It’s time for another round of baseball business news prior to Opening Day.

• Sportstime Ohio is the new cable home of the Cleveland Indians. The network so far has only Indians broadcasts and related content such as pre and postgame shows. With less than a month to go before the season starts, only one major cable provider has inked a deal: Time Warner. Other cable companies such as Cox, Comcast, and Adelphia are balking at what is considered an exhorbitant cost to carry the channel, considering the limited content. This same problem plagued both the Twins and Yankees. The Twins ended up losing the battle and signed a long term deal with Fox Sports Net, while the Yanks persevered after over a year and got the YES network on Cablevision. STO will carry the lion’s share of games, 138 in all including 8 spring training contests.
• Not to be outdone, the New York Mets have created their own network, Sportsnet New York, in hopes of reaping in huge amounts of local TV money. GM Omar Minaya’s rash of free agent signings in the offseason was largely in anticipation of the new revenue stream. Talk about saturation, NYC now has four separate, not quite independent RSN’s: MSG, FSNY, SNY, and YES. MSG is owned by Cablevision. FSNY is partly owned by MSG. SNY is owned by a partnership of the Mets, Comcast, and Time Warner. And you thought these companies were supposed to be competitors.
• Since the Florida Marlins aren’t exactly sure where their new home will be, they can’t start a RSN in the Miami area. That didn’t stop them from pulling an unprecedented (for baseball) move. The Marlins are broadcasting the entire 2006 season on FSN Florida, 150 games in all. Some of you have asked why the A’s don’t simply do this given the weak signal from San Jose-based KICU. Frankly, I don’t know why. Comcast has to twittle its thumbs for the next 4 years while the A’s, Giants, Sharks, and Warriors deal with frequent scheduling conflicts.
• Speaking of the Marlins’ next home, San Antonio appears to be the frontrunner at this point, with a ballpark proposal being prepared by Judge Nelson Wolff, who apparently is a major sports fan. If San Antonio does get the Marlins, they’ll be in the smallest TV market in the bigs – and they’ll be sharing it with the Spurs to boot. Is San Antonio being used? Yes, but all cities that entertain these types of discussions are being used, and they should be fully aware of it.
• MLB finally signed a lease with the District of Columbia, though they did not sign off on the idea that either MLB or the Nats’ new owners would pay for cost overruns. Some DC pols didn’t appear to be dismayed by this, but opponents of Mayor Anthony Williams’ plan to use excess tax revenue to pay for overruns haven’t wavered on their stance – and it’s this plan that is a condition of MLB’s lease. Evictions are supposed to start happening on the ballpark tomorrow, and the ballpark, which was originally supposed to be ready for Opening Day 2008, will probably slip to the 2008 All Star Break if not later. Having the Nats play in RFK Stadium for another half-season will only be more costly for DC. The District is not out of the woods yet, and they may never be.
• The new Busch Stadium is still on schedule, with the season almost completely sold out.

One item not related to baseball – Did anyone see the Duke-UNC game Saturday night? ESPN utilized nearly all of their networks for this production, putting the main feed on ESPN, and alternate views on ESPN2 and ESPNU. I don’t get ESPNU, which means I couldn’t check out the “Cameron Crazies cam”, but the “above the rim” cam on ESPN2 was addictive. You don’t get the benefit of seeing what’s happening immediately along the baseline, but if you like watching the rotation of a three pointer or the accuracy of a well executed outlet pass, “above the rim” was for you. The camera shook after dunks. The play seemed faster due to the more intimate angle, yet it was easier to see things develop, especially fast breaks. It was better than the SkyCam that ABC/ESPN has employed for some of its NBA broadcasts, as that view looked far too videogame-like. If this is the future of sports broadcasting through multicasting, sign me up. Oh yeah, it was an excellent game, too.

The A’s have released their 2006 broadcast schedule. There’s nothing surprising in here regarding the local coverage schedule. In total, 126 games will be carried on a combination of FSN/FSN+, KICU, FOX, and ESPN. The surprise is that only one game after opening day will be shown on ESPN. Typically that’s subject to change as the playoff stretch begins in August. Some Sunday home broadcasts may be moved from their customary 1:05 start to 5:05. Should the A’s be at or near the top of the division after the All Star Break, look for this to occur at least once or twice.

The per network breakdown:

• FSN: 69 games
• FSN+: 8 games (All in April)
• KICU: 44 games
• FOX Saturday: 4 games
• ESPN: 1 (+1 additional on ESPN2/KICU)

Looking at the schedule by day of the week, the big hole is in day games held on Tuesday-Thursday. 19 games fall into that category (10 home, 9 road), all starting at 12:35 or earlier. The rest of the day/time breakdown:

• Home Weekday Games (12:35 start): 10 games
• Home Saturday Games – FOX pre-empted (1:05 start): 6 games
• Home Sunday Games (1:05 start): 1 game
• Home Weeknight Games (7:05 start): 1 game
• Road Weekday Games (3:00 or earlier start): 12 games
• Road Weeknight Games (4:00 or later start): 6 games

It isn’t as comprehensive as the Giants’ schedule. A’s fans have dealt with not having weekday afternoon TV broadcasts. And there’s one occasion when the A’s get the short end when competing with the other FSN teams. On Wednesday, April 19, a Warriors@Jazz game is set for 6, while Giants@D-Backs is scheduled for 6:40. The A’s are at home against Detroit, and the timing makes the Wednesday night game difficult to fit it into the FSN/FSN+ schedule.

There is one other new item. FSN+, which until now has been broadcast on 1 of 15 channels depending on what cable/satellite system you had, is now standardizing somewhat. If you’re a Comcast Digital subscriber, you’ll now be able to get FSN+ on channel 410. 410 is surrounded by several other second-tier sports networks including ESPN News, ESPN Classic, Comcast Sportsnet (CSN), and College Sports TV (CSTV), along with the NFL Network and NBATV.

Here’s the kicker: I called FSN Bay Area, and they confirmed that after the end of April/May, FSN+ will be permanently moving to 410, which means it will be available for Comcast’s digital subscribers only. Satellite subscribers and those outside the Comcast sphere of influence should not be affected. This shouldn’t have any impact on this season’s schedule, but it will definitely impact all viewers in the future through the end of the deal, since the A’s, Giants, Sharks, and Warriors are all signed through 2010. It’s actually a shrewd move on Comcast’s part if their intention is to move everyone to digital ASAP (it has been for several years now). It also serves to minimize the difference between FSN’s and CSN’s availability.

BTW, did you know that in the Bay Area, FSN is not owned by FOX? It’s owned by Rainbow Media, a subsidiary of Cablevision. Cablevision also owns the NY Knicks and Madison Square Garden, among numerous other holdings. They’re also known for almost singlehandedly sinking the NYC 2012 Summer Olympics bid, because they successfully waged a campaign against the planned Jets/Olympic Stadium on Manhattan’s West Side. The stadium and its retractable dome would have been serious competition for the Garden.

Remember SB 4, the state bill that would have allowed the state to fund numerous ballparks, arenas, and concert halls? It appears that its author, State Senator Kevin Murray (D-Culver City), is under investigation for receiving $20,000 in December from AEG. Murray and AEG already have close ties going back 20 years, and AEG supported the bill as it went through the legislature. Since the bill didn’t pass in its final, weakened form, it’s hard to tell if this was just a “thank-you-for-trying” quid pro quo gift or an actual payment for legal services Murray did for AEG. A Chronicle article compares this case with Governor Schwarzenegger’s dealings with fitness magazines.

If this was a case of graft, one can only imagine how much bigger a scandal this would be had the bill passed during the regular session. There’s still a flicker of hope for it through reintroduction, but the process neutered SB 4 to the point that there’s no advantage in using its funding/approval system over more familiar local funding methods.

Residents of the neighborhoods surrounding Diridon South have asked for an extension on the EIR’s 45-day public comment period. San Jose’s City Council agreed and moved the deadline out to April 20. According to the Merc’s Barry Witt:

That two-week delay will mean the study probably won’t be brought back to the council for final certification in time for a ballot measure to be written for this year’s election, said Joe Horwedel, the planning department’s acting director. He said that means giving up on a timeline the city had been pursuing.

The hopes were that everything would be ready for final certification in June, with the ballot measure happening in November. That plan’s biggest proponent was lame duck mayor Ron Gonzales, who wanted to submit a proposal based on a successful measure in December. I suppose he wanted it then so that he could say it was approved on his watch as a legacy item.

Plenty of questions were raised about funding the stadium and the fact that the A’s haven’t focused on San Jose during their search to date. With this uncertainty hanging over the effort, it’s likely that the ballpark itself will be a major issue in the upcoming mayoral election. The next mayor will have a say on whether the ballpark effort continues through June 2007, when the next election could be held.

In previous posts I’ve advocated moving the ballpark ballot measure back to June. Why?

• The new mayor will be in place, and it will be clear whether the mayor’s a supporter or not. If he/she is, the awkward Gonzales situation won’t hamper the effort.
• The East Bay picture should be pretty clear. Any remaining Oakland options will have been explored, as well as Fremont, which wants to fast track the process. If Fremont doesn’t pan out, that could leave San Jose as the best site available, with the territorial rights issue remaining to be resolved. Remember that San Jose isn’t an option unless all efforts in the East Bay have been exhausted.
• The ballpark measure wouldn’t be competing with the huge infrastructure bond measure slated for November. It’ll also be further removed from the 1/2-cent sales tax (the stealth BART measure) that will be on the ballot this June.
• It should be clear whether funding will be available to bring BART to San Jose via the aforementioned sales tax hike.
• All site acquisition should be complete and any changes to the plan involving other development such as a soccer stadium could be accommodated with the given extra time.
• Construction would have to be pushed back slightly, but it could still be done by Opening Day 2010 or worst-case, 2011. The A’s have lease options through the 2010 season, which leaves a good deal of wiggle room in a possible construction schedule so there would be no need to rush, as is the case in DC.

In light of the recent news about the NFL’s troubled CBA negotiations and the changes to come in the next MLB CBA, I’ve decided to write a blurb about bringing a salary cap to baseball. Throughout the negotiations for the last few CBA iterations, the players union has been steadfastly against a cap, while the owners have pushed it. Nowadays, both sides feel confident that a deal will be done with little to no heartache for either. Many of the potentially divisive issues, such as drug testing, have already been negotiated. Bud Selig hasn’t even brought up the cap as a potential bargaining chip.

Yes, a salary cap can help the players. Inconceivable! you say. You believe that players and owners are diametrically opposed mortal enemies, like a snake and a mongoose. To that end, I’d say you’re right. However, sports economics has evolved to the point that a cap could actually provide a better payday for the union as a whole than the status quo, while providing the cost certainty that the league and its franchise owners want and the minimum payroll investment the “have” teams want of the “have-nots.”

Before I begin to describe the solution, first it’s important to understand how MLB stacks up against other sports. MLB is the one major sport left in North America without a salary cap of any kind, and its revenue sharing system is not nearly as comprehensive as the other three leagues’ methods.

• MLB: Estimated 2005 revenue – $4.5 billion. All national revenue (broadcasting, merchandise, internet) is equally shared. Roughly one-third of each team’s local revenue is paid into a pool along with luxury taxes when applicable. The pool is then split into thirty equal pieces and distributed to each team. Each team gets their piece while also getting to keep its two-thirds share. Stadium-related expenses such as rent or debt-service can be deducted from each team’s declarable local revenue, potentially making the pool contribution smaller.
• NFL: Estimated 2005 revenue – $5.2 billion. All national revenue is equally shared – $3.2 billion, also called designated gross revenues. Ticket sales are split 60% home, 40% visitors. Each team gets to keep all suite and club seat revenue, ad revenue including naming rights, and ancillary stuff like mascot and cheerleader appearance fees. All of that covers the remaining $2 billion. If combined, the new revenue formula would be called total gross revenues.
• NBA: Estimated 2004-05 revenue – $3 billion. All national and local revenue is pooled and shared with exceptions for roughly half of all suite and ad/naming rights revenue, which each team gets to keep for themselves. The term for this is basketball related income, or BRI.
• NHL: Project 2005-06 revenue – $2.2 billion. All league revenue is shared equally.

Take a look the NFL’s numbers. Split the national revenue among 32 teams, and each team gets $100 million before counting a single ticket, which is enough to cover an entire team’s payroll and then some. Now looking at the salary requirements per league:

• MLB: No real payroll floor, but minimum salary requirements mean that a team of rookies could be fielded with a payroll of $8 million. The 2005 payroll total for all 30 teams was $2.2 billion.
• NFL: 65% of total gross revenue ($2.08 billion out of $3.2 billion)
• NBA: 57% of BRI ($1.7 billion out of $3 billion)
• NHL: 55% of revenue if revenue is $2.2 to 2.4 billion. 54% if less than $2.2 billion. 56% if more $2.4 to 2.7 billion. 57% if more than $2.7 billion.

You can see that there’s more than one way to skin a cat, but in the end it all comes down to a magical range: 50-60% of each league’s revenues is a generally agreeable industry-wide figure. The NFL’s trouble stems from growing disparities in local revenue (sounds familiar, no?). Teams like the Redskins and Cowboys are the big market teams since their stadia have 300+ luxury suites and higher local revenue streams, which leaves teams like the Vikings, Bills, and Saints in the dust. The players have a beef because they feel they should be allowed a greater share of the total revenue pool (the players want 60%, the owners are willing give 56.2%). That would mean that each team would be required to spend $95 million on salary every year, which is a huge difference from the current $95 million cap, which would certainly be higher under a new system.

Contrast this with MLB’s situation. $2.2 billion in total salary out of $4.5 billion in revenue equals only 48.7%. So the question here is: How the heck is MLB paying less in player salaries than the other three major sports? Consider the problems MLB supposedly faces:

• MLBPA is considered the strongest union in pro sports
• There is no salary cap
• A high percentage of costly, long-term guaranteed contracts
• The have and have-not disparity is discussed more often in baseball than in the other three sports (though there are plenty of legitimate reasons to complain about this)

Shouldn’t MLBPA push for a greater share of the pie? Shouldn’t low revenue teams push for a cap? Shouldn’t high revenue teams push for a real salary floor and team reinvestment minimums?

Yes on all counts. The problem is trust with a bit of pride sprinkled in. MLBPA loves to trumpet the fact that there’s no cap in baseball, even though they’re getting shafted relative to their other union counterparts. They also don’t trust the owners with a cap, since it would be one more step towards the owners colluding to keep salaries artificially low. The have-nots won’t fully trust the haves unless there’s a fairly rigid cap with penalties (luxury tax) and extensive revenue sharing. The haves resent having to pay out revenue sharing at all and don’t trust the have-nots to properly reinvest in their teams (Exhibit A: Twins), so they want a payroll floor of sorts. Yet the collective owners don’t really want a minimum like a payroll floor because then they’d probably have to pay the going rate – 55%.

From Selig and Bob DuPuy’s recent comments, MLB isn’t expecting a contentious negotiation period this time around. Neither is MLBPA’s Donald Fehr. Perhaps they aren’t interested in fighting and want to take a break for the next four years. This works until the economies inevitably change again, bringing some other issue to light that wasn’t properly planned for last time. This occurs in every sport – a decade of peace followed by tough bargaining sessions and, unfortunately, work stoppages.

This is baseball’s chance to set the right course for the next decade and beyond. It’s no coincidence that MLB’s revenues have been skyrocketing since they avoided a work stoppage in 2002. MLB and the owners have a good grasp on existing revenue streams. They have most of their new stadia in place. They’ve done a bang-up job on the internet side with MLB Advanced Media and the acquisition of tickets.com. International outreach continues to grow. Why not take advantage of the relative state of good relations and put these issues to bed?

Here’s what each group should do:

• MLB – Bring up the player percentage issue before the union makes it a bargaining item. By doing this, MLB can have the upper hand early in negotiations. Say they start at a 50% position and the union counters with 60%. Split the difference and the players get 55%, far better than they had previously (good for the players) yet lower than the industry standard and kept steady for the life of the CBA (good for the owners). The players’ main concession would be to…
• MLBPA – Agree to a NBA-style soft cap with a higher luxury tax trigger amount and salary exceptions to allow teams to re-sign their own free agents. The cap could be $95 million with a moratorium on penalties for the first two years to allow for bad contracts to be grandfathered in and either expired, renegotiated, or bought out. In bad salary years, a portion of all salaries (5-10%) would go into an escrow fund with amounts going to teams or back to the players at the end of each season. By doing this, they can ensure that each franchise’s star players have a decent shot of staying with their teams, which is great for fans, teams, and players alike. I don’t think a maximum player salary scale should be instituted, as is the case in the NBA, but teams can get first refusal rights or a form of restricted free agency for several years, perhaps in exchange for quicker unrestricted free agency or fewer arbitration years for the players. Of course, this isn’t going to work to raise competitiveness unless the low revenue teams…
• Have-nots – Have a real minimum payroll floor. That means that Tampa Bay can’t spend only $29 million, one-seventh the amount the Yankees did on payroll in 2005. This is an arbitrary figure, but I’ll throw it out there anyway: $45-50 million. That would force the Rays to go after frontline pitching help and prevent the Marlins from engaging in fire sales just to spite the city of Miami. If you’re wondering if there’s enough shared money to make this work, consider this: each team currently gets $35-40 million each year through national sources. Local broadcasting and ad revenue should be able to cover the rest. If necessary, the remaining amount needed to fund the salary floor can be raised if the high revenue teams…
• Haves – Agree to a more expansive revenue sharing policy. Here I don’t think it should be as comprehensive as in the NFL or NBA. Local revenue is too large a factor to simply do a straight redistribution. It would severely impact franchise values and prevent big market teams from being able to go over the cap when they wanted to, and frankly they should. Teams could start by sharing 50% of all local revenue (up from 33%) and 100% of national revenue (the current scheme). An escalator could be included that inches the shared percentage up to 60% when as the remaining teams without new stadia got stadium deals done and/or started their own regional sports networks (RSN’s). Even with the greater revenue sharing, the Yankees, due to lower luxury tax payments, would come out $25-30 million ahead of the next highest revenue team, Boston, which should ease the concerns of George and his investors. The best part about it is that the first-to-last revenue disparity would go down some 50% (at least $80 million) while giving each team at least $120 million in total annual revenue, leveling out the playing field considerably (each low revenue team would get $10-20 million more each year).

The plan is definitely not perfect. There would be plenty of issues to work out, like the grandfathering scheme, luxury tax triggers, escrow percentages, and factors such as deferred compensation and the stadium expenses deduction.

The point of all of this is to work out an effective compromise deal that gives all parties a real stake in the eventual outcome. It comes with greater financial security for all and the promise of better competitive balance into the future. It – get this – gets everyone working as partners, not individually-oriented special interests. The A’s 2006 payroll is estimated to be $61 million. As great as the roster can be, it’s really good only for 2006 before raises kick in and free agency drives prices up. Wouldn’t you feel better knowing that the A’s had another $12-15 million to play with each year for next couple of years until the new ballpark is built? I know I would.

A small blurb in Mitch Lawrence’s NY Daily News column suggests that the NBA’s Seattle Supersonics are seriously interested in relocating to San Jose. I’ve always thought that this was just part of a ploy to get the Sonics out of their terrible lease and have some improvements for Key Arena to boot. Until Sonics owner Howard Schultz actually makes an announcement in which he’s going to move Green Team West to Silicon Valley, I’ll remain skeptical.

I’ve now had a chance to give the EIR a pretty good run-through and I’ve compiled a laundry list of comments to submit to the City. I won’t publish those yet since I want to give it another pass. For now, I’ll list highlight items I felt were important in the document and its presentation.
First of all, it should be kept in mind at all times when reading this type of document that it is an environmental impact report, not a feasibility study and planning guide. Therefore, the authors are not making any judgments on its feasibility or cost, nor are they taking political implications into consideration.

Key assumptions are made early on:

• The HOK-derived ballpark concept has a seating capacity of 45,000. That’s a full 10,000 more than the Wolff concept. This will become very important later on in the discussion.
• The ballpark is built at grade, with no submerged field. This is similar to AT&T/SBC Park.
• Traffic and noise studies are confined to the area immediately surrounding the ballpark to within roughly 1 mile of the ballpark. There is no study of the impact on southbound I-880 due to East Bay fans driving down for a game during rush hour.
• Development alternatives consist of sites and options discussed as of early last year. The soccer stadium option, which was discussed in December 2005, is not in this document.
• One alternative is called Existing Plan, which is based on the development strategy outlined in the Diridon/Arena strategic planning document. There is no alternative for a combination of a ballpark and elements of the planning document. While the ballpark is cited as fitting within the the scope of the Diridon/Arena plan, there is no inherent link between the two since it is not known how the ancillary development would proceed.
• The fire training site is to be used as a combination parking structure and area for the relocated PG&E substation. Any plans for a public park would have to be moved elsewhere.

Now onto the juicy stuff.

The most impactful issue is obviously the noise factor, which has been picked by all local media. However, the noise estimates are inflated because of assumptions made on the size of the project. As noted before, the ballpark’s capacity is set at 45,000. The baseline statistical sample was data gathered by measuring noise outside Qualcomm Stadium for a Padres game where 40,000 fans were in attendance. Since the conceptual ballpark is 5,000 seats bigger, a peak noise gain of 5 dB is estimated from the Qualcomm measurements. Should the 35,000-seat ballpark be built instead of this concept, it can be assumed that peak noise could be at least 5 dB less than the figures cited in the EIR.

Delmas Park is in a bad situation when it comes to noise. It has a freeway and a light rail train immediately to the east. LRT also runs to the north. Another freeway is a mile south. Several major bus lines populate the corridors to the north and south. Jets fly in low on their final approach to the airport 1/2 mile east of the neighborhood. Freight and commuter trains rumble 1/2 mile to the west. HP Pavilion sends hundreds of cars through the neighborhood after events are completed. Finally, San Jose Water Company just received entitlements allowing it to build a planned 1,000,000 square feet of office space along with 325 homes and 3,000 parking spaces, so bring on the piledrivers.

Add a ballpark sending noise directly into the neighborhood, and the result is that the residents of Delmas Park will soon be living in cacophony if they aren’t already. Delmas Park is in a zone where a limit has been established on ambient noise – 65 dBA. Having a ballpark won’t make the neighborhood consistently louder. Instead, it will increases instances of loud noise. For instance, say a crowd at the ballpark cheers really loud 18 times per game, or twice an inning. Over a three hour game, that translates to 6 peak noise events per hour, equivalent to 6 additional jets flying overhead or 6 additional buses’ squealing brakes stopping nearby per hour. I honestly wouldn’t blame residents for being angry, especially because San Jose telegraphed this a while back when they for planning purposes expanded Downtown to include the Diridon/Arena area, yet not enough mitigation measures were taken to protect Delmas Park.

A few ideas were pitched to reduce noise and congestion:

• Provide sound insulation for 40 affected homewoners inside the 60 dBA contour. Frankly, this should be extended to all homeowners in the neighborhood out of consideration for the impact of other development. Should the Diridon/Arena area become a true mixed-use transit hub, the noise is only going to get ratcheted up. It’s the very least they can do.
• Utilize a distributed sound/PA system. That would probably mean that venue audio kings Meyer Sound would be out of the running, with a PA system provided by other companies like Panasonic, EV, or JBL. It’s a relatively minor issue, but Meyer Sound is a big reason why Jon Miller calls Coliseum PA announcer Roy Steele “the voice of God.”
• Widen Delmas Ave to 2 through lanes south of W San Fernando St. This should help traffic pass through the area more quickly and has been identified as a mitigation measure for development at the SJWC site.

There are a few mitigation measures I’ve identified that could make things a lot easier for Delmas Park.

• Shut down W San Fernando St and maybe Park Ave between Autumn St and Delmas Ave/Woz Way two hours before each game through one hour after each game to all traffic except Delmas Park residents and buses. By routing most traffic on the north-south routes in the area, traffic can flow freely around the ballpark while also preventing access for unscrupulous types looking for shortcuts through the neighborhood. This option was discussed during the scoping session, but for whatever reason didn’t make it into the document. There are problems related to shutting down Park Ave because the premium parking garage would be on the corner of Park and Autumn/Montgomery, but this could be managed.
• Plant more trees. Sounds simple, but trees and other foliage can act as a nice sound barrier when strategically placed. That would means trees with lots of leaves, not low maintenance palms. Since a few dozen trees would need to be removed to make way for construction, why not use the buffer presented by the Autumn St/Los Gatos Creek public space to make a visually pleasing and practical sound barrier?
• Tighten the seating bowl. The model used in the EIR is based largely off AT&T Park, which has an approximately 80-degree bowl angle that tapers in along the outfield lines. If a tighter infield angle were used (60 degrees based on the models I’m using), the bowl could better attenuate sound while providing fans in the outfield corners with closer views of the action. Examples of a tighter angle exist in Yankee Stadium and Raley Field.
• Turn the field orientation 15 or more degrees north. Planners want to include the downtown skyline, but tilting the field in a more northerly direction can allow some noise to be directed away from Delmas Park without severely impacting the view.
• Make a pact with the community. This would be similar to what was negotiated with residents surrounding Chicago’s Wrigley Field in which there are a limited number of night games. It doesn’t have to be that extreme, but there can be limits to the number of night concerts (15-20 estimated per year) and fireworks displays. It should be stated that sound studies don’t typically measure noise that carries due to the inversion layer or other weather factors. It’s that type of noise that caused the rash of complaints when the Rolling Stones came to SF, or when Shoreline Amphitheater opened and drove much of Palo Alto crazy.

Surprisingly, the Cahill Park/St. Leo’s neighborhoods don’t appear to be affected much by ballpark noise (see picture above: blue = ballpark 60 dBA contour, yellow = concert 60 dBA contour). This is mostly due to the field orientation as the grandstand attenuates much of the sound directed to the west and south.

There were a few more interesting nuggets I culled from the EIR:

• The only building on the site with any significant historical value is the former KNTV Studio, which is reportedly over 50 years old. It won’t be saved should the ballpark get built.
• At 45,000 seats, the ballpark rises 165 feet from street grade, 200 feet including scoreboards, 235 feet with light standards. It doesn’t need to be nearly that tall. A 35,000-seat ballpark would reduce or eliminate the need for a large upper deck. The models I’ve drawn up have the topmost row only 83 feet above the field. If the field were sunken 15 feet below street grade, that same row would be only 68 feet above the street, the equivalent of a 5-6 story building. The facade that fronts the concourses would be even lower. Add a roof with light standards contained beneath the roof or at the roof’s edge and the height is raised roughly 20 feet. If done in this manner, the ballpark would have less height and visual impact than HP Pavilion, which rises 100 feet from street grade. This lower profile would allow the building to comply with FAA building height requirements and limit light spill into the surrounding neighborhood. There are plenty of other tangible benefits to building lower, such as decreased materials costs, lower seismic risk, and better views for fans.
• No community benefits are pitched because it’s an EIR. Since a park wouldn’t be possible under this plan, perhaps there’s a way to building a community center and/or gymnasium on top of the parking structure, the same way a banquet hall was placed above the Fourth Street Garage.

• The Submerged Stadium alternative assumes digging the field 24-28 feet below ground. With a smaller first deck like the one I’ve drawn up (see picture above), it could be submerged 15 feet, which could reduce the amount of excavated dirt that would have to be hauled away and relocated by at least 25%.

All in all, plenty of good stuff in the EIR to chew on.

Meanwhile, Lew Wolff and his daughter Kari visited Pioneer Elementary School in Union City, where they read to 130 first- and second-graders as part of their pro-literacy program.

Fremont city manager Manny Diaz discussed Fremont’s hopes of getting the A’s. According to Diaz, the A’s have inquired about Pacific Commons, the new development along I-880 and Auto Mall Parkway. Talks are definitely heating up between Fremont and the A’s, though Fremont is still in the preliminary stages.

As promised, San Jose’s draft environmental impact report is now available. The links lead one to just the table of contents right now, but I’ll have the entire 365-page tome soon for dissection. The Merc’s Barry Witt got a look at it and picked up some points about light and noise, which would affect the Delmas Park and St. Leo’s neighborhoods immediately to the east and west of the ballpark, respectively.

The ballpark’s northeast orientation would make the seating bowl act as a horn, sending noise directly into Delmas Park. The recommended way to mitigate this is to provide noise insulation for affected residents. Light would also be an issue because standards could be well over 250 feet above street level.

There are plenty of issues with the plan, and I’ll go into those in more detail soon. For the time being, I’ve consolidated the bulk of the EIR (sans appendices) into a single, huge (38 MB) file for your consumption.

Enjoy.

A new report from the San Jose Business Journal explains a bold, $1 billion vision of a revamped (again) Downtown San Jose, with new baseball and soccer facilities, museums, a concert hall, and other wide-ranging entertainment. While the proposal has not yet been finalized or presented, it is thought that the changes would be funded by a 1/2-cent sales tax or some combination of use taxes (Mello-Roos business districts or something similar, gross receipts, hotels, car rentals, etc.). Payoff would come over 30 years.

One of the interesting things about this initiative is that it’s not being pitched by the mayor, city council, or other government entities. It’s being pushed (and the study financed) by “Adobe Systems, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, among others.” (That means the “H” and “P” in HP if you’re wondering.) Lew Wolff was also asked about the proposal. He called it “a fantastic idea.” It’s no secret locally that Wolff doesn’t see eye-to-eye with the current administration, especially budget head and Mayor Gonzales’ right-hand man Joe Guerra. Wolff also doesn’t believe the transformation of San Jose’s downtown is complete, so bold, innovative thinking is welcome in hopes of making Downtown San Jose more of a destination that it had been previously.

Also notable is the fact that the plan, called “Creative Urban Center” is backed by a new consortium called 1stAct Silicon Valley. Recently announced mayoral candidate and proclaimed outsider Michael Mulcahy is part of this group. It’s quite possible that the plan may become part of his platform as he seeks to contrast himself from the scandal-ridden and slow-moving city government.

The tax part is a big concern. Combine a 1/2-cent sales tax hike with the county’s additional 1/4-cent for the BART extension and San Jose’s sales tax comes to a whopping 9%, the highest in the Bay Area. It’s likely that the powerful Silicon Valley Leadership Group would support both, but one could rob votes of the other if voters had to choose on the same ballot. The article also discusses how the fact that the proposal is so broad may allow it to fund stadia using an endaround past the current sports facilities funding law, which requires a 2/3 or supermajority vote instead of a majority vote.

So if you’re wondering what San Jose’s strategy is, it looks like it’s taking shape, and without the assistance of anyone in City Hall. Something tells me that any ballot initiative wouldn’t occur until June 2007 because of competition with other funding measures, chiefly the $222 billion public works proposal the Governor is currently pitching all over the state.