viable.”

The only thing missing from Swift’s article is SB 4, the 2005 bill that flew under the radar during the legislative session, only to be stillborn as it went through committee. We should be proud of the fact that we aren’t likely to get extorted as our counterparts are in Pennsylvania, Florida, and even New York. It doesn’t matter that California alone would be one the world’s top ten economies. Let’s remember who would be competing for public funding if it were allowed at the state level (which it hasn’t for decades):

1. A’s ballpark in Oakland/Alameda County
2. San Francisco 49ers stadium
3. San Diego Chargers stadium
4. Sacramento Kings arena
5. New LA football stadium to attract an NFL team
6. San Jose Earthquakes stadium

As for Noll, he’s right. While the $200 million being pursued is only 1/4 of the 49ers’ projected budget, it’s still a sizable chunk for any municipality, let alone Santa Clara. If a vote is required – which looks likely – I don’t know how well that’ll go over. A while back I spoke with one of the Santa Clara project’s proponents, and one of the advantages about Santa Clara being pitched – the city’s ownership of an electric utility allows it to control and lower prices – could be placed at risk if the money backing that price control is leveraged. Meanwhile, Lew Wolff continues to make appearances in Fremont, yesterday reading to kids at Niles Elementary.

One other nice blurb from China Basin: PG&E will install new solar panels in three different areas at AT&T Park, enough to generate 123 kW, or “enough juice to power the ballpark’s scoreboard for an entire season.” Applause to both the Giants and PG&E for doing what they can to take a small load off the power grid.

Update (3/21): PG&E somehow “forgot” to tell its ratepayers that they would end up footing the bill for the project. Oops. So much for the good PR.

Lew Wolff sat down with long-time A’s beat man Mychael Urban to talk shop. There are a few quips here and there about the state of the baseball side of the team, soccer, and the talked-to-death tarp matter. There’s also a little insight into planning for the ballpark, though you shouldn’t expect me to get too much out of these tea leaves:

MLB.com: Obviously, the stadium issue is front and center with most A’s fans. Where does everything stand with the proposed park in Fremont?
Wolff: It’s the most complicated transaction that I’ve ever seen. It’s a win-win-win for everybody involved, but one of the problems we have in baseball is that everyone thinks the baseball teams should underwrite everything. I’m not talking about the public. I’m talking about various constituencies we deal with. So I’m confident that we have a great program, but there’s a lot of constituencies we have to satisfy, and we’re trying to do that. So it’s hard to set a date for when it’s going to happen. If everything went great, it could be 36 months before we open it. But that’s if everybody was cooperating exactly the way I want them to, which I’m not expecting. On a fast-track basis, we could open in 36 months, but it’s probably going to be closer to 60 months. Right now we have a certain number of issues that we need to agree to, and we’re getting close. We’re trying to stay in Alameda County, because that’s our district, and we don’t have any leverage. We can’t say, “If you don’t do this, we’re moving to Omaha.” Every other team I know of [that’s tried to get a new stadium] has had an alternate site. We’re trying to do this without that. We just want to get it done here.

That’s about as pragmatic an approach as one could expect. Wolff’s feelings about the “leverage” situation are reflective of the realities of the East Bay market, and by extension, the South Bay as well. Honestly, what other owner have you heard or read recently that has said that he doesn’t have any leverage? Leverage is the name of the usual stadium-building game, folks, and it’s clear that a different game is being played here.

The window of 36 to 60 months is nothing new. Let’s establish these timeline scenarios, remembering that in general it takes 12-18 months to complete and approve an environmental impact report and 24-30 months to build a stadium. Even though the ballpark village and surrounding residential development are integral to the plan, for now we’ll focus solely on the ballpark itself. We’ll use a hypothetical date of April 1, 2007 for the development application submission.

First, Lew’s worst case:

• There’s a clear line between the two major phases, but in a worst case scenario the line can turn into a messy gap. Delays could come in terms of getting financing (San Diego), legal problems such as court injunctions (Cal’s Memorial Stadium retrofit), or last-minute concessions that have to be made by the developer or city (Forest City Uptown in Oakland).
• Even in this case, the A’s have some wiggle room since their last option year at the Coliseum is 2013. They would still be eager to get everything in place ASAP because by that point they’ll have invested their $500 million on the ballpark with nothing to show for it.

Next, Lew’s best case:

• In previous posts I had more-or-less ruled out 2010 because the schedule would be too compressed. It’s not impossible as you can see from the timeline above, but far too many things would have to fall perfectly into place to make it happen. For instance:
• Unless the EIR and planning pieces went through without significant review, one year is too short. An EIR for the Cisco campus project is already on the books, but it was heavily dependent on the land’s planned use. The ballpark village is a night-and-day contrast from an office park. Plus there’s no telling what concessions will have to be made regarding the 2900 townhomes, some of which could run really close to the wetlands preserve.
• 24 months to build the ballpark may well be doable, since Cisco Field will be a smaller and less complex building it can’t be ruled out.

Finally, the likely scenario:

• This scenario includes a full 18-month study period and 30-month construction window. There are 3 months or so of padding in the middle to accommodate any changes that may occur in the schedule. What’s important is that there’d be no need to rush – and rushing costs a lot of money.

Silicon Valley Leadership Group, the Valley’s biggest lobby, has officially endorsed the A’s move to Fremont. There’s no drama here, since Lew Wolff has spoken recently at Silicon Valley functions and was a guest on SVLG head Carl Guardino’s radio show two weeks ago. The actual endorsement was mainly a formality, since the tide changed from a pro-San Jose effort (remember Baseball San Jose?) nearly a year ago.

The endorsement won’t accelerate the project in any way, but it lends a significant amount of political weight and credibility. If, as rumored, many SVLG members are already on board -with checks for suites, premium seats, and sponsorships ready to go – then the public can start to think of the plan as more concrete. It’s hard to dismiss cash. Of course, the A’s still need to actually submit the development plan and get it approved before people start patting each other on the back.

Guardino said that the project “positively addresses our Valley’s housing challenges.” For years the SVLG has lobbying for increased housing in the Valley, a need that the project’s 2,900 townhomes would start to address. SVLG has also been a major supporter of BART-to-Silicon Valley and Smart Growth initiatives such as transit-oriented development (TOD). They certainly have nothing to lose in backing the project. If SVLG had input anywhere, it may have been the change from condos (in the Coliseum North plan – the high-rises) to low-slung townhomes, which are a far more familiar housing mode in the Valley and may be considered by some to be more family-friendly (and negatively, more car-friendly).

The big clincher would be if the housing at Pacific Commons could somehow positively affect the approval for the BART-to-Silicon Valley project. As it stands, the project’s 1.25-mile aerial distance from the planned Warm Springs station places it outside the radius required for nearby or adjacent TOD housing. If the ballpark village were located next to NUMMI instead, the BART extension would probably qualify for additional federal funds or at least have a better chance of getting approved.

It seems like everyone building a new stadium is struggling with land problems. In Minneapolis and DC, eminent domain actions were able to get the ball rolling but the different municipalities and private landowners still have not settled on final prices for the parcels. In DC’s case, the final land cost threatens to break the project’s $611 million cap. Hennepin County is not nearly as far along, making the impasse force the county to either look elsewhere for a site, or to construct a deal involving new entitlements for the landowners.

Down in South Florida, sights have shifted towards the Orange Bowl, where a plan is coming together to tear down the venerable, 70 year-old football stadium and replace it with a new home for the Marlins. The University of Miami football team would move to Dolphin Stadium, where the Marlins currently play. There were previous discussions about a downtown site, but it appears that the 9-acre Orange Bowl site may be more feasible.

Back on the left coast, the City of San Francisco is pushing to speed up the Navy’s transfer of Hunters Point to the city. The former shipyard, landfill, and nuclear research facility was split into 6 pieces to help accelerate the process, but now the City wants to take over the whole 500-acre pie. All told, cleanup could cost nearly $1 billion.

The Bay Area will receive 70% of the Prop 1B money earmarked for Northern California. In total, the MTC will receive nearly $1.3 billion in funds, more than Los Angeles County’s almost $1.2 billion. Two projects that didn’t make the cut two weeks ago now just got over $160 million in new financing, and they’re quite relevant to the Cisco Field even though they aren’t within 5 miles of the ballpark. They are:

• Carpool/HOV lane on Southbound I-880 from Hegenberger Rd. in Oakland to Marina Blvd. (San Leandro). This section frequently gets jammed up on weeknights as it loses a lane while going south. Adding a HOV lane should help siphon carpoolers earlier in the commute, giving ballpark goers from Oakland HOV access all the way down the Nimitz.
• Carpool/HOV lanes I-880 between US-101 and CA-237. Only a few years ago, this section was strictly two lanes in each direction. While the addition of a lane in each direction helped reverse commuters (like yours truly), those stuck in the regular commute continued to face much congestion. A HOV lane would help fans coming from San Jose while also acting as a regular fourth lane during non-carpool hours (think weekend games).

According to the California Transportation Commission’s documentation, neither project would have a bid awarded until late 2011. Add 2-4 years to to build these enhancements and they’d probably miss the opening of the ballpark. When thinking of them in the long term, it can’t be viewed as anything but a positive. Neither project will be fully funded by state money alone, but needing to get only a few million as opposed to a few hundred million is a major victory.

I was surprised to find out that in Lew Wolff’s KLIV appearance with Dave Holland on Carl Guardino’s CEO show, this very site was mentioned. Specifically, Lew talked about how I and many others are eager for the details, perhaps before they’re ready to present. Given the recent articles about the Scott Specialty Gases situation, perhaps more patience should be exercised. It doesn’t help that I have high-res renderings of Cisco Field rotating every 30 minutes on my computer’s desktop background/wallpaper.

No transcription, but I picked up a few good points from the Q&A:

• Wolff cited an economic study for a stadium in Arlington (TX), and said that the impact of Cisco Field would be greater. Not sure if the comparison is with the Ballpark in Arlington (now Ameriquest Field) or the new Dallas Cowboys Stadium. If it’s the ballpark, the comparison is easy because the ballpark woefully failed to deliver on development promises made when it was initially pitched. The new football stadium has a more recent glowing economic study, but around here we tend to view such reports with a suspicious eye.
• The soon-to-be-released A’s economic study will claim that through direct and indirect means, the project will bring 7,000 new jobs to Fremont.
• For the first time, Wolff mentioned a bus system serving as the shuttle to BART. No specifics.
• Wolff inferred that the buildings outside the ballpark that have a view of the field would be leased or owned by third parties, but the A’s would have control over the rooftops.
• Ads would be largely digital and targeted. For instance, alcohol ads would stop showing when beer sales stopped in the 7th inning.
• Cisco VP/Treasurer Dave Holland talked about how baseball is moving from a broadcasting model to a more user-driven experience.

On a side note, Carl Guardino was named to the California Transportation Commission, the state body charged with doling out $4.5 billion in Prop 1B funds. Guardino is a major proponent of BART-to-Silicon Valley. It’s a very big deal.

KCBS and the Merc have stories on Scott Specialty Gases, a business on 5121 Brandin Court in Fremont. SSG’s Electronic Materials Group is located there, and it supplies various semiconductor firms with gases used in manufacturing. According to Fremont officials, Wolff and Co. would have to pay to relocate SSG away from the ballpark village.

The shock value comes from mitigation measures already in place at Pacific Commons, in which various nearby stores (Kohl’s, Office Depot) would have to shut down their ventilation systems in the event of a toxic cloud or leak. Since the ballpark would be open air, no such mitigation would be possible – leading to the need to relocate the business.

Even if the danger is slim, the concern is well-placed. The articles only cover the possibility of arsine (yes, it’s related to arsenic) or chlorine gas endangering crowds at Cisco Field. But with the introduction of a new residential neighborhood, it’s residents that would have to be just as worried, if not moreso. So yes, SSG most certainly has to be moved to make the project work.

Is it a showstopper? I think not. While SSG has been at the current location since 1985, it’s not a business that forces it to be fixed. It’s a distribution facility, not a plant, so we’re not talking about uprooting manufacturing facilities or potential groundwater leaks. It’s a fairly nondescript industrial building with no tanks (correction: there are a few tanks outside) or smokestacks outside. In other words, it’s not a Tosco or Chevron. That’s no to say there aren’t special facilities built in to properly store the chemicals – it’s just that it’s merely a cost to be factored into the relocation. And that has to be the real sticking point. There’s plenty of land and other buildings elsewhere in Fremont’s Industrial zone that can be utilized for SSG’s relocation.

It’s all a matter of price. The property is assessed at $1,954,210 including improvements for slightly more than 1 acre. I’ve seen a CBRE listing for a 4.65-acre property with a 76,500-s.f. building for $5.7 million, so the SSG property has to be worth less even with relocation costs included. SSG is a national firm, not some mom-and-pop, so don’t expect them to get fleeced. Wolff’s known for his negotiating skills. We’ll see how long it takes, but it will happen. Remember that there are a handful of businesses in the area that will need to be relocated for this project. Personally, I’d much rather deal with a handful than dozens, as would have been the case with Coliseum North. Not to be ignored is the fact that Fremont has stood firm on its stance that these types of costs have to be borne by the developer.

The Niners keep running into obstacles with the Santa Clara site. First it was the power substation, which can be avoided without much difficulty in the design phase. Now comes the old Hetch Hetchy aqueduct, upon which nothing can be built. According to Matier & Ross, the aqueduct, officially called the Bay Division Pipelines 3 & 4, could be a bone of contention from both land use and political standpoints. But how big a deal is it?

First, let’s take a look at the land use aspect. The pipelines run south through Fremont and Milpitas before turning west through North San Jose, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale. Where they run through residential neighborhoods, you’ll find narrow landscaped greenbelts. In industrial and office parks, the aqueduct usually runs underneath surface parking lots.

The red area represents the lot the 49ers are targeting. The blue line is the aqueduct. I placed the Coliseum there because it represents a possible footprint (sizewise) for the stadium. As you can see in the photo, the Coliseum fits quite snugly between the substation and the pipelines’ right-of-way. There’s another graphic put together by the Support Our Niners advocacy website but it’s a bad perspective for understanding how the right-of-way relates to the rest of the land.

The stadium is doable without moving or reconfiguring the substation, as was discussed for the Diridon South ballpark site. The pipeline right-of-way can stay intact, and when the time comes for the pipeline itself to be replaced, a partnership of the SFPUC, the City of Santa Clara, and the 49ers can jointly build a walkable plaza that would beautify the buffer between Great America and the stadium.

As for the political side of things, you can’t count out the possibility of the City of San Francisco making things difficult through the PUC. It wouldn’t be the first time I used the word cockblock with this situation.

Lew Wolff will be on San Jose AM station KLIV Tuesday night @ 7 p.m. (repeat at 10 p.m.). From the KLIV website:

Please tune in this Tuesday night (February 27) for an engaging and interactive conversation with Lew Wolff and Dave Holland.

Oakland A’s owner Lew Wolfe (sic) and Cisco Systems Executive Dave Holland will join The CEO Show, on 1590 KLIV.

Lew and Dave will discuss the plans to bring the Oakland A’s to the City of Fremont, and the high-tech, state-of-the-art ballpark they envision for their fans.

The weekly talk show (starting at 7pm with a 10 pm repeat) features prominent CEOs and Senior Officers who impact our Valley, State, Nation and World, for an unrehearsed discussion on the key issues facing our Valley’s economy and quality of life. It is a show about Silicon Valley for Silicon Valley.

The show includes a call-in portion for interested listeners who would like to participate in the conversation. The call-in number is 408/575-1600.

I hope you can join us this Tuesday, February 27 at 7pm, or the repeat broadcast at 10pm for an engaging conversation with Lew Wolff and Dave Holland.

KLIV is a low-power station that can’t be picked up anywhere outside the valley, and as far as I know they don’t webcast.

The San Jose Business Journal reports (subscription required to read full article) that Comcast is closing in on buying Rainbow Media’s 60% share of FSN Bay Area. The long-discussed deal would give Comcast control over both Northern California regional sports networks, its own Comcast Sportsnet and FSNBA (40% owned by Fox). What are the ramifications of this arrangement?

It would be double-edged sword. FSNBA and Comcast have long had a good working relationship as content provider and cable operator, respectively. The entry of CSN to the Bay Area a while back made CSN a potential competitor, but FSN smartly locked up all of the Bay Area teams to long-term deals that shut out CSN. Without good local content, CSN had little reason to heavily market in the Bay, choosing instead to wait until FSN’s agreements expired. Since CSN would own part or all of either channel, it could choose to be more aggressive since it would win either way. Here are some possibilities:

• CSN could remake itself as an Expanded Basic channel, not a Digital Only channel (400). Such a move would make CSN available to almost as many subscribers as FSN, though arrangements would have to be worked with independent cable providers. It would be the costliest move for Comcast since they might have to deal with the displacement of an existing Expanded Basic channel.
• CSN could stay Digital Only, which would limit exposure but reign in costs. I could see this happening CSN were to be established as a lower profile network compared to FSN, with lower cost/ratings programming. It’s possible that the scenario could be flipped with CSN getting the prime spot while FSN is pushed aside.
• CSN and FSN could have a programming sharing agreement with lots of cross promotion. The two networks could be peers, or one could be the “backup” for the other. That would probably mean the end for FSN+.
• CSN could withdraw from the Bay Area completely, leaving FSN/FSN+ as the sole regional sports provider.

Whatever happens, it will make for a definite landscape change among the Bay Area teams. Wolff has expressed interest in creating a regional sports network, which I dismissed previously due to Comcast’s 800-lb. gorilla status. The time might be ripe for a new alternative RSN, but there are startup costs and programming questions to be answered. A new RSN would only work if there’s enough programming (not just baseball) to warrant it. That means pairing with a winter sport and having other deals in place. I could definitely see an A’s-Sharks-Quakes relationship happening on either CSN or Wolff’s channel.

One other thing: there will certainly be questions about HD content. Right now delivering HD has a premium associated with it, about $30,000 per game in production costs. That should go down over time, but right now it’s pretty hefty.

Article’s like today’s AP piece are a good way to keep Cisco Field in the public conscience. As of 9 p.m. tonight, it showed up on 69 newspaper websites (according to Google). There’s talk of progress, but no indicators. There’s nice warm-fuzzy stuff about taking batting practice and shagging fly balls. Readers can sense the passion and commitment by Lew and Keith Wolff. Great. We get it.

Such articles can only go so far and will be quickly forgotten once the public has real details to scrutinize. For a guy who has claimed that he wouldn’t negotiate through the media, Lew’s done a good job communicating to the public through the media (the Ronn Owens visits, San Jose speeches, etc.). We’re getting close to dealmaking time. And frankly, I can only stomach so many of these types of articles.