David Stern may be getting ready to open the Pandora’s Box that is Las Vegas.

SI.com reports that the NBA commissioner and Sin City mayor Oscar Goodman may be close to bridging a philosophical gap that kept a NBA franchise out of the city. Stern, who previously has refused to buckle on his stance to never place a team in Vegas unless the city’s casinos take NBA games off the books, appears open to a compromise.

Such a compromise could involve two things:

• Betting for the Vegas team’s games would be prohibited (a.k.a. “UNLV rule’). This is a major concession by Stern, one that could be an admission of how outdated the pro sports leagues’ thinking is about gambling and especially Vegas. There’s no way that any league will win this battle with the gaming industry, not even the NFL. The UNLV rule dictated that all state university football and basketball games (Nevada and UNLV) be taken off area sports books.
• The majority of owners would have to approve of having a team in Vegas. While the NBA doesn’t have antitrust protection over its franchises like MLB, moves generally aren’t done without the consent of the owners’ fraternity and the commish. Recognizing the dollar signs and the lackluster performance of the newer Southern franchises (New Orleans, Memphis), having a NBA franchise in Vegas would certainly boost league revenues over most other mid-markets, including Sacramento. The difference this time is that Stern revealed that he wouldn’t “stand in the owners’ way” if a Vegas team was what they really wanted.

Speaking of Sactown, the Maloofs have preemptively announced that they’re committed to staying in Sacramento, even though they’re pulling out all the stops as hosts for All Star Weekend and have no Sactown arena deal in sight.

Stern qualified his statement by saying that the two sides aren’t close to coming to an agreement, a perfectly diplomatic thing to say if you don’t want to piss off existing constituent cities. As the prospect of a NBA team looms closer, the question becomes: Will it be an expansion team or a relocation? Expansion would net a nice franchise fee ($500 million), but it would also further dilute an already questionable talent pool. Relocation might make the most sense considering the dearth of cities willing to pay for new arenas (see Seattle, Sacramento), but obviously the franchise fee wouldn’t be there.

Las Vegas Kings? Sounds fitting for the hyperbole-driven city.

Last October I posted an article that kept track of other teams and their ballpark suits. Some news about other ballparks came out this week, so it’s a good time to revisit those other cities.

First, let’s look at the A’s.

Site acquisition is the major progress point here, as the Cisco deal and surrounding purchases have all but sewn up the land piece provided the project and rezoning are approved by Fremont (and perhaps Alameda County). I’ve also moved the A’s up on the funding meter, as I figure that Wolff wouldn’t commence with the land acquisitions unless he had some generally positive feelers on financing from one or more institutions and potential investors. The political process meter hasn’t budged since the A’s haven’t formally submitted a proposal for consideration. Construction, of course, has not started yet.

• Tuesday, Feb. 13 @ San Jose City Hall, Committee Rooms W118 & 119
• Thursday, Feb. 15 @ Santa Clara Mission Branch Library, Auditorium
• Monday, Feb. 26 @ Milpitas Community Center, Auditorium
• Wednesday, Feb. 28 @ San Jose High Academy

For all four sessions, the Open House portion will run from 6:30 PM to 7:00 PM, with the Presentation and Formal Public Comment period to start shortly thereafter.

Matier and Ross pointed out in today’s column that Pacific Commons is in some danger due to global warming. Should sea levels rise 1 meter over the next 100 years, it would appear that the low-lying project area would become waterfront property or at worst underwater. So which is it?

A previous Chron article included a handy-dandy map showing which parts of the Bay shoreline would be inundated. While the map shows that the project area is not within the 1 meter zone, it’s somewhat outdated because it doesn’t include the work done to create the Pacific Commons wetlands preserve. In order to maintain tidal flow throughout the area, a causeway was built for Cummings Parkway, which runs through the western part of the project area. The causeway is some 3-4 meters above the preserve.

The preserve area (light gray) is physically lower than the project site by 1-2 meters (check this space later for GPS measurements). What you’d have is the project site above the preserve, evolving from a usually dry tidal marsh to an estuary-type area. So the ballpark and the nearby housing should be relatively safe, right?

I’m not going to make any predictions. It would be nice if the subject matter were covered in the EIR. One thing’s for certain: Someone’s going to need flood insurance.

I’m including murf’s comments in this post. murf knows this particular field quite well, so his opinion is worth a lot more than mine, or a couple of columnists:

It won’t be covered in the EIR except to say that future considerations should be made, dependent on observed sea level fluctuations. That’s all that can or should be said about it right now.

An aside on potential sea level rise: 1 meter is a pretty generous (sensationalized) estimate. More recent estimates put the potential rise at 7 to 23 inches by 2100.

An important factor re: how sea level impacts are predicted. Anytime you see a number, be it 7 inches or 2 meters, it’s a prediction for the average global change in sea level. Change, we know, is most severe at the equator with diminishing severity as you go north and south away from the equator. This is because there is a major factor beyond ice cap melt that is considered in the models: thermal expansion. Water at the equator, currently and predicted in the models, fluctuates with greater variance than in the northern and southern hemispheres. Unless ocean currents are reversed (very unlikely) the California coast will still receive current from cold regions near Alaska, which predictably could mitigate some of the thermal expansion expected in warmer waters. The one thing we know for certain is that we don’t know everything about how the oceans are going to react. We’ve got a good idea, though. As for Pacific Commons, it lies within the Study Area of the South Bay Shoreline Study of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a host of local sponsors. This project is in year 2 of a 7 year study to determine appropriate steps to protect the area for the next 100 years against tidal super-elevation and potential sea level changes. (New Orleans opened a lot of eyes.) Assuming the Federal Government can pass appropriations bills in the next 100 years, PC should be safe.

It’s good to know that the Feds are learning from Katrina and could apply lessons to our situation.

The Merc’s Mr. Roadshow, Gary Richards, has an update on the big chokepoint in South Fremont/Warm Springs, the 880/Mission interchange:

Q Gary, you’ve written so much about the construction on Highway 87, which I drive through every day and that is greatly appreciated. But I also drive up to Interstate 880 through the Mission Boulevard squeeze and need to know: When is this work going to end? Opening the merge lanes has helped, but I need to see more signs of progress.
Tom Enriquez, San Jose

A Oh, do I have good news for you. Progress is right around the bend on this $178 million project. The ramps from westbound Mission to south and north I-880 could open by spring or summer, a major milestone. And there is more you need to know:
• The Kato Road ramps will be closed and the new overpass open in another month, perhaps.
• The ramp from south I-880 to east Mission: spring 2008.
• The ramp from north I-880 to east Mission: fall 2008.
• Completion of the Warren Avenue interchange: Late 2008.
• Opening of carpool lanes on I-880: fall 2008.

The opening of the merge lanes from Mission to 237 has already made life a lot easier for those on 880 South during the PM commute. The incremental improvements, culminating with the carpool lane additions, should make 880 South quite smooth. As for 880 North, the widening and siphoning should alleviate some of the problems for the through traffic but there’s no completely solution as the volume is too heavy to fulfill everyone’s needs.

The 49ers and Raiders won’t have the option of getting the NFL’s help in financing their stadia. The league’s G3 loan program, which provided up to $150 million for a new stadium, has been completely exhausted according to new commish Roger Goodell.

G3 helped make the NFL standout from the other sports leagues as it was the only loan program of its kind anywhere. It also smartly borrowed against the NFL’s huge TV contracts, which are the envy of pro sports. Even that was going to run dry at some point, and it looks like teams that faced delay in getting their projects going would inevitably lose out, as the local teams have.

All the more reason for the two franchises to team up on a new stadium. It’s not going to be easy to finance the thing, so everything from naming rights to value engineering is going to be even more important than before. As they get further into their plans we’ll see how bad their situations are. Right now they’re talking to their respective individual municipalities, but someone will see soon that such projects are cost-prohibitive.

According to a SI.com report, SJSU and Lew Wolff are “as few as two weeks” from striking up an exclusivity agreement on a new stadium for the Spartans and Earthquakes 3.o. The key negotiating point is the size of the stadium: Spartan football backers want the venue to hold 30,000, while 23,000 is more comfortable for a MLS team. That may sound like a large gap, but it needn’t be. The use of a stage at one end with portable seats (a la Gillette Stadium) could allow 2,500+ seats to be moved in and out. An open design could allow for lots of portable seating to be used in each end zone. I’d like to see the first 10-12 rows have a variable riser height, a feature seen only in recently built indoor arenas such as Staples Center and Portland’s Rose Garden. That would ensure that for football games fans would be raised above the sideline, whereas for soccer games fans would be closer to the field. It’s not a feature I’ve ever seen at an outdoor stadium.

This money received from the state doesn’t make the extension more or less likely. There’s still a significant financial hurdle to overcome that can only be addressed by federal matching funds (previously rejected) or a tax hike (also previously rejected). Should funding come, service on the extension would begin in… 2016. The separate Warm Springs extension would commence service in 2013.

As part of a framework for the coming discussions on transportation, I’ve put together a table that shows all 30 existing ballparks along with Cisco Field. It shows distances from downtowns and transit hubs plus available transit modes to the venue. Light Rail is overhead electrified streetcar-style rail like SF MUNI Metro and VTA’s LRT. Rapid Rail is like BART, NY Subway, and DC’s Metro. Commuter rail is like Caltrain or LA’s Metrolink. Buses are either local or express service. Not included are ferries or very short distance, low-use options like Arlington’s hotel shuttle or downtown Detroit’s people mover.

The last column shows available parking spaces. Check the legend for more information.

Comment away.

Could it be a marriage made in heaven? Or at least Santa Clara?

Matier and Ross revealed in this morning’s column that 49er officials met with their Raider counterparts “in a casual setting in the latter half of the football season about the possibility of teaming up.” Later in the afternoon, the 49ers issued a release denying such talks occurred. The idea of the two NFL franchises sharing a stadium has been floated here and elsewhere. Is it feasible?

The concept (if not the location) may be the most feasible for this area. The NYC market can only get one stadium built for its two megabucks teams. Despite decades of fierce loyalty, the Redskins’ FedEx Field was privately built, while built-up longing and disappointment helped broker a sweetheart deal for the Ravens. We know that public money is scarce at best for the 49ers and Raiders, as is land. So the better question may be:

Why are they pursuing separate venues?

Just as with the A’s situation, I’m not terribly particular about the eventual location of a stadium. The 49ers have been pumping up the Great America site, which sounds good on paper. It has transit links, plenty of parking nearby, and some land nearby which could be leveraged for development-based financing. Yet the 49ers’ apparent overtures towards the Raiders indicates that the financing part is far from complete. I’ve expressed my doubts about how the team is going to pay for this.

From a practical standpoint, sharing a venue makes a lot of sense.

• The two teams will play 20-24 games total per year including playoffs.
• The exposure that having two teams will bring to the venue makes naming rights much more attractive for potential bidders – perhaps twice as lucrative.
• Having a single venue means that the two teams won’t be competing for a Super Bowl bid. They can throw their resources into co-hosting the bid, collectively getting better chances in the process even for repeat hostings.
• The host city will be that much more interested in “helping” because of the promise of twice as many NFL dates.
• Success with the venue would cascade down to the possibility of a high profile bowl game (yes I’m pointing at you, Emerald Bowl).

Of course, pragmatism often doesn’t rule such proceedings. Greed does. Still, this is a positive step that shows that 49ers management may have a better read on the market than most of the public gives them credit for. As for the Raiders, they understand that compared to a decade ago, they are in a position of weakness on and off the field. They’re now beggars, not choosers, so a lack of options could very well drive them towards this kind of deal. Will the fans of the respective teams stand for it? Sounds like a tougher bargain to me.

BTW – I know I’m going to get asked this – I’d prefer Treasure Island even though it’s a logistical nightmare (BART station at Yerba Buena Island included). Then one of the cities – take your pick.

In the past month we’ve heard a lot about costs associated with the ballpark village. The $500 million figure for the ballpark itself is quite fuzzy, and depending on the final scope of “A’s Town” the final value of the project could be well over $2 billion. It could be very easy to lose sight of the hidden costs of the development. There’s much speculation about who is going to foot these hidden costs, but I sense that much of this speculation comes from good old-fashioned FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). That’s not unfair since we’ve seen municipalities get burned time and time again over the last 20-30 years on sports facility development. In this case there’s less chance of that because a project of this size has to have all details fleshed out before it gets approved. Why? Because if you take away the ballpark, it’s simply a housing and retail development, and as such it should get treated like any other housing and retail development.

Don’t let the ballpark fool you
The ballpark is the anchor of the development, and it’s expected to retain virtually all of its revenue including concessions and parking. Unlike most retail anchors such as department stores, it’s not expected to directly benefit the city through significant sales or property tax revenues. That may vary based on who owns the ballpark and land, but for now let’s work with the notion that when it comes to sales and property taxes the ballpark represents zero direct net benefit to the City and County. (Ancillary development may brings huge tax revenue for both the City and County but it’s too early to project how much.)

Okay, but what about costs associated with the ballpark? Wolff said last week that the A’s will pick up the tab for police presence. Is that simply police within the ballpark village area or the ballpark itself? What about traffic management? Or how about public safety at whatever transportation facilities are built there? Fire and emergency services? All of that stuff adds up. It’s possible that the A’s could capture those costs in their ticket and concessions prices. They could partner with the city on a ticket tax to fund such services, which would be a roundabout way of doing it.

Or they could look at another source of tax revenue within the city itself. Section 5-1206 of the Fremont municipal code covers revenues from recreation and entertainment:

(a) Every person conducting, carrying on or managing any business consisting of entertainment, recreation or amusement shall pay an annual business tax of $1.50 for each $1,000.00 of gross receipts. This classification includes but is not limited to: Archery ranges/instruction, bowling alleys, firearm shooting ranges, golf courses/instruction, ranges, indoor and outdoor motion picture theaters, pool and billiard halls, rental animals for recreation riding, skating rinks, sporting events, swimming pools, theaters at which live entertainment is presented, vehicle courses/racing, game or computing arcades.

That means the tax rate for the A’s would be 0.15% in Fremont. That’s favorable compared to Oakland’s 0.45%, though I don’t know whether or not the A’s actually pay this tax in their current situation. 0.15% may not sound like much, but when talking about a baseball team, it’s actually good revenue. Consider this breakdown:

If Fremont and the A’s were to split the cost of gameday police and emergency services, that $171,120 would go along way towards paying for it. Keep in mind that this is tax revenue that would otherwise not go to Fremont. If there’s a possible source for these expenses or even a rebate for the A’s, this is it.

Permanent infrastructure
There are other types of infrastructure associated with residential or mixed developments. Roads, schools, and parks have great upfront costs, but are ongoing expenses usually covered by existing budgets. In Fremont, the city has had to cut some services and eliminate positions to keep the budget balanced. “A’s Town” would bring some nearly 8-10,000 new residents into the city via townhomes and other types of attached housing. Typical residential and commercial developments these days require developers to foot the bill for water, sewer, and other utilities, as well as building of streets within the development. That cost should not be an issue. It’s the other stuff that needs to be defined.

Arterial roads and freeways
Two major roads feed into the Pacific Commons area, Auto Mall Parkway from the east, and Cushing Parkway/Boyce Road from the north/south. A major piece of infrastructure was completed a couple of years ago when Cushing Pkwy was extended north from Fremont Blvd, officially connecting the two parts of Fremont’s Industrial Redevelopment district. Prior to this, drivers had to take 880 or cross the freeway to get to Auto Mall Pkwy. Cushing is perfect for ballpark traffic as it runs 4-6 lanes and empties directly into 880 South. Auto Mall Pkwy is modern and wide in the Pacific Commons area, but it narrows as you move further east towards 680. It’s this portion of Auto Mall that is a concern because it performs double-duty as a commuter corridor. Widening to a full six lanes from 880 to 680 is imperative, and that includes an overpass section that avoids rail lines, including the planned BART extension. Should that widening happen, Auto Mall may be used as a carpool route, which would be helpful for fans coming from 680.

Modern interchanges connecting to 880 in the area are already complete. Pacific Commons is in the middle of a massive redevelopment zone called “Industrial.” After the creation of the 3,000-acre zone west of 880, roughly $24 million per year in property taxes was diverted away from their usual destinations, in part, to fund four 880 interchanges: Auto Mall, Fremont, Mission/Warren, and Dixon Landing. All but Mission/Warren are finished, and the Mission/Warren interchange is due sometime in 2008. Debt service on the bonds used to finance the interchanges will run through 2013. Even if the A’s were to reverse position and ask for a bond issue – which they haven’t – the city would likely be averse to acquiring more short-term debt.

In a previous comment thread, someone asked if perhaps the CHP weigh stations could somehow be used to route traffic coming from 880. That isn’t likely with the east side station since it’s frequently used and houses other facilities. The station on the west side of 880 (South) is intriguing since it isn’t used much at all and is strategically placed adjacent to Pacific Commons. If the developer, city, and state could come to an agreement, it’s possible that the station’s entrance and exit could be utilized. That would mitigate much traffic that would normally use the Auto Mall exit. The challenges here are A) whether it’s actually possible to use a weigh station in this manner, and B) if Wolff can acquire the private parcel needed to complete the road that would run between the weigh station and Christy Street. I doubt a purchase of just the required easement would be feasible, since it would significantly reduce the existing facility’s parking. Then again, who knows? The road would only be 600 feet long and covers 1/2 acre.

Parks
The municipal code dictates that for every 1,000 residents, five acres of parkland should be set aside. Using the projected additional population of 8-10,000, that means 40-50 new acres of parks. The developer could pay a “park land dedication fee” in lieu of some amount of land, but good parks tend to raise the value of surrounding neighborhoods, so we should expect some modicum of parkland. It’s possible that the developer would dedicate adjacent parcels to the city and Fremont Unified School District to create a shared school/park facility.

Coincidentally, the city owns 40 acres at the west end of Auto Mall, part of it to be used for the ACE/Amtrak station. It’s land Wolff covets for parking – and if parking is in its future, a public park isn’t. Perhaps a trade is in order…

Schools
The nearest public elementary school is across 880 from Pacific Commons, which makes sense since there is no residential development currently at Pacific Commons. Introducing 8-10,000 new residents means that at the very least a new elementary school is in order. Junior and Senior High Schools are at least 1.5 miles away. Again, the developer will be asked to dedicate land for the construction of a school, some 5-15 acres.

Fire/Hospital
A fairly new fire station is located at Auto Mall and Grimmer Blvd, just across the freeway from Pacific Commons. The hospitals in the area are located closer to city hall and the BART station. No change likely here.

Transportation
This issue is the big elephant in the room. It’s worthy of a series of posts to cover potential solutions, so I won’t cover that right now. Soon, very soon.

Don’t say you didn’t see this coming.

At a luncheon in San Jose sponsored by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Lew Wolff downplayed the importance of BART when he said,

“If BART was as effective as we thought they would be, the parking lots wouldn’t be as crowded.”

At face value it’s pretty poor logic. There are numerous reasons people might drive as opposed to taking mass transit: tailgating, cost when a party of five or more is attending, or convenience coupled with location (usually a dislike of mode switches or transfers). The oft-cited 15-20% of attendees using BART is a good percentage compared to NYC, where 13-30% of fans take trains to either Shea or Yankee Stadium.

Wolff could be referring to how BART doesn’t service all of the Bay Area. Livermore residents have long complained about being promised BART in previous expansion efforts. Or maybe it’s a veiled shot at the various Bay Area bureaucrats who chose not to include Santa Clara County in the original system layout. Whatever the case, he’s chosen to marginalize the effect BART has on attendance. After all, 80-85% currently arrive by car. Ample parking is a factor for getting fans to stay at the revenue-generating ballpark village, while finite mass transit schedules tend to make such a notion less palatable.

In the end this is largely a business decision. The developers can’t afford to base their decision much on a much-delayed transit project whose future is in doubt. If you think it’s cold and insensitive, you’re right. I don’t doubt that Wolff would welcome the BART option with open arms if it were beyond the planning stage, but as part of the compromise plan that Pacific Commons is, he (and the rest of us) will have to make do.

Wolff pitched the A’s as a future economic pillar of Silicon Valley.

The team, he said, would “add value to the economic base and further identify Silicon Valley as a specific place to be instead of having people believe it’s in downtown San Francisco.”

You can see where this is leading. An anecdote: one of my new Aussie friends is in town this week. After showing him the sights in SF last weekend, we’ll run around the valley tomorrow. I drove to a point in South Fremont to give him the lay of the land. I found myself having difficulty explaining the geography of the Silicon Valley, whose edges are blurry and whose shape is amorphous. San Jose proclaims itself as the capital. Both Sunnyvale and Santa Clara lay claim to the “heart.” It may be that this fragmentation forever prevents the definition of a center, whose criteria may be arbitrary. But Wolff is also right about Silicon Valley’s lack of definition. “Silicon Valley Athletics at Fremont” would go a long way towards creating that sense of place. Many companies in the valley consider themselves more “citizens-of the-world” and are not locally focused.

Wait, there’s more.

Wolff downplayed the importance of mining Silicon Valley companies to buy up season tickets at the planned 32,000-seat stadium. He said the team wouldn’t be dependent on luxury boxes and would still rely on drawing kids and families.

“We weren’t soliciting box seats or anything like that today,” Wolff said after the meeting.

The team had a special pitch for business leaders who happen to be A’s fans.

Of course they weren’t soliciting box seats. They don’t need to. SVLG is a readily available marketing and sales machine for the A’s. I’ve heard that luxury suites are already largely spoken for. The 4- or 6-person suite concept seems perfect for that “special pitch” to smaller firms. That could in turn open prime seats up for families and hard-core fans (if they can afford the seats).