The informal press conference held by San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales outside Phoenix Muni today wasn’t mentioned in either the KTVU or KRON news tonight. It was mentioned (along with the always useful file footage) on KNTV. Among the new items:

1. Gonzales plans to approach Wolff after the A’s sale is completed.
2. He also plans to put a ballot initiative in front of San Jose voters in November 2006. The voters will also be choosing a new mayor as well.

The Merc was the only local paper to pick up the story. That isn’t entirely fair to Bay Area media, since the whole affair was pretty short notice, and the media have more important things to report, like freaky tornadoes, 11th hour bill signings and steroids.

Update: KGO-7 ran a report last night that has a video clip of Gonzales at the stadium.

A ballpark is not currently being considered for the Oak-to-9th section of the Estuary. Instead, Signature Properties has plans for a major housing/retail development on the 60-acre property at the mouth of Lake Merritt Channel. While final approval is still at least a year away, Signature has already put up floorplans and other information for prospective buyers.

Something that may eventually accelerate or delay the development process is the May 17 Special Election for the District 2 (Oakland Grand Lake-Chinatown) City Council seat. Whoever fills the vacancy will have some measure of ability to shape the final plan. He/she will may be dealing with his/her immediate predecessor, Danny Wan, who resigned from the District 2 seat in January to take care of his parents and work for the Port of Oakland.

You may recall that the Estuary site was studied in the HOK report. It came in 5th out of 7 sites. The site has a couple of things going for it. Mainly, it is an absolutely gorgeous location with a view of the Alameda marina across the water. If a south-facing ballpark were built, fans in the grandstand would have an enviable, foul pole-to-foul pole, panoramic view of Alameda and beyond that, the Peninsula and SF. Since some of the land is vacant or in the process of being vacated, groundbreaking could occur once clean-up is completed.

That clean-up could be expensive due to toxicity levels at the site. Site preparation would also take some time because the ports were largely built with dredged bay mud and sand, making it not the most suitable foundation material. This was the case for China Basin as well, and the Giants solved that problem by driving 2,103 concrete piles into ground. Still, the area is a high-risk liquefaction zone, so special care would have to be taken to ensure the ballpark was seismically sound.

Yet the greatest opposition may come from a particularly plucky group of residents at the 5th Avenue Marina, which has established a nice reputation as a thriving little artist colony. Property owner J.W. Silveira, who may have more clout and more lawyers at his disposal, has sued Oakland to prevent the marina from being acquired or otherwise used in the greater development plan.

Whatever happens, the election winner will have no shortage of voices to hear from regarding what should be done with the land. The only guidelines exist in a 1999 document, the Estuary Policy Plan. One of those voices may be a new one in Lewis Wolff, who has plenty of experience building resorts and hotels and may find a unique opportunity to build one right on the estuary. With a ballpark, of course.

Ron Gonzales, the mayor of San Jose, is scheduled to have a press conference before a spring training game between the A’s and Giants to let as many media people as possible know that he is serious about getting the A’s in San Jose. He will trumpet many of the arguments put forth by the Baseball San Jose group.

Mayor takes pitch for team to A’s spring training site

Purdy: Going to bat for A’s is big opportunity for S.J. mayor

The next several months are all about positioning and posturing for both Oakland and San Jose. Oakland assembled a public/private group to work on a financing plan for a new ballpark at the Coliseum, only to get a “don’t call us, we’ll call you” response from Wolff. San Jose has been waving its arms in air to get attention, but has been rebuffed by Wolff not just based on technicality (A’s are focused on Oakland only right now) but also as a matter of principle (“I promise you, we will not write a check to the Giants.”). It’s not really worth trying to read too much into all of the public statements, because there’s nothing behind them yet. When real plans and proposals become available, the debate can begin in earnest.

While doing my ballpark site surveys on Saturday, I stopped by the Amtrak station in Jack London Square. I didn’t get a definite date on when the Coliseum station would be open, but I’ve been told it will happen sometime in the spring.

From the looks of things, it won’t be ready in time for Opening Day, but the most of the hard stuff is done. All that’s left is paving the access road and parking lot, and testing of trains running through the area.

A couple of years ago, the Raiders and Amtrak partnered up for a Raiders-themed Amtrak Capitol train that brought in fans from the Central Valley. There was no platform at the Coliseum, so fans disembarked at JLS and took a bus the rest of the way. Unfortunately, the relationship went sour after an incident involving drunken fans, where neither Amtrak/BART nor the Raiders took responsibility. The station will serve as part of an intermodal station, so trains should stop there regularly. What is unknown at this point is whether or not Amtrak and the Raiders will start up the special football service again, or if the train operator and the A’s will do something similar.

Good news on the fares: The 10-ride ticket is good for up to 10 one-way admissions for any number of people. So it looks like it’ll be a pretty good no-transfer option for those coming from the South Bay or the North Bay, even on weekdays. The nice thing about diesel locomotives as opposed to electric third rail-propelled trains (like BART) is that you can eat, drink, and listen to AM radio on them.

The ballpark and stadium world is pretty light on news right now, so I’ll fill the blog with studies of all potential ballpark sites, regardless of whether or not they are available. It can be considered a citizen’s follow-up to the HOK study done for Oakland and the A’s in 2001. Things have changed pretty dramatically since then, with the dot-com bust and recession, related fiscal struggles for many Bay Area cities, and a few land deals that have affected site availability. Here’s the list of Oakland sites I will study:

1. Coliseum South (mentioned in other posts) – This is the site that it appears Wolff is focusing on. It would require the smallest amount of land acquisition, and permitting/rezoning efforts would be easier than other sites.
2. Estuary (Oak-to-9th/Embarcadero) – Current plans call for mixed public/private development with a focus on recreational activities, but nothing has started yet.
3. Uptown (Telegraph-San Pablo Aves between 18th and 20th Sts) – The favored site by many fans due to its proximity to downtown and BART, the site is now in the hands of Forest City, who intends to build 700+ apartments and some retail there.
4. Howard Terminal (west of Jack London Square) – Last summer the shipping giant Matson bought the 50-acre property, where they have consolidated operations, including shipments of cargo containers and vehicles. There is space to build a ballpark, if Matson is willing to share.
5. Laney College Fields (east of Lake Merritt Channel) – The HOK study included an option to build at Laney College, where the athletic fields are up for redevelopment. Children’s Hospital of Oakland has a plan to relocate to that site. The property may be under some consideration for a ballpark, though it does have one big obstacle – a BART tunnel that runs directly underneath it and is part of the only route that serves southern Alameda County.
6. Henry J. Kaiser Center (south of Lake Merritt) – The grand old auditorium is facing closure because of costs to run it and its inability to attract events. It may very well be the most attractive location of all, but it is probably too small for a ballpark, and the upcoming 12th Street Reconstruction Project is only going to make it smaller. Plus demolishing a nearly century-old venue with serious history in it won’t be too popular.
7. Oakland U.S.D. Campus (Eastlake) – The school district just opened a period for proposals for the campus just across the channel from HJK. Usage would require sharing the 10-acre property with the district, which wants to be able to keep administration offices and the small schools currently on the site. It’s intriguing, but it would require a developers to jump through some serious bureaucratic hoops (community, school district, and state) and the site itself may be too small.

I will also study two San Jose sites:

1. Del Monte Cannery (southwest of downtown SJ) – Del Monte is considered the frontrunner as a ballpark site because of its size (12.5 acres) and its vacancy (no businesses or residents to relocate or displace). It is also a piece of a potential land-swap deal rumored to be happening secretly in City Hall.
2. Diridon South (west of downtown SJ, close to HP Pavilion) – A secondary site considered ideal because of its access to parking and transportation options, it would require changes in the street grid and relocation of several businesses and a few homes. Some of those businesses have already vacated the area (NBC11). Others may already have one foot out the door (Stephens, SBC).

I am including the two San Jose sites in the mix because at some point, the Baseball San Jose group will probably present them, and depending on what Wolff’s eventual Oakland proposal looks like, San Jose may become an option. It is important to note that territorial rights to Santa Clara County are an enormous issue.

The point of the studies is to provide information on costs associated with a new ballpark, development opportunities around or near each site, and the political weight behind each option.

I found a more up-to-date aerial photo on which I could overlay the ballpark/retail concept. Yes, that is Mt. Davis in the background, hideous as it is.

In a previous post I mentioned how I thought the Washington Nationals new ballpark deal would provide an example for how a ballpark would be built in the new, post-boom era. The combination of community redevelopment and ballpark are being pitched by the proponents, and it is no coincidence that the public financing deal was put together by former Oakland City Manager (and A’s stadium proponent) Robert Bobb.

DC’s CFO, Natwar Gandhi, just completed his review of 8 alternative “private” funding proposals. Of the 8, only 2 were approved by Gandhi. One involves a large loan from Deutsche Bank in exchange for some portion of ballpark-related revenues, and the other creates revenues to fund the project from the creation of a parking district around the ballpark. At first I didn’t think the latter option would be feasible in Oakland, but the more I think about it, it’s more of a possibility. In short, it’s a way of diverting funds as parking revenue would pay off the stadium instead of going to the team. Whether that becomes a popular proposal is another story.

Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein went on to analyze Gandhi’s analysis, posing a question that these days does not have a clear-cut answer: What defines “public” and “private” funding? Pearlstein also just finished a web Q&A session which illuminates among other things, his own opinion (ambivalent? balanced? He does support it, warts and all) on the DC ballpark. I got there in time to pose a question:

San Jose, Calif.: What happens if there are cost overruns in the ballpark construction phase? Are there agreements (guarantees) in place that would shelter the DC taxpayer?

Steven Pearlstein: No, that is one of the big risks that council members were hoping to mitigate. Some of the developer proposals would have done that, but, as I say, at too high a cost. Remember,the question isn’t whether you want to minimize risk, but what people will charge you for the privilege. There is no free lunch.

Both are good reads if you’re interested in such matters.

Before I proceed with today’s news, it is important to point out a few facts since I’ve had a few questions on this. That way no one starts running wild with the information posted here.

1. There is no ballpark deal imminent. While Wolff has been bringing in consultants to explore possibilities (it is his job currently as VP of venue development), it is important to understand that no proposal has yet been put in front of any public entities. It will probably take 6 months to do a detailed economic study, 3-6 months for it to be reviewed by local politicos, and 3 more to complete a detailed environmental impact report. Then construction would take another 30-36 months. That doesn’t include the possibility of a referendum, which would be required if public bonds were to be issued. So no one should expect to hear any piles being driven into the ground for a while. As news comes in, I will post it and provide analysis.
2. The Wolff/Fisher group has not yet been fully approved to take over ownership. But it does appear that the approval is being fast-tracked, so it is entirely possible the change will occur before opening day. It is also possible that Steve Schott and Billy Beane may end up as minority partners.
3. Any development plans or drawings I put up here are nothing but conjecture at this point. I am not an insider, so I don’t have the pulse of Wolff and his crew. I do have a fairly good understanding of how stadium projects get funded, so I figure I can reasonably articulate much of the inner workings.
4. I personally am trying to stay away from the advocacy side of things. The purpose of this blog is to prepare fans and citizens for what may or may not occur. I think I am well-equipped to wade through much of the b.s. that will likely be thrown around. What I hope will remain are facts. It is up to you, the reader, to make your own judgment based on that information.

Disclaimer over.

This new pic shows the field at 0 degrees (East), 15 degrees (ENE), and 45 degrees (NE). The blocks on the right depict other development.

The large red block at the top is a “big box” retailer, such as Target. Target or Kohl’s would be prime candidates, since both are expanding aggressively, and neither currently serve Oakland. Target even has an unusual situation where two stores in San Leandro are only about a mile apart, making one a potential relocation candidate. (Note: These companies are just examples based on their profiles – they aren’t endorsements of a particular store or its products.)

The 4 long blocks are for mixed-use retail/housing. The look would be similar to Santana Row in San Jose or Bay Street in Emeryville – open air shopping “district” with ground floor retail/restaurants and housing above it on 2-5 stories.

The orange/gold block on the bottom is a 300-room high-rise hotel. Hilton, who frequently works with Lewis Wolff, may be looking to move up from the dated Oakland Airport Hilton, and this site would be much more of a destination than the current Hilton is.

Integration with the stadium would be in the form of a large outfield plaza with a gate in center. The concept is similar to what is being planned for the new Busch Stadium. Nominal amounts of surface and/or garage parking would be required.

The advantage of a plan like this is that it completely transforms the streetscape on one side of Hegenberger. New developers could be spurred to develop on the other side. The Pak n Save supermarket across the street could be in line for an upgrade, or it could transform into a more upscale Safeway, who happens to be Pak n Save’s parent company.

There are more than a few disadvantages. First is the fact that Hegenberger Gateway presents built-in competition. HG will also be a litmus test for the potential of retail in the Coliseum area. If retail space doesn’t get filled up and if impressive sales figures don’t come over the next year or two, fewer companies will be interested in placing a presence in East Oakland.

Then there remains the issue of cost. If someone were to want to develop all of it in a short timeframe – say, 3-4 years – the price tag would be enormous. How much? The ballpark costs $280 million. The retail and housing part, maybe $300 million. The hotel, probably $100 million. Garages – another $10 million. So the total cost of this project would come close to $700 million! And that doesn’t even count whatever infrastructure improvements would be pledged by the City. (These figures come from published costs of other similar projects.)

Success would be a double-edged sword. Gentrification of the area would lower crime rates, bring better quality services and drive up property values, but it could also drive up rents, forcing lower income residents out of the market. San Francisco’s SoMa neighborhood is the most notorious example of this phenomenon.

Going back to funding, one-shot building is probably not the way the project would be approached. Instead, the stadium and perhaps either the big-box retailer or the hotel would act as anchors to attract further privately-funded development.

Oakland City Councilmember Larry Reid has shown interest in spurring development in the Coliseum area via a new ballpark. Reid will have to carry the torch for any ballpark project, regardless of the size. No matter how much Wolff wants to control the process, he will need someone on the inside to go to bat for him. I have a hard time believing that a new ballpark won’t require some sizable amount of public funding.

Lewis Wolff made his money (estimated family holdings of $1.5 billion) as a real estate developer, dealing primarily in hotel construction. In fact, his first venture into the hotel market was the Holiday Inn in San Jose, which eventually became a part of a much larger development in downtown San Jose called Park Center Plaza. Though he will have responsibilities that come with his new title as managing partner of the A’s, it is expected that he’ll continue to keep his day job.

Wolff is currently working on a large hotel project in downtown L.A. near Staples Center and the L.A. Convention Center, where the City is pouring tons of money into redevelopment. Wolff’s hotel deal is one to watch, because at $350 million its price tag runs close to the what a new ballpark would cost. The project is also being funded in part by a large tax subsidy, which could cover over half the cost. Wolff and partner Richard Ackerman are concerned that the tax revenue, which would be generated by an incremental raise in hotel occupancy tax, may not fully cover its share:

But hotelier Lew Wolff and financial partner Richard Ackerman, a principal at Apollo Real Estate Advisors, said last week that more revenue must be generated in order to cover its future loan payments on the $350 million project.

“We are scraping every possible revenue source so that if something goes wrong in the next couple of years we’ll be able to ride out any storm,” Ackerman said. “We’re trying to hedge our risk on an immense project by being very cautious.”

To that end, the developers have retained Anschutz Entertainment Group, majority owners of the Staples Center, to help fill the 55-story hotel with lucrative corporate sponsorships.

I’m not sure how commonplace corporate sponsorships of things as trivial as meeting rooms or sheets are, but such arrangements are very much at home in the world of sports venue construction. The best example of successful corporate sponsorships in America is SBC Park, though every new stadium and arena shows evidence of this type of activity. If you are one of those “purists” who disliked SBC Park for its commercialization, you’re not going to like the new A’s ballpark, especially if it ends up being largely funded by private sources. Don’t be surprised if the place ends up being the illegitimate child of Times Square and Kauffman Stadium. Someone has to pay the bills.